Say NO to Patent Sharing in Wake of Global Warming Fraud

By Gene Quinn
December 3, 2009

Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

The debate regarding global warming and whether it is man-made, a natural phenomenon or something in between is heating up dramatically in advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which begins December 7, 2009 and will run through December 18, 2009. You would have to practically be living under a rock not to know that prominent global warming scientific advocates (I refuse to call them scientists or researchers) are being investigated for manipulating data, hiding the truth and otherwise attempting to fraudulently bolster their preference that global warming is being caused by man so we need strict new international agreements that will destroy our economy in order to save the planet. Yes, you would need to live under a rock indeed, at least today. Most of the major media outlets, other than Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, who has hit the story very hard (see for example this, this, this and this) have largely ignored the story except to make excuses.  But now Jon Stewart, the liberal comedian who hosts the enormously popular The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central has lashed out at the intellectually dishonest scientific advocates. I personally don’t agree with Stewart much, but I do find him quite funny. There is, however, no denying the truth that when the liberals lose Jon Stewart things have turned severely bad for their cause. Thankfully, while a liberal Stewart seems to have a strong sense of right and wrong, and apparently hates hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and self serving manipulation as much as I do.

Before going any further allow me to explain why this is an issue I keep writing about. First and foremost, one of the key platform items in the climate change negotiations between and among the international community has been the focus on sharing intellectual property so as to allow developing and undeveloped countries to curb carbon emissions and otherwise be environmentally friendly. Of course “sharing” is code for permanently borrowing without remuneration (i.e., stealing) and “intellectual property” is code for innovation (i.e., patents). So the collective wisdom of much of the international community seems to be that individuals and businesses that have devoted substantial amounts of time, money and energy to develop new and unique innovations should simply donate those to the cause for free. As if that would encourage any further advances or the march of innovation in the future! Simply put, a terribly bad idea even if global warming were real. It is nearly criminal given that so much of this all now seems to be a hoax.

I am also troubled by the climate change negotiations because science is being completely ignored, which is something I have known for years because even with fraudulent and manipulated data there already existed a lot of key pieces of factual and historic information that just didn’t jive with the proffered global warming theory. Then they change global warming to “climate change” and I knew there had to be a reason, and apparently that reason is because the globe is no longer warming, but rather is cooling. So I have a big problem when science becomes intertwined with politics. That was not a good thing when it happened to Galileo (who was right by the way) and it wasn’t a good thing when President Bush stalled scientific research into stem cells due to his religious beliefs. I understand the concern over stem cell research, but how can we sit back and not explore every avenue to help people who have such crippling ailments as Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease?

I strongly recommend that everyone take a few moments to watch Jon Stewart’s rant below. The global warming part starts at approximately 2:30, and lasts for just over 2 minutes.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Scientists Hide Global Warming Data
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

After making fun of Al Gore’s global warming being debunked by his very own invention, the Internet, Stewart proceeds to say lets just look at the raw data, only to discover that the raw data has been deleted and is no longer available. Talk about suspicious, huh? Then he concludes by saying:

If you care about an issue and want to make it your life’s work, don’t cut corners! its disheartening for people inclined toward the scientific method and its cat nip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the Artic circle trying to BLANK BLANK polar bears, which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans, caused now apparently by [dramatic pause] God’s tears.

Even Jon Stewart knows this global warming stuff does not bode well for the climate change movement, but apparently John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar, doesn’t quite understand the reality of the situation. In testimony before Congress yesterday he clung to the man-made global warming myth explaining:

It is well established that climate is changing in the United States and all across the globe.  The air and the oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass, and sea level is rising. We know the primary cause of these changes beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping pollutants from our factories, our buildings, our vehicles, and our power plants; from farming, cement manufacture, and waste disposal; and from deforestation and other forms of land-use change that move carbon out of soils and vegetation and into the atmosphere.

*************

I want to emphasize that in my judgment and that of the vast majority of other scientists who have seriously studied this matter, the current state of knowledge about it (even though incomplete, as science always is) is sufficient to make clear that failure to act promptly to reduce global emissions to the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping substances is overwhelmingly likely to lead to changes in climate too extreme and too damaging to be adequately addressed by any adaptation measures that can be foreseen.

