In yet another extraordinary display of open-mindedness, tolerance and respect for freedom of speech, a group called "Forecast the Facts" has threatened meteorologists to hop on the climate change bandwagon or else (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/30/global-warming-activists-seek-to-purge-deniers-among-local-weathermen/).


Concerned that too many “deniers” are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom.

The Forecast the Facts campaign — led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab — is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs.

“Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change,” the group explains on their website. “We’ll empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.”

According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity.

So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define “deniers” as “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.”

“We track the views of meteorologists through their on-air statements, blog posts, social media activity, public appearances, interviews, and interactions with viewers,” the campaign explains.

The Houston Chronicle noted that meteorologists mostly track short periods of weather, not long-term climate trends.

Obviously, only science, opinions and now daily weather forecasts that support the "consensus" (read: agenda) on anthropogenic global warming are to be tolerated. Thinking and speaking for oneself is not allowed.

Why don't more of you find that disturbing?

I find the whole global warming debate disturbing. We have seen this thing take on the proportions of a religion with it's tunnel vision fundamentalism.

Why are we not allowed to know the truth, that we are all being conned by environmental interests. Even if AGW is actually happening, there is little we can do to abate the effects. The stable door is open and the horse has bolted. What these people are suggesting is not that we buy another horse, but that we get the whole country involved in searching for the horse

Wonder which 401c3 organization funded by the Goracle is sponsoring this ?

In yet another extraordinary display of open-mindedness, tolerance and respect for freedom of speech, a group called "Forecast the Facts" has threatened meteorologists to hop on the climate change bandwagon or else (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/30/global-warming-activists-seek-to-purge-deniers-among-local-weathermen/).



Obviously, only science, opinions and now daily weather forecasts that support the "consensus" (read: agenda) on anthropogenic global warming are to be tolerated. Thinking and speaking for oneself is not allowed.

Why don't more of you find that disturbing?


I don't find it disturbing at the moment because a few things don't seems to add up.

A meteorologist is a person with specific post graduate qualifications. The majority of people who do the T.V. weather are personalities. They don't have formal qualifications in the area of weather forecasting. A few may have formal qualification in this area, but most don't. Most are not meteorologists.

Is this the problem?

A lot of people who see T.V. weather people think such people must be qualified in the area of weather forecasting.

Have some T.V. weather people taken advantage of this knowledge gap and put forward comments about the lack of climate change based on the day to day figures they put out to the public?

Is it possible that T.V. weather viewers mistakenly think they are being providing them with a professional opinion in regards to lack of global warming?

Quite possible considering that the majority of T.V. weather people don't believe there is global warming.

Is this an attempt by a particular group of people (350 org.) to balance things up? I would be interested in seeing the actual blog.

Tut

Tut, here's their website (http://forecastthefacts.org/), have at it.

I don't see how that would change my question, that regardless of who it is, the consensus science crowd want to silence others and purge anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with them. You don't find that disturbing? I do, on a grand scale.

Why don't more of you find that disturbing?Hello Steve:

I don't need no stinkin scientist to tell me that throwing your trash into the air ain't good. Does the politics surrounding the issue disturb me?? No more than the politics surrounding intelligent design does. Would the world be better off if it agreed with me? Yup.

excon

I think it's a little extreme tio go after local TV weather men, given that most "meteroligists" on TV really aren't - they're models who get paid to read the forecast. I don't expect them to be experts in climate change. It's not like a biology teacher denying evolution in class, or a geology teacher denying plate tectonics, or a history teacher denying the holocaust - acts which would be grounds for losing one's job (IMHO).

Would the world be better off if it agreed with me? Yup.

excon

Another strawman Ex or is it the same tired strawman reversed. Fact is I don't find grounds to agree with you very often so the answer to your question is No!

I have decided that I will not modify my lifestyle because some nitwit thinks the Earth is warming when all the evidence around me tells me that the climate is changing but if anything it is getting colder. I haven't seen anything that looks like the heat waves of my youth in years.

Here we have just had a state government reverse a stupid decision where they removed standard unleaded petrol from the market to supposedly reduce CO2 emissions. A nanny state decision based on bad science and even worse politics
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/ethanol-plan-will-kill-off-unleaded-oil-groups-claim-20120131-1qrh1.html

These nitwits think that they can force the market to do their will by removing choice which is no different to someone trying to remove opposing opinions from the public forum. In this case they have legislated a legitimate product out of existence. I wish they would legislate tobacco out of existence just as easily, talk about throwing your garbage in someoneelses air.

Tut, here's their website (http://forecastthefacts.org/), have at it.

I don't see how that would change my question, that regardless of who it is, the consensus science crowd want to silence others and purge anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with them. You don't find that disturbing? I do, on a grand scale.


Hi Speech,

I couldn't get past the first page because you have to sign up as a member.

Nonetheless, I think I see what they are getting at.

Firstly, I think they are confusing meteorologists with T.V. weather personalities. Some of the example comments given by the website seem to be a mixture of professional and non-professional opinions on climate change. The mistake appears to be lumping them all together as meteorological opinions.

Secondly, it is also worth keeping in mind that actual meteorologists are not climate change experts, they tend to be experts in short term weather prediction. Everyone, is entitled to their opinion on climate change, expert, non-expert or otherwise. However, I think this is where the problem begins.

