""If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression 'cruel and unusual punishment,' doesn't that apply?" Stahl asks.
"No, No," Scalia replies.
"Cruel and unusual punishment?" Stahl asks.
"To the contrary," Scalia says. "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."
"Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody…," Stahl says.
"And you say he's punishing you?" Scalia asks.
"Sure," Stahl replies.
"What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody…," Scalia says.
"Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know," Stahl says.
"It's the latter. And when he's hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He's trying to extract…," Scalia says.
"Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he's going to beat the you-know-what out of you…," Stahl replies.
"Anyway, that’s my view," Scalia says. "And it happens to be correct."
Essentially he says torture is not illegal because it isn't punishment so therefore it isn't cruel and unusual punishment. It's just an informational fishing expidition so it's OK.
Essentially he says torture is not illegal because it isn't punishment so therefore it isn't cruel and unusual punishment. It's just an informational fishing expidition so it's OK.
You are either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing, as well as overstating Scalia's response. As with most Supreme Court rulings, Scalia is discussing a very narrow point here. His point was:
In the case of Abu Graib even IF someone is being tortured they are NOT being tortured to punish them. There may be other reasons, but the reason is NOT punishment.
Since the reason is NOT punishment you cannot claim that their 8th Amendment rights have been violated (that being the Amendment that forbids cruel and unusual punishment).
So that much I claim you have mischaracterized.
You then go on to claim that he said torture was not illegal. He made no such claim. It could be illegal for any number of reasons, he is just asserting that the 8th Amendment wouldn't be one of them. Neither did he ever state that torture was OK. This is where you over state his position.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Scalia makes perfect sense some of the time and then he goes and says ridiculous stuff like that.
It is both illegal and unconstitutional. No one in their right mind thinks that the 8th amendment only applies to post-judicial proceedings. He needs to read a bit more broadly than that.
This reminds me of the John Yoo theory of warfare:
The President has the right and duty to kill people who would do us harm so obviously he has the right and duty to do things less than that, such as torture people.
The point here is that the above only holds if you think killing someone is "worse" than torturing them. I don't agree.
And as an aside, in my opinion, the Constitution applies to the US Government and its actions, regardless of where those actions are carried out.
__________________________
I'm listening to... I'm still certain that what motivates me Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
No one in their right mind thinks that the 8th amendment only applies to post-judicial proceedings.
This has nothing to do with what he said. His comment was not limited to post-judicial proceedings. If anything they were related to pre-judicial proceedings in the sense that it is discussing whether the acts in question violate the prisoner's 8th Amendment rights at the time the acts are committed.
The point here is that the above only holds if you think killing someone is "worse" than torturing them. I don't agree.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but in this case it is the legal statutes that govern.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Even if Scalia truly believes that torturing suspects is not some kind of cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Or that the founding fathers left a back door wide open to torture suspects, but protected convicted criminals in the 8th;
I fail to see how Scalia seems to be ignoring the 5th Amendment and the right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Or does Scalia think it is ok to "compel" people to self incriminate during the investigation, since the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that the investigation is part of the criminal case process?
Compelling self incrimination seems to be legal to Justice Scalia. I haven't heard him broach this topic when speaking of torture. Wouldn't it be a prudent thing to point out the ignorant masses that the 5th Amendment is all that is needed to outlaw the use of torture to ascertain information?
__________________________
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
because he was asked specifically about cruel and unusual punishments, not the 5th.
So, your claim may or may not be true, but either way we cannot discern how Scalia feels about it from these comments.
Wouldn't it be a prudent thing to point out the ignorant masses that
the 5th Amendment is all that is needed to outlaw the use of torture to
ascertain information?
Your point only applies to the case where the information being sought would be incriminating to the individual being interrogated. Other information would not even be applicable to this argument.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Your point only applies to the case where the information being sought would be incriminating to the individual being interrogated. Other information would not even be applicable to this argument.
I'm under the assumption that if Scalia thought that people were citing the wrong Amendment, that Scalia would point that out and not draw flak by being a smart$%# and go on about the 8th.
I would assume that compelling further self incrimination would violate the 5th.
The next issue would be if compelling someone to report a crime by torturing them would be legal.
__________________________
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
let's just stick with the facts. My comments above apply solely to Scalia's responses described above. If you wish to widen the scope of this discussion please be specific as to who said what and/or whether you are seeking an opinion of some sort from me.
I'm under the assumption that if Scalia thought that people were citing
the wrong Amendment, that Scalia would point that out and not draw flak
by being a smart$%# and go on about the 8th.
I honestly don't understand your point here. Scalia was asked a specific question and gave a specific reponse focused on that question. That question just happened to related to the 8th Amendment. Reading anything more into his comments is unjustified and erroneous.
And in what way was Scalia being a smart$%#? His response is actually consistent with the way the Supreme Court views things as far as I can tell. Do you have some reason to believe that he is NOT being consistent with SC philosophy and precendent?
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
One can reasonably assume Scalia doesn't believe that the application of torture is in any way unconstitutional because he didn't say something like:
"Yes, torture is permissible under the 8th because torture isn't a punishment, but it is unconstitutional under amendment X".
His near defense of torture is conspicuously absent of any personal opinion on the matter. This is him being smart because he knows that the average person would assume what we have assumed -- that his legal defense of torture being constitutional under the 8th implies it is always constitutional.
Personally, I think Scalia is an ass and revels in the fact that a lot of people hate him. I think his legal philosophy is top notch, but he often refuses to follow it if he doesn't like where it leads (Raich v. Gonzales, for example).