I wonder whether those science advocates who fraudulently manipulated data so it would match their predetermined political beliefs are the ones who “have seriously studied this matter”? Besides being condescending, Holdren seems to be doing his best to play the part of a Monty Python character. For crying out loud it is NOT a flesh wound, your arm is missing! Mr. Holdren, de Nile is not just a river you know!

The e-mails liberated (either by hacking or some intentional internal disclosure) from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) are all over the Internet and pretty clearly show there was a concerted manipulation of data and a cover-up by those who supposedly “seriously studied this matter.” I won’t go through all of the damning evidence, but a couple really drive home the essential points. These are:

Kevin Trenberth, Climate Scientist

“The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

and

From Phil Jones, the now disgraced head of the CRU who has temporarily stepped aside pending a University investigation, and Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann, who is also being investigated by PSU:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

On top of this, as we approach the UN submit in Copenhagen more and more researchers and scientists are openly questioning the science of man-made global warming.  With the revelations of fraudulent and manipulated data this should only increase.  I have previously cited to a number of scientists, but I will add another skeptic to that growing list. Professor Emeritus Don J. Easterbrook at Western Washington University recently published an article titled Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades. In this article he explains:

  • There has been no global warming in 10 years and there was recording setting cold in 2007-2008.
  • “Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling (Figure 3) on a generally rising trend from the Little Ice Age about 500 years ago.”
  • The IPCC prediction of global temperatures, 1° F warmer by 2011 and 2° F by 2038 (Fig. 1), stand little chance of being correct. NASA’s imagery showing that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007).

There is no consensus on global warming even absent fraudulent, manipulated and self-serving data.  There is evidence that cuts both ways, but now that Michael Mann’s data is being questioned and potentially fraudulent, one must start to question whether the evidence against man-made global warming is not superior.

For crying out loud, we cannot predict the weather for next week with a high degree of certainty, and trying to predict what it will be two weeks out is pure guess work.  We can’t even predict whether a hurricane is going to hit between Miami, Florida and Boston, Massachusetts, or maybe miss the entire East Coast of the US altogether until 24 to 48 hours before landfall.  What makes us think we can predict what will happen in 2011 or 2038 or 2090?  The fact is the parade of horribles have never come true with respect to global warming.  I have no idea whether there is global warming or not, but I certainly know there is evidence on both sides of the debate.  I also know that focusing on a few hundred years or even a thousand years is ridiculous given the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and ridiculous given that over the last 400,000 years ice core data shows the earth was warmer at times than it is now, including a good many times when no humans were around.

Polluting less is a good idea, as is conserving energy, not strip mining natural resources and living responsibly so as to hopefully leave a better planet for the future.  But the path to this obviously common sense approach is not to lie, manipulate and bastardize science; and it is certainly not to force those innovators who have the means and ability to affect desired change to have to forfeit patent rights in the name of saving a planet that doesn’t appear to need saving.

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and President & CEO ofIPWatchdog, Inc.. Gene founded IPWatchdog.com in 1999. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and Of Counsel to the law firm of Berenato & White, LLC. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 171 Comments comments.

  1. Noise above Law December 3, 2009 5:07 pm

    Saw the show and it was DAMN Funny!

  2. Jon December 3, 2009 5:18 pm

    Get a clue. CO2 in the atmosphere reflects infrared energy back to earth, keeping the heat in. It’s not rocket science. The debate only exists because fossil fuel interests are spreading lies about their pollution, much like the cigarette and lead industries do.

  3. Gene Quinn December 3, 2009 6:47 pm

    Jon-

    Get a clue. The debate exists because those pushing global warming science fraudulently manipulated data at least from 1961 forward. The debate exists because real scientists don’t dummy up data in order to push a political agenda. Real science looks at all factors, both good and bad. You simply cannot ignore facts that don’t fit your hypothesis and then fraudulently manufacture data to support your hypothesis. Credibility has been completely lost, and I suspect you know that which is why you provide no substance.