There are a significant number of people who have little contact with science on a day to day basis. The only 'science' they get daily is watching the weather on T.V.

For example,when a weather personality gives hisher weather report and then adds that these figures have nothing to do with global warming it creates confusion in the minds of some people in their audience. They wrongly think that because this person does the weather he/she is an expert in this area and they have been given an expert opinion.

Having said all of that,I am unaware for any weather personality with no formal qualifications who has gone 'on air' and falsely claimed they are meteorologists. It is not their fault if some people jump to the wrong conclusion and assume they are a weather expert.

Given all of this I think we have journalistic ethical problem starting to bubble to the surface. Global warming or climate change is an important public issue, especially on T.V. Therefore I think anyone who wants to comment on global warming or the lack of it while 'on air' has an obligation to inform people in their audience who may have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

If a T.V. weather person wants to claim these figures have nothing to do with climate change and they have no formal qualifications in the area then they should make this known to the public. Better still refrain from comment altogether.

The scope and importance of the global warming issue, or lack of warming requires some journalistic standard to be introduced. I think this is what that website is really getting at but they are doing it in a very clumsy way.

If it's not what they are on about then it ought to be.

Tut

Hello Steve:

I don't need no stinkin scientist to tell me that throwing your trash into the air ain't good. Does the politics surrounding the issue disturb me??? No more than the politics surrounding intelligent design does. Would the world be better off if it agreed with me? Yup.

excon

Oh pooh, you still throwing that straw man out there? No one argues FOR dirty air. The question is does that affect our climate? There is legitimate evidence to say it doesn't and a REAL scientist would consider it.

And to take your other example, I think the world would be better off if it agreed with me so why should I be silenced while you get to keep spewing your nonsense? That is what the AGW alarmists are trying to do, silence dissent. That's a difference between me and them, I will cheerfully and forcefully defend theirs and your right to be wrong.

Tut, this is all I need to see to know their agenda:

55 Identified as deniers of climate change

Are they the new McCathyites on a witch hunt to purge society of "deniers"? Yes, they're building their list and that quite frankly, frightens me a little when someone starts targeting groups of people to be forced into agreement or be silenced.

Tut, this is all I need to see to know their agenda:

55 Identified as deniers of climate change

Are they the new McCathyites on a witch hunt to purge society of "deniers"? Yes, they're building their list and that quite frankly, frightens me a little when someone starts targeting groups of people to be forced into agreement or be silenced.



If there are 55 'T.V. meteorologists' adding anti global warming comments at the end of their presentation then they have a responsibility to stop doing this. In exactly the same way if there are 55 'T.V meteorologists' adding pro-global warming comments at the end of their presentation then they have the same responsibility to stop.

Day to day weather patterns don't provide any evidence for global or lack of global warming. As I said before to make such comments is irrelevant and misleading.

I am all for a campaign to impose standards in this regard. Day to day forecasting should not be used as a propaganda tool one way or the other.

If these people are saying or doing anything else on their website then they are wrong.

Tut

Given all of this I think we have journalistic ethical problem starting to bubble to the surface... The scope and importance of the global warming issue, or lack of warming requires some journalistic standard to be introduced.
We've been mentioning that for years. The major networks here at least have thinly veiled agendas .Until the advent of the alternate media ,they were considered gate keepers of the truth. What a naiive times they were !

And you don't think we live niaive times? How stupid could we be to believe what media serves up to us as truth?

That fact that people recognize it now is a very positive development.

I am all for a campaign to impose standards in this regard. Day to day forecasting should not be used as a propaganda tool one way or the other.

And my point is that the AGW alarmists shouldn't be employing propaganda as a tool to enact their agenda either. In spite of their propaganda the science is not settled, all research should be considered, not just that which supports AGW momentum and to squelch evidence that contradicts their agenda and attempt to silence those who disagree is not only wrong, it's damn wrong.

the science is not settledHello again, Steve:


I thought we established that throwing your trash into the air isn't good. Are you now saying that it MIGHT be good depending on what science determines??

Were you placating me?

excon

I didn't stutter, throwing trash into the air isn't good - but that doesn't mean it's altering the climate.

I didn't stutter, throwing trash into the air isn't good - but that doesn't mean it's altering the climate.Hello again, Steve:

Ok, NOW we're getting somewhere... What KIND of bad things happen when you throw your trash into the air? Why WOULDN'T it alter the climate? It alters the air.

Additionally, whatever the downsides of throwing trash into the air are, why WOULDN'T we move to curb it, even IF global warming IS BS?

excon

Didn't know carbon dioxide was "trash" .

didn't know carbon dioxide was "trash" .Hello again, tom:

I'll be happy to explain... If converting carbon into CO2 is negatively affecting our atmosphere, in THAT context, I'm happy with calling it trash.

In terms of semantics, if your house were full of CO2, you'd call it POISON. If a rose bush was killing your corn crop, you'd call it a WEED.

I recollect that you too were happy with that term when you AGREED with me that we shouldn't throw our "trash" into the air... What kind of TRASH were YOU referring to?

excon

Sulfer dioxide that was contributing to acid rain . WE knew that was harmful and smokestack scrubbers were invented that would fix the problem without destroying the industry .