__________________________
I'm listening to... I'm still certain that what motivates me Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
"I don't like torture," Scalia says. "Although defining it is going to
be a nice trick. But who's in favor of it? Nobody. And we have a law
against torture. But if the - everything that is hateful and odious is
not covered by some provision of the Constitution," he says.
So Stinernman, your point -- His near defense of torture is conspicuously absent of any personal opinion on the matter -- doesn't really apply. He did provide a personal opinion.
But GoRight, your point -- Scalia was asked a specific question and gave a specific reponse
focused on that question. That question just happened to related to
the 8th Amendment. Reading anything more into his comments is
unjustified and erroneous. -- also doesn't apply. He did in fact imply that there is nothing in the Constitution that makes torture illegal. So Brutus14's point -- Scalia seems to be ignoring the 5th Amendment -- still holds.
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
When I say that my comments are based on Scalia's comments described above, I am referring specifically to:
""If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized
by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression 'cruel and
unusual punishment,' doesn't that apply?" Stahl asks.
"No, No," Scalia replies.
"Cruel and unusual punishment?" Stahl asks.
"To the contrary," Scalia says. "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."
"Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody…," Stahl says.
"And you say he's punishing you?" Scalia asks.
"Sure," Stahl replies.
"What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody…," Scalia says.
"Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know," Stahl says.
"It's the latter. And when he's hurting you in order to get information
from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he punishing you for?
He's trying to extract…," Scalia says.
"Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he's going to beat the you-know-what out of you…," Stahl replies.
"Anyway, that’s my view," Scalia says. "And it happens to be correct."
Essentially he says torture is not illegal because it isn't
punishment so therefore it isn't cruel and unusual punishment. It's
just an informational fishing expidition so it's OK.
I never read the embedded link. I was responding specifically to what was described above.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
to make sure there weren't any other tid bits lying about undisclosed here directly. The only bit that was missing was the bit you just added in your post.
So, on the point of what Scalia was actually asked (immediately proceeding this segment which begins with "I don't like torture") we don't actually know as far as I can tell. When I said he was asked a specific question I meant that in the dialogue provided by stinerman the discussion was focused specifically on "cruel and unusual punishment" which coincides with the 8th Amendment.
As to the point about Scalia ignoring the 5th Amendment I seriously doubt that a Supremem Court Justice is "ignoring the 5th Amendment." The logic, no doubt, is similar to that for the 8th Amendment. Specifically, the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Let us deconstruct this and assess each clause directly:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
This clause clearly does not apply to most individuals at Gitmo because, as the liberals incessently point out, most of them have never been charged with any capital or infamous crimes. This is also consistent with Scalia's point that their treatment is NOT about punishment.
But even IF one wants to pursue that line of reasoning the underlined portions clearly seem to grant an exception for these cases.
nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb
Not applicable to this discussion.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Well, as seen above, they are not being interrogated pursuant to "any criminal case" since no charges have been filed nor are they being interrogated within the context of any such legal proceeding. These points alone are sufficient to render this clause insufficient ... but even IF we allow that this phrase IS applicable it would only be applicble up to the point where the individual was being "compelled to be a witness against himself" (i.e. to confess to a crime or provide evidence sufficient to obtain his conviction).
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Military tribunals constitute due process.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Not applicable to this discussion.
Note that these interpretations are my own, and NOT those of Scalia, although he might certainly concur.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I wonder if Scalia would go on ad nauseam about how falling from a 100 story building hasn't killed anyone. He seems to be doing the same on the topic of torture and the 8th.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
I don't see how there is a back door that allows the US government to torture a "person" just so long as the Government doesn't file any charges or go ahead with a criminal investigation.
The fact that the Government detained those "persons" is evidence that a criminal investigation into those "persons" has started.
It could depend on what one's definition of "person" is.
__________________________
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
"Illegal enemy combatants" don't have any rights under the Constitution, right?
Just to get you on record, do you believe that the government can legally torture a suspected "illegal enemy combatant" (even using your incredibly narrow definition of what constitutes torture)? If not, what laws, treaties, or constitutional provisions stop the government from doing so? If they can, are you proud of that?
__________________________
I'm listening to... I'm still certain that what motivates me Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I know you are basically OK with what our government has been doing as regards detainee treatment (not including, I presume, the behavior of the "few bad eggs" at Abu Ghraib). Is the following a fair characterization of your stance on this issue?
1) Certain techniques (let's use waterboarding as possibly the most extreme example), while certainly unpleasant for the detainee, do not rise to the level of torture.
2) Such techniques would be illegal to use upon uniformed war prisoners, but against non-uniformed enemy combatants, they are acceptable.
3) Techniques that are torture would be illegal to use against anyone, uniformed or not.
Anything in the above that you would disagree with? Anything you'd add? Just trying to understand where you are coming from, eh?
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
2) Not sure. My general inclination is that this is correct.
I would need to re-review the Geneva Conventions which I don't want to bother doing just now. I would also need to verify that you mean people who legitimately hold Prisoner of War status as defined in the Geneva Conventions when you say "uniformed war prisoners". I continue to contend, as does the government in this case, that Al Qaeda operatives are NOT prisoners of war.
3) Correct.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Just so you know, our major points of disagreement:
I would characterize many of the employed techniques as torture: waterboarding, stress positions, water deprivation, inducing hypothermia, etc. Anything where the intended response is "Make it stop, I'll tell you anything!" is torture.