    Does the fact that the globe is cooling and has gone through countless cycles over the last 400,000 years mean nothing to you? Apparently so.

    -Gene

  4. Gene Quinn December 3, 2009 6:50 pm

    Noise-

    Stewart is always funny, even when I disagree with him.

    -Gene

  5. Matt December 3, 2009 7:53 pm

    Just because you don’t like Al Gore doesn’t mean he isn’t right. It is obvious that you can’t keep pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere without effect. In the end, Al Gore will be seen as a visionary; and you will be the dumb naysayer that everyone forgets.

  6. scrappy December 3, 2009 9:43 pm

    “Get a clue. CO2 in the atmosphere reflects infrared energy back to earth”

    Oh right!! Like the earth is a primary source of IR!!!! That “several million degree” core Gore talked about is just about oozing out through the crust. If we can’t radiate away IR through the atmosphere, pretty soon what used to be the polar ice cap will become like a volcanic toaster oven. (I’ll bring the pop tarts – never let a crisis go to waste.)

    ROFL!!!! This should keep us entertained for a while.

  7. step back December 3, 2009 9:58 pm

    Gene,

    Obviously you lean right and I lean left.

    But one thing both of us should admit is that neither of us is a climatology expert.
    The world is a very complicated place.
    Some people want to simplify it by making everything into an “us versus them” game.

    If only you can show that just one of ‘them” made a single mistake, their whole house of cards comes crashing down ha, ha, bwa ha ha. And then by sound logic and “common sense” that proves that “our” side was completely right all along.

    Sounds familiar?
    Probably the anti-patent anti-software guys talk like that all the time.
    The perpetual motion enthusiast crowd (zero pint energy cult) may talk like that also.
    And when you or I find ourselves using the same sound logic, that’s the time to say oh oh.

    I’ve looked at the climatology issue many times. One thing I know is that much of it is very complex and way over my head. A little knowledge is dangerous. I can’t remember basics like which goes above the other, the stratosphere or the other-sphere. So I don’t go pontificating totally for one side over the other.

    It is however a scientific fact that CO2 absorbs in the IR band. It is a scientific fact that CO2 ppm has been going up in a straight line since the start of the industrial age . It is a fact that we are in a solar flare low period. (Supposedly 2013 is the next peak in the 11 year solar cycle.) The cautionary principle says we shouldn’t just pooh pooh it and laugh at Chicken Little every time. Sometimes Chicken Little is right. (And BTW, Al Gore never said he invented the internet. But if you repeat a lie often enough, ….)

    Cheers.

  8. Pissed off Programmer December 3, 2009 9:58 pm

    -Gene

    I never thought I would say this, but I actually agree with you 100% on an issue. I have read the IPCC scientific report (there are several different ones), and I honestly can’t believe how bad it is. I think it’s a lot like the bible, nobody reads it so they don’t’ realize how ridiculous it is, but that is another story.

    I used to tell people that the computer models that convince everybody that Global Warming is real can’t reproduce recorded data from the past, but it looks like they are hard at work making sure nobody can prove that anymore. I guess that’s just good science for you, if you can’t make it fake it. What a bunch of bullshit, I’m glad these morons are getting outed. It won’t do much for the real zealots, but it’s a step in the right direction. Thank you John Stewart!

  9. Gene Quinn December 3, 2009 10:01 pm

    POP-

    It seems that maybe we aren’t so different after all! We may disagree on patent policy, we can certainly agree that this is a step in the right direction.

    -Gene

  10. the zohan December 3, 2009 10:01 pm

    Ah Scrappy bubinsky,

    You and I should take a vacation to the planet Venus one day soon so that we can laugh about the CO2 effect.

    Your friend in hummus and not-so hummorous,
    The Zohan

    p.s. stay away from the hot tchena sauce

  11. Jon December 3, 2009 10:08 pm

    scrappy –

    Take a science class. Visible light is transparent thru CO2. It hits the earth, heats it up and IR light then leaves the earth. CO2 is hazy in the IR spectrum, reflecting some of it back to earth. Haven’t you ever gone camping? When it’s clear, its cold, when it’s cloudy, its warm at night.