Ex is playing strawman again.

In terms of semantics, if your house were full of CO2, you'd call it POISON.

If you put CO2 in a cylinder with a horn and a handle you call it a fire extinguisher. If you breathe out you call exhalation. What's your point?

Hello again, Steve:

The point is, if throwing our trash/poison/fire extinguisher/exhalation, into the air is causing the climate to change, then you can call it monkey poop for all I care. I just want you to STOP it.

I thought you agreed with me, but you just changed the meaning of few words, like any liberal PC junkie would do.

excon

I knew it, you want us to stop breathing.

Hello again, Steve:

You either don't know that burning stuff puts CO2 into the air, or you do, and you just admitted I kicked your a$$. I'm satisfied with either one.

You ARE in the fire business, right??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

You either don't know that burning stuff puts CO2 into the air, or you do, and you just admitted I kicked your a$$. I'm satisfied with either one.

Ex, of course I know what fire does - it keeps me warm in the winter, cooks my food and lights your joints. I only addressed the part where you said you want us to stop breathing, "if... exhalation... is causing the climate to change, then... I just want you to STOP it."

Sorry, I enjoy breathing. Much like you enjoy lighting up a doobie.


You ARE in the fire business, right??

Yep, and I just threw 35 pounds of trash into the air so I could send a cylinder off to be refilled without paying hazmat fees.

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html)

Well it seems someone has woken up

Excellent column, and excellent question:


In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"[/B]

Incontrovertible: not open to question : indisputable

Hogwash. Since when did scientists refuse to question things?


Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science. -Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

[Science is] a series of judgments, revised without ceasing. -Pierre Emile Duclaux (1840-1904) French biochemist, bacteriologist.

[Science is] piecemeal revelation. -Oliver Wendell Holmes 1 (1809-94) U. S. poet, essayist, physician.

[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also make very poor observations. -Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist, 1865.

True science teaches us to doubt and, in ignorance, to refrain. -Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist.

[I]Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question. -Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) Danish physicist.

Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue. -Robert K. Merton, Social Theory, 1957.

Shame scientists no longer value skepticism.

Remember all this climate science hogwash is not science it is computer modelling or should we be more precise and say computer gaming

Excellent column, and excellent question:



Incontrovertible: not open to question : indisputable

Hogwash. Since when did scientists refuse to question things?


Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science. -Jules Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) French mathematician.

[Science is] a series of judgments, revised without ceasing. -Pierre Emile Duclaux (1840-1904) French biochemist, bacteriologist.

[Science is] piecemeal revelation. -Oliver Wendell Holmes 1 (1809-94) U. S. poet, essayist, physician.

[Those] who have an excessive faith in their theories or in their ideas are not only poorly disposed to make discoveries, but they also make very poor observations. -Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist, 1865.

True science teaches us to doubt and, in ignorance, to refrain. -Claude Bernard (1813-78) French physiologist.

[I]Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question. -Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) Danish physicist.

Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue. -Robert K. Merton, Social Theory, 1957.

Shame scientists no longer value skepticism.

Science doesn't value skepticism because it never did.

These are noble ideals but in the real world science does not progress by skepticism. Should science progress by skepticism? Probably not because it would make it unworkable.

For better or worse science progresses by verification rather than skepticism. Science is rather loathed to try and falsify theories it would much rather try and prove a theory correct than prove it false.Popper versus Kuhn of much interest in this area.

Kuhn's history/sociology of science tells us science progresses through verification 'normal science'. Popper on the other hand wanted science to progress by falsification/skepticism. A good idea, but science doesn't actually work that way.

Tut

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html)


A couple of Key statements need to be looked at.

"In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of a proton changes over time and how a multi-verse behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible"

All fields of science have their paradigm. Basically this means all fields of science have a certain set of 'givens' that are rarely questioned. The reason being is that the paradigm provides the basis for future research. This is what Thomas Kuhn in his "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" calls 'normal science'. Science, especially institutionalized science is concerned with verification. In other words trying to make the observations fit the prevailing orthodoxy. After all, this is where the money is.

What makes it interesting is that not all branches of science share the same paradigm. This can make it very interesting when a physicist, chemist and a string theorist get together and try and talk about the nature of matter.

What is not appreciated in the statement above is that physicists,multi-verse theorists and climate scientists have their own paradigms within their particular discipline. There are certain 'givens' that are not subject to serious questioning.

The reality is these 'givens' cannot be constantly challenged because there would be no footing for future research.



Dr. Giaever states, "And the number of scientific 'heretics' is growing with each passing year the reason is a collection of stubborn scientific"

Again, this is no surprise.This process is covered very nicely in Kuhn's book. Science is not doing anything new when it comes to climate change. It is doing what it has always done.