I accept that this is a legally debatable point, mainly because the wording of the laws seems to be a bit vague. The correct response IMHO would be to rewrite the laws to make my statement above incontrovertably legally true. (Note that I am not saying that waterboarding is legal under the currently-worded laws, only that it is debatable.)
Whether or not the policy adopted by the Bush Administartion was illegal, it was a bad policy. I mean that for both meanings of the word bad: immoral and incompetent. The immorality of it is obvious. The incompetence is twofold: 1) It focuses entirely on short-term results with a stunning disregard for long-term consequences, and 2) The short-term results themselves are dubious. ("I'll tell you anything!")
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I don't think it's even close to being legally debatable. The Nazis and Japanese used these same techniques and we prosecuted them for war crimes. It's blindingly obvious that those techniques are torture. They either are or aren't and if they aren't then we need to declare that those prosecuted in the Nuremberg Trials were wrongly convicted.
The only thing even close to being debatable is if the Geneva Conventions disallow the torture of "illegal enemy combatants". And that's only debatable if you use the parlor trick that Scalia used which started the thread.
__________________________
I'm listening to... I'm still certain that what motivates me Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Unfortunately, I think it is legally debatable, because it is being legally debated. That does not mean I think it should be. I agree with you that it is blindingly obvious that those techniques are torture, but I don't think it is blindingly obvious what the legal definition of torture is. (As I stated earlier, the proper response would be to make the legal definition less vague, so that these techniques are 100% undebatably torture.)
Unless I am mistaken, the Nuremberg defendents were not specifically convicted of "torture," they were convicted of "war crimes." Then again, I ain't no lawyer, ("I'm just a simple caveman.") and I don't really know how much weight is put on prior case decisions. So if in those cases, these techniques were specifically considered to be torture, than it is certainly a strong case for our side of the debate. Perhaps overwhelmingly strong, in which case, you are correct - it is not debatable. I hope you are right.
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Andrew Sullivan showed some very persuasive evidence that waterboarding and other techniques we currently use were considered torture at that time. I can't find it offhand but it's there if you want to look harder.
I need to get to bed (I work 3rd shift).
__________________________
I'm listening to... I'm still certain that what motivates me Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Some may ask: Why are you acknowledging this program now? There are two reasons why I'm making these limited disclosures today. First, we have largely completed our questioning of the men -- and to start the process for bringing them to trial, we must bring them into the open. Second, the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program. In its ruling on military commissions, the Court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as "Common Article Three" applies to our war with al Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article Three are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges. And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act -- simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.
This is unacceptable. Our military and intelligence personnel go face to face with the world's most dangerous men every day. They have risked their lives to capture some of the most brutal terrorists on Earth. And they have worked day and night to find out what the terrorists know so we can stop new attacks. America owes our brave men and women some things in return. We owe them their thanks for saving lives and keeping America safe. And we owe them clear rules, so they can continue to do their jobs and protect our people.
So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.
The need for this legislation is urgent. We need to ensure that those questioning terrorists can continue to do everything within the limits of the law to get information that can save American lives. My administration will continue to work with the Congress to get this legislation enacted -- but time is of the essence. Congress is in session just for a few more weeks, and passing this legislation ought to be the top priority. (Applause.)
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I agree with him that it is vague, yes. I disagree with how he would clarify things, though. A list of "specific, recognizable offenses" is not good enough. "Let's see, is thumb screws on the list? Damn, it is. How about index finger screws? No? Break out the index finger screws, they're legal!"
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
how are you going to clarify things without make a list of specific offenses? If you were writing the language to be used, how would you do it and how is your "all encompassing approach" different from the existing "all encompassing approach"?
AND, more to the point, under your approach what do you consider to be some example of the toughest interrogation techniques actually allowable?
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well, as I said, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend that I can come up with a loophole-proof definition myself. The current legal definition is vague because of the use of the word "severe," which is kind of a judgment call. Personally, I'd just get rid of that word, and define torture as the infliction of mental or physical pain or suffering for the purposes of coercion. If that is too broad of a definition for some, I would also be okay with leaving "severe" in there as a definition of "torture," as long as the infliction of "non-severe" pain and suffering is still defined to be illegal, even if not officially torture.
That said, I suppose even the definition of pain and suffering can be a bit of a judgment call, so the true answer I have for you is "I don't know!"
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I would characterize many of the employed techniques as torture: waterboarding, stress positions, water deprivation, inducing hypothermia, etc. Anything where the intended response is "Make it stop, I'll tell you anything!" is torture.
I accept this as a heart felt and honest position. We simply disagree on this point.
I accept that this is a legally debatable point, mainly because the
wording of the laws seems to be a bit vague. The correct response IMHO
would be to rewrite the laws to make my statement above
incontrovertably legally true. (Note that I am not saying that
waterboarding is legal under the currently-worded laws, only that it is
debatable.)
I don't have any problem with this.
Whether or not the policy adopted by the Bush Administartion was illegal, it was a bad
policy. I mean that for both meanings of the word bad: immoral and
incompetent. The immorality of it is obvious. The incompetence is
twofold: 1) It focuses entirely on short-term results with a stunning
disregard for long-term consequences, and 2) The short-term results
themselves are dubious. ("I'll tell you anything!")
I recognize that this is how you see things. I respectfully disagree with the analysis.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Anyone who is found to not be a POW is still afforded basic protections. I believe one must treat them with common decency. Even if one takes your position that waterboarding isn't torture, which I might add, is proof positive that people haven't evolved as much as we like to think, I'd say it's at least an affront to common decency.
You never answered my previous question so I'll pose it again. Did you and do you still oppose the prosecution of the Japanese and Germans for warcrimes due in part to their use of waterboarding?
__________________________
I'm listening to... I'm still certain that what motivates me Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
You never answered my previous question so I'll pose it again. Did you and do you still oppose the prosecution of the Japanese and Germans for warcrimes due in part to their use of waterboarding?
Assuming that those critical of current US policy are correct and waterboarding is, in fact, a violation of the Geneva Conventions with repsect to the treatment of Prisoners of War then of course the prosecution of the Japanese and Germans for war crimes was appropriate.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
without investing time in doing additional research (which I am not interested in doing at this time). I cannot say that I know, definitively, off the top of my head that:
(1) The Japanese and Germans were, in fact, prosecuted, in part, specifically for waterboarding at Nuremburg.
(2) The Genevea Conventions specifically define waterboarding as torture.
Without knowing a definitive answer to these points I cannot give you a definitive answer to your question. My opinion does not matter in this context, what matters are the legal definitions, standards, treaties, and statutes.
If both (1) and (2) turn out to be true, then my opinion will be that the prosecutions (to the extent they were based on the issues at hand) at Nuremburg were appropriate.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Our status quo foreign policy weighs heavily on his mind.
It's his top priority and he knows it's the one that the president...both constitutionally and in practice...can have the biggest and quickest effect on. I agree 100%.
Just don't expect too many "yeah" votes on a variety of domestic programs and bills that a President Obama would push Congress to pass.
Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged.
This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.
However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.
[...]
He stressed that the results were just the initial findings from a new computer model of how the oceans behave over decades and it would be wholly misleading to infer that global warming, in the sense of the enhanced greenhouse effect from increased carbon emissions, had gone away.
The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.
So let me get this straight, the IPCC either completely missed or ignored the effects of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cycle (which are known to have been behind the highest year on record) in the computer models they have been using to whip up the current AGW alarmism? Well, is that just incompetence or have they been purposely stacking the decks?
Either way, these guys are hedging their bets now on any downturn in the global temperatures and tried to buy themselves another whole decade without having to demonstrate any warming at all. How con-veeee-nient.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So why bother relying on them. It's a waste of time.
All these so called 'experts' the scientific intelligensia, with different interpretations of the 'raw data' appears to be more of an excercise in mental masturbation than anything else.
Since the interpretation of the data differs, just pick whatever you want to believe as a matter of faith and fix the facts around your preconceived notions.
The 'experts' will support your conclusions either way.
Geez, how did this even get published? Someone at Nature needs a visit from the science mafia that has been suppressing such reports previously.
Or maybe the NY Times just misreported the actual science. Let's see.
Here's the forecast chart from the actual paper:
Red line is actual measured temps. Black line is IPCC model. Green line is new model. Purple line is new model if greenhouse gas concentrations were frozen at 2000 levels (i.e. wishful thinking).
The points are ten-year centered means (average temp 5 years before and after the point), but note that they are spaced at 5 year intervals. This is very important and misunderstanding this is why the NY Times reported this improperly.
The report states that there won't be a major increase in global temperatures over the next decade. But because of the way they are presenting the data, "next decade" means 2005-2015, and the "previous decade" they are comparing it to is actually 2000-2010. It's actually not a prediction of what will happen in "the next decade" as we would think of it, but is in large part an explanation of why temperatures haven't increased much in the past few years.
And, in fact, if you look at the chart, there is a prediction of a rather dramatic increase over the following decade, which would be 2010-2020.
A more in depth discussion of all this can be found here , which is where I stole the chart graphic from.
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So let me get this straight, the IPCC either completely missed or ignored the effects of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cycle (which are known to have been behind the highest year on record) in the computer models they have been using to whip up the current AGW alarmism? Well, is that just incompetence or have they been purposely stacking the decks?
but it doesn't actually address my actual point above.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
1) Since El Nino is a back and forth cycle, it's not really going to have any effect on long term trends, which is what the IPCC model is attempting to predict. But more importantly, 2) Measuring sea surface temperature is not a trivial task. There's just not a whole lot of data available - I believe about two decades worth. Sea temperature at any depth, which is an important component of understanding the Gulf Stream in particular, is an even more difficult measurement, and the amount of data available there is, I would guess, miniscule. From a National Geographic article about this study:
[Author of Nature commentary Richard] Wood also stressed that our understanding of ocean fluctuations—and thus our ability to include them in climate models—is currently in its infancy.
So I wouldn't fault the IPCC too much on this point. It's neither incompetence nor a purposeful stacking of the deck, merely a lack of data with which to work.
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The IPCC is out there lobbying for AGW, primarily based on computer models.
The skeptics have been arguing that natural causes the the primary factor in the recent warming, as opposed to AGW.
Now it comes to light that the two factors which are recognized as being responsible for the hottest year on record, 1998, are NOT even accounted for in the models.
A pattern seems to be emerging where the computer models focus on things that would support AGW and ignore what are arguably significant natural factors. Is it any surprise, then, that the models are predicting AGW?
In my book that is evidence of either incompetence (because they are making predictions without recognizing their failure to account for significant factors) or stacking the deck (because they recognize that they are leaving out significant factors but they don't tell people that they are). Which is it?
And we are expected to cripple the world economy based on this type of analysis?
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If you want to read nefarious agendas into continually trying to update models as new data emerges, there's not much I can do to argue with you. But as to your last point, I fail to see how reducing waste, developing alternate forms of energy, and reducing consumption of resources will "cripple the world economy."