Tut

Tut

You want verification here is some verification that AGW is not happening
More than 220 dead as Europe freezes (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/more-than-220-dead-as-europe-freezes-20120204-1qyg6.html)

Now if you don't like this recent evidence we could ask what has happened to Summer closer to home and what happened to that dryer and hotter climate that was predicted for Australia
Date Min Max Rainfall
Sat Feb 4 17°C 26°C 6.0mm
Fri Feb 3 16.7°C 21.0°C 49.8mm
Thu Feb 2 18.5°C 20.2°C 5.4mm
WedFeb 1 18.4°C 21.9°C 8.8mm
Tue Jan 31 25.3°C 28.8°C 0.0mm

Tut

you want verification here is some verification that AGW is not happening
More than 220 dead as Europe freezes (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/more-than-220-dead-as-europe-freezes-20120204-1qyg6.html)

Now if you don't like this recent evidence we could ask what has happened to Summer closer to home and what happened to that dryer and hotter climate that was predicted for Australia
Date Min Max Rainfall
Sat Feb 4 17°C 26°C 6.0mm
Fri Feb 3 16.7°C 21.0°C 49.8mm
Thu Feb 2 18.5°C 20.2°C 5.4mm
WedFeb 1 18.4°C 21.9°C 8.8mm
Tue Jan 31 25.3°C 28.8°C 0.0mm

Hi Clete,



I am sorry that science doesn't fit some people's ideological perception.

I am just the messenger.

When Kuhn's book was first published it created a similar reaction to what's happening here. Science rarely questions things outside of its prevailing paradigm. Therefore, they don't tend to look for the anomalies you point out.

Kuhn's book was written well before global warming became a hot topic. From my point of view Kuhn's explanation of science fits the current controversy like a glove.

Tut

P.S.
I would imagine it will take a lot more than those figures to create a paradigm shift.

Science doesn't value skepticism because it never did.

These are noble ideals but in the real world science does not progress by skepticism. Should science progress by skepticism? Probably not because it would make it unworkable.

For better or worse science progresses by verification rather than skepticism. Science is rather loathed to try and falsify theories it would much rather try and prove a theory correct than prove it false.Popper versus Kuhn of much interest in this area.

Kuhn's history/sociology of science tells us science progresses through verification 'normal science'. Popper on the other hand wanted science to progress by falsification/skepticism. A good idea, but science doesn't actually work that way.

Tut

I disagree, science always questions itself, always investigates, always revises. I was taught that Pluto is a planet, science settled it. Or not?

I disagree, science always questions itself, always investigates, always revises. I was taught that Pluto is a planet, science settled it. Or not?Here, you can read up on why it was reclassified: HowStuffWorks "Why is Pluto no longer considered a planet?" (http://science.howstuffworks.com/pluto-planet.htm)

Tut certainly did not say that science does not question itself so I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

Pluto is not a planet because someone changed the definition of a planet and AGW exists because someone changed the definition of normal and science.
Observation proves nothing except something might be happening, for example here is an issue that was blamed on AGW which is apparently not happening
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/02/03/3421788.htm

I disagree, science always questions itself, always investigates, always revises. I was taught that Pluto is a planet, science settled it. Or not?


That's correct. I didn't say science doesn't disagree, questions itself and investigates.

Scientists are rarely skeptical of themselves or the paradigm they are working in. If the facts and figures they are getting from a particular experiment don't actually match their hypothesis they are highly likely to modify their hypothesis rather than falsify their theory.

Your example of Pluto is what Khan would call the 'puzzle solving' activity of science. Sure, science questions itself but the answers they come up with are found within the existing paradigm. The new definition of a planet fits well within the existing paradigm.

Tut

True science never stops refining itself as it gathers more facts, and usually its money that motivates others to deny, or hide facts. That's why I consider the source before I see it as fact. Dirty air kills people, and makes them sick, and the polar glaciers are melting.

No matter what the cause and effects are, we better deal with it no matter what you call it.

So CO2 makes you sick? Take your head out of the canister. There is a big difference between CO2 and noxious chemicals and some people are unable to see that.

Glaciers have been melting for a long time, they once covered a large part of the world, do you really want a return to those times? The Earth is beginning to deal with over population and it can best do this through the water cycle. No water, no people, remarkable cause and effect

so CO2 makes you sick? Take your head out of the canister. There is a big difference between CO2 and noxious chemicals and some people are unable to see that.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[7] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[8]
You obviously have lived in an unban industrial area, or had asthma.


Glaciers have been melting for a long time, they once covered a large part of the world, do you really want a return to those times?
And it took milions of years to melt.


The Earth is beginning to deal with over population and it can best do this through the water cycle. No water, no people, remarkable cause and effect
Wha?? There is more water when ice melts not less, and the water has to go somewhere, right??

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide)

Did you actually read the article or just nit pick to suit your argument?


You obviously have lived in an unban industrial area, or had asthma.


Yes I have lived in an industrial area and worked in heavy industry. Any of the gasses we had problems with were not carbon dioxide but sulphurous fumes and other pollutants. Yes I have had asthma and it has been caused by particulate pollution mostly pollens which can upset me from time to time. When does CO2 get into higher concentrations, only in enclosed spaces. At the moment we are talking about parts per million not parts per hundred.

And it took milions of years to melt.

Exactly and what we observe is just the tail end of an ongoing process


Wha?? There is more water when ice melts not less, and the water has to go somewhere, right??

There is more water in the ocean but places that depend on glacier melt will have less water so the high places run out first causing population drift, crop failure, etc. This is already happening

Oh please Clete, Australia is a clean place on the Earth. Go to China, or come here if you want to see CO2 levels that are high in the wide open spaces. A closed space is not the only thing that spikes CO2 concentrations, and causes harm to humans, animals, just imagine a rush hour in an 95 degree day, and the traffic stalls for 30 minutes, and you live in a city with 50, 000 cars. Try continued exposure to those levels and come back and talk to me.


There is more water in the ocean but places that depend on glacier melt will have less water so the high places run out first causing population drift, crop failure, etc. This is already happening
Why speed up the process if you don't have too? Especially when you know you have fewer places to go?

Its not just one factor Clete, it's a combination of many bad habits by the growing human population.

Oh please Clete, Australia is a clean place on the Earth. Go to China, or come here if you want to see CO2 levels that are high in the wide open spaces. A closed space is not the only thing that spikes CO2 concentrations, and causes harm to humans, animals, just imagine a rush hour in an 95 degree day, and the traffic stalls for 30 minutes, and you live in a city with 50, 000 cars. Try continued exposure to those levels and come back and talk to me.

A piece of misinformation Tal you are talking of carbon monoxide. I have lived in a city of a million cars and smelt the problem even at midnight but you can't smell CO2. On a good day your eyes would water at the top of a tower building but it was not CO2. I left that city when the smoke rose above the top of the tower. I have been to China and could not see the sun all the time I was there, but that was not CO2 but photo chemical smoke from industries that are unregulated. I have been to Pakistan where all the cars run on LPG and you cannot breathe but it is not CO2 that is the problem. Converting from gasoline to LPG doesn't make a car environmentally cleaner as the environmentalists would have us believe. So I suggest you try exposure at the levels I'm talking about and realise that what we have can be a lot better than the alternative

You like to think Australia is a clean place, well maybe you are right, we have one of the highest per capita emissions of CO2 and beautiful blue skys. I have said for a long time this is a northern hemisphere problem but someone wants to make us pay for it.


Why speed up the process if you don't have too? Especially when you know you have fewer places to go?

Which process are we speeding up Tal? As I said before glaciers have been melting for thousands of years, which rise in CO2 emissions caused the process to start, has that been researched and identified? No, because there is
an inconvenient truth here, the process started with low concentrations of CO2. I suggest that what we have is normal variability between ice ages. Are we slowing down the growth of vegitation? No it would seem we might be speeding that up. CO2 is not detrimental to plant life

The process we are speeding up is the depletion of oil reserves and yet even that is subject to question


Its not just one factor Clete, it's a combination of many bad habits by the growing human population.

Exactly Tal and the worst habit is a newly acquired one, of rushing to judgement with insufficient data. Once science was sceptical and it took years for a theory to be adopted. Today some obscure researcher publishes a paper and overnight we have a panic. Do you know why this is so, too many acedemics having to justify their existence. Maybe CO2 will help us restore balance

www.en.wikipedia/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Extensive article. Most of the time Wikipedia is pretty good.

Upon reading the article the thing that should concern most people is found under the sub-heading of : CO2 in Ocean.

The oceans have already taken up 1/3 of the CO2 emitted by humans.

This has resulted in a decline in the PH of the words oceans. This is detrimental to the most fragile of the oceans organisms, e.g. microorganisms.Unfortunately these types of organisms provide the basis of an important food chain.

Read it for yourself.

Tut

And it took milions of years to melt.
More like 15,000 years . But who's counting... I think we are still coming out of the last glacial maximum.

more like 15,000 years . But who's counting ... I think we are still coming out of the last glacial maximum.

I agree with you Tom and we have insufficient data to tell us when ithe process stops or what started the process, but we do have some natural indicators like Glaciers. One thing is certain, humans did not start the process and they have no ability to stop it.

Breathe dirty air, and drink dirty water, now that's a formula for survival.

Breathe dirty air, and drink dirty water, now thats a formula for survival.

Oddly enough people do it everyday we are very adaptable these things are a modern concept from a society that has become soft and lazy

Breathe dirty air, and drink dirty water, now thats a formula for survival.

Strawman argument to the issue. The question is ONLY if humans are contributing to global warming.

Its already a proven scientific fact that we have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. You say its safe to do so, I say its not. Now maybe its doesn't change the temprature of the earth by a drastic enough for humans to notice a big change, but it also fact that one degree per year is a significant change. Not only is this a measureable event, but can be measured by other methods that can actually give data from years ago, before the industrial revolution.

You cannot talk about the facts of global warming/climate change without addressing the effect on vegetation, and wildlife also, as that is a factor of the human footprint on this earth and yes we are definitely changing the environment globally. To think otherwise is to join those flat earthers of yester year.

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming)


These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.[7][A]

You cannot talk about the facts of global warming/climate change without addressing the effect on vegetation,

You mean it makes vegetation grow ? Trying to find the negative in that .

The most successful commercial nurseries pump C02 into their greenhouses to enhance growth.

Its already a proven scientific fact that we have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. You say its safe to do so, I say its not. Now maybe its doesn't change the temprature of the earth by a drastic enough for humans to notice a big change, but it also fact that one degree per year is a significant change. Not only is this a measureable event, but can be measured by other methods that can actually give data from years ago, before the industrial revolution.