__________________________
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Some more pieces of the "How Al Gore is Going to Become Amazingly Wealthy by Selling Climate Hysteria" puzzle came together Friday when the Silicon Valley venture capital firm he's now a part of announced a $500 million investment in green technologies.
Making matters more delicious, the firm already has investments in many of the same companies Gore admitted in March he has a stake in.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that the fraud and deceptions being perpetrated by Algore will be exposed approaches one.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
UPDATE:
While it is true that my corollary acknowledges the existence of the law, as written, it is worth pointing out that an implication of the corollary is that the attacks discussed in the law are justified.
__________________________
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that the fraud and deceptions being perpetrated by Algore will be exposed approaches one.
The corollary just points out that "the fraud and deceptions...will be exposed."
The corollary allows non-frauds and non-deceptions to be intertwined with the real frauds and real deceptions, thus proving that the attacks discussed in the law could possibly be false.
L'Hopital's Corollary:
As the the online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that circumstantial evidence will be used as "proof" of Gore's frauds will approach 1.
__________________________
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
This Week In Torture
Digby has a post about the subject of torture.
It pulls together several peoples thoughts on the topic.
Did you see Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's interview with Leslie Stahl?
:
""If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression 'cruel and unusual punishment,' doesn't that apply?" Stahl asks.
"No, No," Scalia replies.
"Cruel and unusual punishment?" Stahl asks.
"To the contrary," Scalia says. "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."
"Well, I think if you are in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody…," Stahl says.
"And you say he's punishing you?" Scalia asks.
"Sure," Stahl replies.
"What's he punishing you for? You punish somebody…," Scalia says.
"Well because he assumes you, one, either committed a crime…or that you know something that he wants to know," Stahl says.
"It's the latter. And when he's hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He's trying to extract…," Scalia says.
"Because he thinks you are a terrorist and he's going to beat the you-know-what out of you…," Stahl replies.
"Anyway, that’s my view," Scalia says. "And it happens to be correct."
Essentially he says torture is not illegal because it isn't punishment so therefore it isn't cruel and unusual punishment. It's just an informational fishing expidition so it's OK.
In other news, VP's Chief of Staff David Addington has agreed to testify before the Senate
regarding the Vice President's role in authorizing torture and their interpretations as to why it's not a crime to torture.
There is still one large secret Executive Order allowing torture that the Executive Branch won't release
nor let anyone see.
And as Digby points out there are still thousands of other documents that are unreleased.
Mischaracterization of Scalia's point ...
You are either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing, as well as overstating Scalia's response. As with most Supreme Court rulings, Scalia is discussing a very narrow point here. His point was:
So that much I claim you have mischaracterized.
You then go on to claim that he said torture was not illegal. He made no such claim. It could be illegal for any number of reasons, he is just asserting that the 8th Amendment wouldn't be one of them. Neither did he ever state that torture was OK. This is where you over state his position.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Oh, Antonin! How you break my heart!
Scalia makes perfect sense some of the time and then he goes and says ridiculous stuff like that.
It is both illegal and unconstitutional. No one in their right mind thinks that the 8th amendment only applies to post-judicial proceedings. He needs to read a bit more broadly than that.
This reminds me of the John Yoo theory of warfare:
The President has the right and duty to kill people who would do us harm so obviously he has the right and duty to do things less than that, such as torture people.
The point here is that the above only holds if you think killing someone is "worse" than torturing them. I don't agree.
And as an aside, in my opinion, the Constitution applies to the US Government and its actions, regardless of where those actions are carried out.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
RE: Oh, Antonin! How you break my heart!
Nothing Scalia said above contradicts this.
This has nothing to do with what he said. His comment was not limited to post-judicial proceedings. If anything they were related to pre-judicial proceedings in the sense that it is discussing whether the acts in question violate the prisoner's 8th Amendment rights at the time the acts are committed.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but in this case it is the legal statutes that govern.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Scalia is ignoring the 5h.
Even if Scalia truly believes that torturing suspects is not some kind of cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Or that the founding fathers left a back door wide open to torture suspects, but protected convicted criminals in the 8th;
I fail to see how Scalia seems to be ignoring the 5th Amendment and the right not to be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Or does Scalia think it is ok to "compel" people to self incriminate during the investigation, since the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that the investigation is part of the criminal case process?
Compelling self incrimination seems to be legal to Justice Scalia. I haven't heard him broach this topic when speaking of torture. Wouldn't it be a prudent thing to point out the ignorant masses that the 5th Amendment is all that is needed to outlaw the use of torture to ascertain information?
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Scalia's comments didn't address the 5th ...
because he was asked specifically about cruel and unusual punishments, not the 5th.
So, your claim may or may not be true, but either way we cannot discern how Scalia feels about it from these comments.
Your point only applies to the case where the information being sought would be incriminating to the individual being interrogated. Other information would not even be applicable to this argument.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Your point only applies to
I'm under the assumption that if Scalia thought that people were citing the wrong Amendment, that Scalia would point that out and not draw flak by being a smart$%# and go on about the 8th.
I would assume that compelling further self incrimination would violate the 5th.
The next issue would be if compelling someone to report a crime by torturing them would be legal.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
All these assumptions aside ...
let's just stick with the facts. My comments above apply solely to Scalia's responses described above. If you wish to widen the scope of this discussion please be specific as to who said what and/or whether you are seeking an opinion of some sort from me.
I honestly don't understand your point here. Scalia was asked a specific question and gave a specific reponse focused on that question. That question just happened to related to the 8th Amendment. Reading anything more into his comments is unjustified and erroneous.