You cannot talk about the facts of global warming/climate change without addressing the effect on vegetation, and wildlife also, as that is a factor of the human footprint on this earth and yes we are definitely changing the environment globally. To think otherwise is to join those flat earthers of yester year.

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming)
Where on Earth do you get this B/S Tal the Earth's temperature has not changed by one degree a year, so far we are maybe talking about one degree in a hundred years and perhaps 2 degrees this century.

Here are some facts for you.
Global warming was invented by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a political ploy to get the nuclear program approved. A program they are now abandoning
Even if we stopped all CO2 emissions worldwide immediately the effects that already exist will persist for at least a century, face it we are already past the point of no return
Vegetation is not adversly affected by CO2 and in fact grows more virorously in an elevated CO2 environment. There may be some effects because of shifting weather patterns
Long term climate observations show repeated ice ages with short interglacial periods. We are in an interglacial period right nowhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
This article points out that CO2 concentrations were 10 times what they are today without a runaway greenhouse effect.
In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.
The human footprint is unsustainable but not because of CO2 but because of uncontrolled population growth. The idea that an increasing population should be sustained at the level of a highly industralised society is ridiculous. The norm is not what you and I enjoy but something closer to subsistence level

You worship at The AGW alter if you want to but don't expect the rest of us to join you

Got to love them Malthusians . They have already imposed a draconian solution to what they claim is unsustainable human population growth. The truth is that the world population will peak early in the 21st century and a rapid depopulation will be the concern.

Russia is leading the charge losing 700,000 people a year due to non-replacement and fertility rates have declined below replacement rates in many countries. Even in the US where,millions of children have been snuffed ,the birth rate barely keeps up with the replacement rate. Meanwhile around the world the population ages. In Pittsburgh, deaths now outnumber births and hospitals are closing obstetrics wards or converting them to acute care for the elderly. Pittsburgh's public school enrollment was 70,000 in the 1980s. It is 30,000 today - and falling.

By mid-century there will be 248 million fewer children than there are now.
Well done Malthusians ! Your policies of infanticide is paying off. It will be a demographic nightmare the will justly hit our generation hard as there will be no replacement workers to service our needs in our old age.

Well Tom I don't know how long you expect to live but my generation will not face the problem you outline.

Yes population is declining in some nations and we should ask what part our wars have played in setting us up for a decline, but irrespective, there is still growth enough to push us to nine billion and if that is an aging population then we get our finger out and postpone retirement, something that has only existed for a century in developed societies anyway.

The culture of youth has shot itself in the foot and it will need all those it cast aside.

The population crisis at the end of the 21st century will be the decline of human population .

the population crisis at the end of the 21st century will be the decline of human population .

Quite probabally, if we don't get involved in some more stupid wars first and shed a few billions in the process, but water stress will bring population under control. Of course we could solve the problem by increasing the serving age in the military. If wars were fought by old codgers there would be less of them

There is an abundance of water , even the AGW people think that the oceans will rise. Potable water is a matter of technology. You could take a glass of water, safe to drink ,right out of the discharge of the sewer treatment plant by my home. It leaves the plant purer and safer to drink than the water in the wells and reservoirs .This issues of water availability will be the ability to transport it to where it is needed . In that sense it is just another challenge we have with other resources and commodities.

Tom for you technology solves everything without understanding that you cannot throw money at it and expect a solution. Water is vital in the production of food but irrigation methods are causing problems which will take large areas out of production. Industry consumes vast quantities of water without improving its quality. You drink sewerage if you want too but the areas where population growth is highest won't have this " luxury "

Why not ? Where there is liberty deserts are productive lands . Where there is tyranny ;fertile lands become deserts .

Quaint platitudes, you don't solve problems with platitudes. You cannot get more of a resource by wishing it so. The sort of rhetoric you are using was fine in the 1700's with a population of less than two billion but must bow to reality today

Technology can solve many problems Clete you just have to develop the science, and manage it. And implement it.

why not ? where there is liberty deserts are productive lands . Where there is tyranny ;fertile lands become deserts .

Hi Tom,

The tyranny you speak of is a political consequence of the science.Nonetheless, science will do what it has always done.

If there are enough dissenters in the scientific ranks then the first port of call will be to modify the hypothesis. Nothing new in this.

I think we are already seeing this happening. We are beginning to see 'climate change' starting to develop as the preferred method of explanation.

Sometimes politics get in the way of the methodology.


Tut

Tal we have the ability to, as you say, solve many problems through science, but thus far we have not been able to create anything.

Water will become a scarse resource this century if the prophets of doom are right and when that happens food will become a scarse resource. Living on a dry continent I am perhaps more aware of this than those who have adequate water resources, we will see some industries disappear when there is greater control of water, this process has already begun

I prefer to think we will solve a lot of basic problems, and evolve to better things myself.

Yes Tal the glass is half full but where did the other half go? Do you know?

Speaking of evolving to better things, in leading the charge to solar energy Germany has decided such subsidies are a "money pit" that threatens their economy.


Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidi es_.html)?

Subsidizing green technology is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.

According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”

Germany’s enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometers (155,342 square miles), about 2.6 percent of the Sahara Desert.

Unfortunately, Germany—like most of the world—is not as sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed.

In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic.

So $130 billion later and what did the Germans get for it? The 2nd highest electricity rates in the developed world, three times what Americans pay.

And what did it do for our planet?


Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germany’s CO2 emissions by roughly 8 million metric tons—or about 1 percent – for the next 20 years. To put it another way: By the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.

23 whole hours. That much, huh?

I really have to ask, was it worth it? And where were those really smart people who should have known a lack of sunshine just might be a hindrance to using solar power?

Yes speech we had a similar experience here, agovernment subsidising solar installation and a high feed in tariff suddenly both state and federal governments decided that the whole tokenistic scheme was over subscribed and pulled the rug from under the feet of a burgoning industry

Speaking of evolving to better things, in leading the charge to solar energy Germany has decided such subsidies are a "money pit" that threatens their economy.



So $130 billion later and what did the Germans get for it? The 2nd highest electricity rates in the developed world, three times what Americans pay.

And what did it do for our planet?



23 whole hours. That much, huh?

I really have to ask, was it worth it? And where were those really smart people who should have known a lack of sunshine just might be a hindrance to using solar power?


Hi Steve,

I guess the problem is that we don't have the ability to jump from one technological breakthrough to another by way of relevation. We have to go through various cumbersome stages every time. For example, when it came to television sets we went though the electronic valve stage to the transistor stage and finally to the micro chip.

It would be next to impossible to have gone from the valve stage to the microchip stage without the between. These less than desirable technologies are necessary to arrive at a better outcome in the future.

Tut

In science and technology there are many failed attempts before you find one that works, but for sure, if they abandon the attempts, they will find NO solutions.

That's fine Tal but let's be a little focused. In the past science has advanced with a scattergun approach, shoot at everything and hope to hit something

You better read up, the Germans took the too much, to fast, crash and burn approach when measured pragmatism was required. Then they wouldn't be locked into such an expensive course of action.

Not specifically tuned into what you are talking about, I have already answered the post about overspent solar programs, the germans are not alone in failure to estimate demand correctly but then these are the days of "scientific modelling" as a substitute for facts and common sense. There is such a thing as placing limits on a program

. Thinking and speaking for oneself is not allowed.

Why don't more of you find that disturbing?

Yes I do but some don't that is why they do it. Latest thought, not original is zeapu ~ zero emissions at point of use and the practical application a revolution in road transport and what to do with those redundant filling stations.
The Deakin T2 Car (http://www.whitehat.com.au/australia/Inventions/DeakinT2.asp)

Why does everyone throw back the "well it takes time" argument every time we mention a failed experiment? Yes, it takes trial and effort and failures and successes.

Solar technology is not new, development began in the 1860s. That's right, the 1860s - not the 1960s. We know it works, we know how to make it work, can we make it feasible before throwing our lot behind it like the Germans did? That would be pragmatic, unlike failing to consider the fact that you don't have that much sunshine before jumping in with both feet and $130 billion.

I know some of you either believe or just willfully propagate the lie that conservatives are against progress, against change. Not so, I'm all for cleaner energy - but not at the expense the left is willing to go to see it happen. Obama said fuel prices must "necessarily skyrocket" and it's happening. Gas prices are the highest they have been at this time of the year ever and it's entirely unnecessary. I happen to object to the fact that the Obama regime is willing to bankrupt us and the country (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291383/contraception-misdirection-mark-steyn?pg=1) to further his agenda.

Where's the pragmatism in that, Tal?

The pragmatism we have here is that solar energy is a supplement to the energy we get from fossil fuel and natural gas, and wind and being a Texan like myself you KNOW this, and also know that the old coal facilities are being replaced by newer ones. That's the difference between us and germany who bet the farm on solar and are now having to back of and pursue other avenues. That's only because the are dependent on others for their energy needs.

Pretty much like the right wing Americans who are so afraid they react to anything they don't understand with irrational thoughts and actions. Get your own facts. Let me use our state as an example since this is OIL country, but we are also the second most wind invested state in the union, and at the top of the natural gas development chain as well as solar power that produces electricity. A balanced pragmatic approach, that's being duplicated in many states.

The Germans screwed themselves by thinking that a big investment of solar power would make them independent of other countries for electricity and were forewarned that it would never work they way the were going, but they did it anyway.

Just for the record though, I favor more research into energy from

Chemicals

.Chemical reaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_reaction)

How Is Energy Used in Chemical Reactions? | eHow.com (http://www.ehow.com/about_6376131_energy-used-chemical-reactions_.html)

Let's face it solar enegy might be old technology but that doesn't make it good technology. Solar energy is not efficient and has yet to see the cost curve fall far enough to make it viable. It is also a zero sum gain at best when emissions associated with the production chain are taken into account. It is a niche solution which works well for small remote applications

OK Tal, that sounds rather pragmatic. Why then should we allow this regime to ruin us financially on a pipe dream?

Its viable as a supplement when used in conjunction with other technologies, and the ineffecientcies come with transmission and grid issues.