And in what way was Scalia being a smart$%#? His response is actually consistent with the way the Supreme Court views things as far as I can tell. Do you have some reason to believe that he is NOT being consistent with SC philosophy and precendent?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I believe my friend is trying to say...
One can reasonably assume Scalia doesn't believe that the application of torture is in any way unconstitutional because he didn't say something like:
"Yes, torture is permissible under the 8th because torture isn't a punishment, but it is unconstitutional under amendment X".
His near defense of torture is conspicuously absent of any personal opinion on the matter. This is him being smart because he knows that the average person would assume what we have assumed -- that his legal defense of torture being constitutional under the 8th implies it is always constitutional.
Personally, I think Scalia is an ass and revels in the fact that a lot of people hate him. I think his legal philosophy is top notch, but he often refuses to follow it if he doesn't like where it leads (Raich v. Gonzales, for example).
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I think you might both be mistaken
Earlier in the interview, Scalia says:
So Stinernman, your point -- His near defense of torture is conspicuously absent of any personal opinion on the matter -- doesn't really apply. He did provide a personal opinion.
But GoRight, your point -- Scalia was asked a specific question and gave a specific reponse
focused on that question. That question just happened to related to
the 8th Amendment. Reading anything more into his comments is
unjustified and erroneous. -- also doesn't apply. He did in fact imply that there is nothing in the Constitution that makes torture illegal. So Brutus14's point -- Scalia seems to be ignoring the 5th Amendment -- still holds.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I consider myself corrected
I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Let me be even more clear ...
When I say that my comments are based on Scalia's comments described above, I am referring specifically to:
I never read the embedded link. I was responding specifically to what was described above.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
OK, I went an read the relevant section of the link ...
to make sure there weren't any other tid bits lying about undisclosed here directly. The only bit that was missing was the bit you just added in your post.
So, on the point of what Scalia was actually asked (immediately proceeding this segment which begins with "I don't like torture") we don't actually know as far as I can tell. When I said he was asked a specific question I meant that in the dialogue provided by stinerman the discussion was focused specifically on "cruel and unusual punishment" which coincides with the 8th Amendment.
As to the point about Scalia ignoring the 5th Amendment I seriously doubt that a Supremem Court Justice is "ignoring the 5th Amendment." The logic, no doubt, is similar to that for the 8th Amendment. Specifically, the 5th Amendment:
Let us deconstruct this and assess each clause directly:
This clause clearly does not apply to most individuals at Gitmo because, as the liberals incessently point out, most of them have never been charged with any capital or infamous crimes. This is also consistent with Scalia's point that their treatment is NOT about punishment.
But even IF one wants to pursue that line of reasoning the underlined portions clearly seem to grant an exception for these cases.
Not applicable to this discussion.
Well, as seen above, they are not being interrogated pursuant to "any criminal case" since no charges have been filed nor are they being interrogated within the context of any such legal proceeding. These points alone are sufficient to render this clause insufficient ... but even IF we allow that this phrase IS applicable it would only be applicble up to the point where the individual was being "compelled to be a witness against himself" (i.e. to confess to a crime or provide evidence sufficient to obtain his conviction).
Military tribunals constitute due process.
Not applicable to this discussion.
Note that these interpretations are my own, and NOT those of Scalia, although he might certainly concur.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
A spade isn't a diamond, just 'cus part of the US gov't says so
I wonder if Scalia would go on ad nauseam about how falling from a 100 story building hasn't killed anyone. He seems to be doing the same on the topic of torture and the 8th.
I don't see how there is a back door that allows the US government to torture a "person" just so long as the Government doesn't file any charges or go ahead with a criminal investigation.
The fact that the Government detained those "persons" is evidence that a criminal investigation into those "persons" has started.
It could depend on what one's definition of "person" is.
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What does it matter?
"Illegal enemy combatants" don't have any rights under the Constitution, right?
Just to get you on record, do you believe that the government can legally torture a suspected "illegal enemy combatant" (even using your incredibly narrow definition of what constitutes torture)? If not, what laws, treaties, or constitutional provisions stop the government from doing so? If they can, are you proud of that?
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Question for GoRight
I know you are basically OK with what our government has been doing as regards detainee treatment (not including, I presume, the behavior of the "few bad eggs" at Abu Ghraib). Is the following a fair characterization of your stance on this issue?
1) Certain techniques (let's use waterboarding as possibly the most extreme example), while certainly unpleasant for the detainee, do not rise to the level of torture.
2) Such techniques would be illegal to use upon uniformed war prisoners, but against non-uniformed enemy combatants, they are acceptable.
3) Techniques that are torture would be illegal to use against anyone, uniformed or not.
Anything in the above that you would disagree with? Anything you'd add? Just trying to understand where you are coming from, eh?
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Answers for SL
1) Correct.
2) Not sure. My general inclination is that this is correct.
I would need to re-review the Geneva Conventions which I don't want to bother doing just now. I would also need to verify that you mean people who legitimately hold Prisoner of War status as defined in the Geneva Conventions when you say "uniformed war prisoners". I continue to contend, as does the government in this case, that Al Qaeda operatives are NOT prisoners of war.
3) Correct.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Good enough
I didn't mean anything legally specific by "uniformed war prisoners" - just trying to get the general idea.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And...
Just so you know, our major points of disagreement:
I would characterize many of the employed techniques as torture: waterboarding, stress positions, water deprivation, inducing hypothermia, etc. Anything where the intended response is "Make it stop, I'll tell you anything!" is torture.