Tal the inefficiencies come with the small amount of electricity generated relative to cost. The cost of generation from solar is many times that of other technologies and although this has fallen in recent years we are still a long way from parity. There is an incorrect perception that solar energy is free energy a sort of set and forget solution. I have been around these agruments of various renewable technologies for many years, having been a senior executive in an electricity utility, and solar is niche at best

For a long time I have been a advocate of distributed generation however solar is not yet viable for this application

What's ruining us financially is the corporate choke hold over the economic system. Corporations and banks do not provide for enough circulation for enough economic activity to occur. The effect is NO JOBS. Lets just take the 20% of our economy that's still lacks recovery, HOUSING. Its not the people who without jobs and can't make the payments that are stopping the housing recovery, but the banks that force foreclosures because its profit over people.

A structured pragmatic approach would slow down and reduce the rate, and the number of foreclosures, and also allow for more to take advantage of the lowest interests rates in history, and even open up a market for the toxic mortgage assets held by the government, taken through the regulatory disaster that the banks caused through questionable financial bundling practices. ( I won't get into the unwillingness of the Europeans to address their Greek problems) I offer the evidence that can be traced back decades of those who have been in their homes for decades yet are losing all the investment and time that their mortgages have provided.

That's my example of extraction. Profits over people and a broken business model. You are probably not aware that the states have been going back and making banks repay the profits they extracted through those practices, many that were illegal, and criminal to begin with. While many will listen to the cries for regulation that businesses site as government over reach, I highly suggest you read them for yourselves, or better yet, explore the safety plans and practices of those companies that cry about regulations that stop them from making even more money than they have been.

Tal the inefficiencies come with the small amount of electricity generated relative to cost. The cost of generation from solar is many times that of other technologies and although this has fallen in recent years we are still a long way from parity. There is an incorrect perception that solar energy is free energy a sort of set and forget solution. I have been around these agruments of various renewable technologies for many years, having been a senior executive in an electricity utility, and solar is niche at best

For a long time I have been a advocate of distributed generation however solar is not yet viable for this application

I think you have made the argument for me that the Germans made a serious error in there judgement, applications, and expectations.

Lets just take the 20% of our economy that's still lacks recovery, HOUSING. Its not the people who without jobs and can't make the payments that are stopping the housing recovery, but the banks that force foreclosures because its profit over people.

Lol more "free " stuff . This time housing . Until they get around to foreclosures and getting rid of these toxic assets ,the housing market will never see true recovery. Extending the pain will not remove it .

I think you have made the argument for me that the Germans made a serious error in there judgement, applications, and expectations.

Indeed, ""any come and get it"" subsidy scheme suffers the same flaws and not only the Germans we had two similar subsidised schemes here as part of GFC response that fell flat

lol more "free " stuff . This time housing . Until they get around to foreclosures and getting rid of these toxic assets ,the housing market will never see true recovery. Extending the pain will not remove it .

Tom I can only comment that foreclosures provide very little work for the general community, if you want recovery in housing then some very stringent measures are needed. Firstly; bulldoze all non viable housing such as buildings that have been vacant a long time. Secondly; acquire all toxic assets and renegotiate terms which will keep the asset from being abandoned, and thirdly; make the banks swallow the losses without foreclosure and let's throw in an unpopular fourth. Let's bring all existing housing up to current code, that should generate some work as well as some debate.

It isn't intended to provide work . The problem in the US is that housing has been treated as some social engineering project instead of the market it is.

I don't oppose bulldozing ;the city of Detroit is seriously considering that so they can reduce the areas where public service is required .The city ,through socialist mismanagement has lost about a quarter of it's population. The fact is that in the bubble there was more units built than needed .

If a bank and a property owner can come to an agreement on renegotiated terms then do it . What are you suggesting ? Having new terms imposed ?

Finally ,if a home is not in code it should not have occupancy . But I can just imaging the code the Obots would congure up... solar panel shingles and windmills on every roof .(just to keep my comments in the theme of the posting )

Yes new codes are interesting and require an investment but not without return but you and I both know buildings have been built in different eras and many are not up to code and yes bulldozing is an answer when industry has gone and the housing is no longer needed and industrial buildings as well

Lovelly parkland will emerge where deer and vermin can roam free, some urban renewal make take place with gardens where the destitute of an earlier utopia might make a living with subsistence farming

lol more "free " stuff . This time housing . Until they get around to foreclosures and getting rid of these toxic assets ,the housing market will never see true recovery. Extending the pain will not remove it .

Not free but modified to reflect that a criminal and his ill gotten gains will be dealt with. See it as a reboot, system recovery strategy where all the facts and scope of the problem can be assessed in a pragmatic way, so as to correct and mitigate the damage. Unlike with the way republican governors are putting settlement money under there control and not to the ones it was supposed to go to.

The government's ability to sue is legalized extortion. In the case of housing the government first created the terms that the banks had to operate under and then threaten them with criminal and civil action for operating the way the government told them to.

Bit of a stretch there Tom, no one told the banks to create asset backed securities and flog them around the world to unsuspecting investors, no one told the banks to falsify their accounts with dubious deals to take the sub prime debt off their books and certainly no one told the banks to pay above market salaries, etc to the people who perpetrated this fraud

So Tom there is a vast difference between being an instrument of government social engineering and being an opportunist criminal

If what they did was criminal there would be criminal prosecutions . There aren't ,and I haven't heard of any pending.. only this extortion racket .

Yes Tom we know prosecution is slow, no doubt evidence is hard to find