I accept that this is a legally debatable point, mainly because the wording of the laws seems to be a bit vague. The correct response IMHO would be to rewrite the laws to make my statement above incontrovertably legally true. (Note that I am not saying that waterboarding is legal under the currently-worded laws, only that it is debatable.)
Whether or not the policy adopted by the Bush Administartion was illegal, it was a bad policy. I mean that for both meanings of the word bad: immoral and incompetent. The immorality of it is obvious. The incompetence is twofold: 1) It focuses entirely on short-term results with a stunning disregard for long-term consequences, and 2) The short-term results themselves are dubious. ("I'll tell you anything!")
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Really?
I don't think it's even close to being legally debatable. The Nazis and Japanese used these same techniques and we prosecuted them for war crimes. It's blindingly obvious that those techniques are torture. They either are or aren't and if they aren't then we need to declare that those prosecuted in the Nuremberg Trials were wrongly convicted.
The only thing even close to being debatable is if the Geneva Conventions disallow the torture of "illegal enemy combatants". And that's only debatable if you use the parlor trick that Scalia used which started the thread.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Debating debatability?
Unfortunately, I think it is legally debatable, because it is being legally debated. That does not mean I think it should be. I agree with you that it is blindingly obvious that those techniques are torture, but I don't think it is blindingly obvious what the legal definition of torture is. (As I stated earlier, the proper response would be to make the legal definition less vague, so that these techniques are 100% undebatably torture.)
Unless I am mistaken, the Nuremberg defendents were not specifically convicted of "torture," they were convicted of "war crimes." Then again, I ain't no lawyer, ("I'm just a simple caveman.") and I don't really know how much weight is put on prior case decisions. So if in those cases, these techniques were specifically considered to be torture, than it is certainly a strong case for our side of the debate. Perhaps overwhelmingly strong, in which case, you are correct - it is not debatable. I hope you are right.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Check Sullivan's website
Andrew Sullivan showed some very persuasive evidence that waterboarding and other techniques we currently use were considered torture at that time. I can't find it offhand but it's there if you want to look harder.
I need to get to bed (I work 3rd shift).
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
So, you agree with George W. Bush? :)
From President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists
:
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
To some extent.
I agree with him that it is vague, yes. I disagree with how he would clarify things, though. A list of "specific, recognizable offenses" is not good enough. "Let's see, is thumb screws on the list? Damn, it is. How about index finger screws? No? Break out the index finger screws, they're legal!"
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well then ...
how are you going to clarify things without make a list of specific offenses? If you were writing the language to be used, how would you do it and how is your "all encompassing approach" different from the existing "all encompassing approach"?
AND, more to the point, under your approach what do you consider to be some example of the toughest interrogation techniques actually allowable?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Defining torture
Well, as I said, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend that I can come up with a loophole-proof definition myself. The current legal definition is vague because of the use of the word "severe," which is kind of a judgment call. Personally, I'd just get rid of that word, and define torture as the infliction of mental or physical pain or suffering for the purposes of coercion. If that is too broad of a definition for some, I would also be okay with leaving "severe" in there as a definition of "torture," as long as the infliction of "non-severe" pain and suffering is still defined to be illegal, even if not officially torture.
That said, I suppose even the definition of pain and suffering can be a bit of a judgment call, so the true answer I have for you is "I don't know!"
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Some quick responses.
I accept this as a heart felt and honest position. We simply disagree on this point.
I don't have any problem with this.
I recognize that this is how you see things. I respectfully disagree with the analysis.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
2)
The results of torture are best summed up by this censored quote (for SC rules) from one of the best movies ever made, Reservoir Dogs:
If you f***ing beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the g*dd**n Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it f***ing so!
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
Further questioning
Anyone who is found to not be a POW is still afforded basic protections. I believe one must treat them with common decency. Even if one takes your position that waterboarding isn't torture, which I might add, is proof positive that people haven't evolved as much as we like to think, I'd say it's at least an affront to common decency.
You never answered my previous question so I'll pose it again. Did you and do you still oppose the prosecution of the Japanese and Germans for warcrimes due in part to their use of waterboarding?
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
When did you ask me this?
Assuming that those critical of current US policy are correct and waterboarding is, in fact, a violation of the Geneva Conventions with repsect to the treatment of Prisoners of War then of course the prosecution of the Japanese and Germans for war crimes was appropriate.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That wasn't an answer
I'm asking if you in your opinion believe that waterboarding actual POWs (not illegal combatants here) is grounds for prosecution of war crimes.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén
I can't give you a more specific answer ...
without investing time in doing additional research (which I am not interested in doing at this time). I cannot say that I know, definitively, off the top of my head that:
(1) The Japanese and Germans were, in fact, prosecuted, in part, specifically for waterboarding at Nuremburg.
(2) The Genevea Conventions specifically define waterboarding as torture.
Without knowing a definitive answer to these points I cannot give you a definitive answer to your question. My opinion does not matter in this context, what matters are the legal definitions, standards, treaties, and statutes.
If both (1) and (2) turn out to be true, then my opinion will be that the prosecutions (to the extent they were based on the issues at hand) at Nuremburg were appropriate.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ron Paul favors Obama
That would be a fun coalition if you ask me!
Paul
favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy. “But that’s doesn’t mean that’s an endorsement,” Paul quickly added.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Not surpised
Our status quo foreign policy weighs heavily on his mind.
It's his top priority and he knows it's the one that the president...both constitutionally and in practice...can have the biggest and quickest effect on. I agree 100%.
Just don't expect too many "yeah" votes on a variety of domestic programs and bills that a President Obama would push Congress to pass.
Barak battles the dark side
don't ask me, I'm just improvising
Political Compass Score: Econ L/R -0.12 Social Lib/Auth -1.33
My god....
hehehe
I hadn't seen that
Thanks!
Way cool.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
LOL, not a good decade for the AGW alarmists ...
Global warming may 'stop', scientists prediction
So let me get this straight, the IPCC either completely missed or ignored the effects of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cycle (which are known to have been behind the highest year on record) in the computer models they have been using to whip up the current AGW alarmism? Well, is that just incompetence or have they been purposely stacking the decks?
Either way, these guys are hedging their bets now on any downturn in the global temperatures and tried to buy themselves another whole decade without having to demonstrate any warming at all. How con-veeee-nient.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Facts always have two sides
don't they.
So why bother relying on them. It's a waste of time.
All these so called 'experts' the scientific intelligensia, with different interpretations of the 'raw data' appears to be more of an excercise in mental masturbation than anything else.
Since the interpretation of the data differs, just pick whatever you want to believe as a matter of faith and fix the facts around your preconceived notions.
The 'experts' will support your conclusions either way.
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
Ah, science.
Geez, how did this even get published? Someone at Nature needs a visit from the science mafia that has been suppressing such reports previously.
Or maybe the NY Times just misreported the actual science. Let's see.
Here's the forecast chart from the actual paper:
Red line is actual measured temps. Black line is IPCC model. Green line is new model. Purple line is new model if greenhouse gas concentrations were frozen at 2000 levels (i.e. wishful thinking).
The points are ten-year centered means (average temp 5 years before and after the point), but note that they are spaced at 5 year intervals. This is very important and misunderstanding this is why the NY Times reported this improperly.
The report states that there won't be a major increase in global temperatures over the next decade. But because of the way they are presenting the data, "next decade" means 2005-2015, and the "previous decade" they are comparing it to is actually 2000-2010. It's actually not a prediction of what will happen in "the next decade" as we would think of it, but is in large part an explanation of why temperatures haven't increased much in the past few years.
And, in fact, if you look at the chart, there is a prediction of a rather dramatic increase over the following decade, which would be 2010-2020.
A more in depth discussion of all this can be found here
, which is where I stole the chart graphic from.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
That's nice and all ...
but it doesn't actually address my actual point above.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Two points to consider
1) Since El Nino is a back and forth cycle, it's not really going to have any effect on long term trends, which is what the IPCC model is attempting to predict. But more importantly, 2) Measuring sea surface temperature is not a trivial task. There's just not a whole lot of data available - I believe about two decades worth. Sea temperature at any depth, which is an important component of understanding the Gulf Stream in particular, is an even more difficult measurement, and the amount of data available there is, I would guess, miniscule. From a National Geographic article
about this study:
So I wouldn't fault the IPCC too much on this point. It's neither incompetence nor a purposeful stacking of the deck, merely a lack of data with which to work.
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Hmmm.
Look at this from a skeptic's position:
A pattern seems to be emerging where the computer models focus on things that would support AGW and ignore what are arguably significant natural factors. Is it any surprise, then, that the models are predicting AGW?
In my book that is evidence of either incompetence (because they are making predictions without recognizing their failure to account for significant factors) or stacking the deck (because they recognize that they are leaving out significant factors but they don't tell people that they are). Which is it?
And we are expected to cripple the world economy based on this type of analysis?
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Bleah
If you want to read nefarious agendas into continually trying to update models as new data emerges, there's not much I can do to argue with you. But as to your last point, I fail to see how reducing waste, developing alternate forms of energy, and reducing consumption of resources will "cripple the world economy."
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No surprise here ... Algore is primed to make millions ...
off of the AGW hysteria he has been stirring up.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't understand
I thought you believed in free enterprise and capitalism.
What's wrong with Al Gore making money?
__________________________It is the economy, stupid.
The correct question is ...
"What's wrong with Al Gore making money ... by perpetrating a fraud on the world?"
No one cares if Gore makes money honestly, but fraud and subtrafuge on a global scale is something else altogether.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ha that's irony if I ever heard it.
It is the economy, stupid.
Gore's Law
Gore's Law
As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that
__________________________denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
GoRight's Corollary ...
As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that the fraud and deceptions being perpetrated by Algore will be exposed approaches one.
__________________________Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Well, at the very least
...your statement of a corollary provides supporting evidence for the law itself. :P
__________________________We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
OK, 1 point for you. :) (Updated)
UPDATE:
__________________________While it is true that my corollary acknowledges the existence of the law, as written, it is worth pointing out that an implication of the corollary is that the attacks discussed in the law are justified.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
L'Hopital's Corollary
The corollary just points out that "the fraud and deceptions...will be exposed."
The corollary allows non-frauds and non-deceptions to be intertwined with the real frauds and real deceptions, thus proving that the attacks discussed in the law could possibly be false.
L'Hopital's Corollary:
__________________________As the the online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that circumstantial evidence will be used as "proof" of Gore's frauds will approach 1.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Robert Reich has a blog. You know, Clinton's Secretary of
Labor (he should have been Treasury)? It's called Robert Reich's Blog
and it's over at the blogspot site.
I always like reading his take on economic issues. You may want to add it to the list of recommended reads.
+1
It's in my "Live Bookmarks" in Iceweasel.
__________________________I'm listening to...
I'm still certain that what motivates me
Is more rewarding than any piece of paper could be -- Dennis Lyxzén