  12. the zohan December 3, 2009 10:13 pm

    Jon,

    That’s water vapor reflection,
    a different phenomenon

  13. Jon December 3, 2009 10:21 pm

    Gene –

    How much is exxon paying you for each post?

    Those countless cycles all had identifiable mechanisms, inclination of the pole axis changes, the orbit of the earth changes, different concentrations of various gases in the atmosphere, variations in the suns output, etc. We should be in a cooling period now but WE are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere thus placing us in a warming cycle. Just because the earth is not has hot as it was in 1998 doesn’t mean it’s not absorbing more energy than its dissipating. Do you follow the stock market? There are many peaks and valleys in a bull market.

  14. Jon December 3, 2009 10:22 pm

    Zohan

    CO2 and water vapor both reflect IR

  15. Gene Quinn December 3, 2009 10:24 pm

    Jon-

    Exxon is not paying me anything, although they probably should. I am, however, more than happy to expose the truth and people like you for free!

    Which part of fraudulently manipulating data do you find acceptable? Which part of the earth being in a cooling period presently (which you deny without evidence and contrary to evidence) is confusing?

    The better question is who is paying you and why do you find it acceptable to ignore truth?

    -Gene

  16. Gene Quinn December 3, 2009 10:31 pm

    Step back-

    You seem to have finally lost it completely and are imploding. What do anti-software patent advocates and perpetual motion have to do with the fact that global warming data seems to have been fraudulently manipulated in order to achieve a political goal? What part of scientists making up data, squelching debate and political leaders with an agenda forcing bad science is acceptable to you?

    I don’t profess to be a climate expert, but I know facts when I see them. There are plenty of facts that suggest man-made global warming is nonsense, and now the data showing it exists is known to be fabricated. Looks like we know who the fakes are now if you ask me.

    The one thing you are right about is sometimes Chicken Little is right, and he was right this time as well. Those who were running around trying to get the truth out have finally succeeded and the frauds won’t be able to steal the debate and politicize science any more.

    As for Al Gore, we all know what he said. He said he created the Internet. Whether he used the term “invented” or not is a funny thing to stake any claim or reputation on. Gore is a habitual liar, or in all fairness to him it might be better to say he operates with careless disregard to the truth, which might not make him a liar, but certainly means he has some real demons in the attic. The latest is when he said the core of the earth is several million degrees. Really? I am sure folks will eventually delete all audio and video evidence of that on the Internet. For now it is available at:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc

    Enjoy!

    -Gene

  17. Jon December 3, 2009 10:35 pm

    Gene –

    Nobody is paying me. And manipulating data is not acceptable to me either. It’s just that we determined that the extra CO2 we are placing in the atmosphere will cause the globe to absorb more energy than it dissipates quite awhile ago. And it has been confirmed many times, by many different people and by many different mechanisms. You can accept the science that makes computers run, but you can’t accept the science that says CO2 reflects IR back to earth, because it’s ‘inconvenient’ for you.

    It’s a completely different problem than forecasting the weather, forecasting is a harder problem.

  18. Gene Quinn December 3, 2009 10:35 pm

    Matt-

    You are 100% correct. Just because I don’t like Gore makes him incorrect. What makes him incorrect is that he is wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Insofar as who will be viewed as a visionary or dumb naysayer, the only visions Gore seems to have dancing in his head are the next grandiose fabrication he will portray as fact. The cat is out of the bag and everyone around the world sees Gore and his cronies for what they are. As far as calling me a dumb naysayer, be my guest. Every time that label has been placed on me I have been proven correct. This time will be no exception.

    -Gene

  19. step back December 4, 2009 5:54 am

    >>Quinn (a.k.a. GQ): “I don’t profess to be a climate expert, but I know [[all the]] facts when I see them. There are plenty of facts that suggest man-made global warming [[ AGW ]] is nonsense, and now [[ ALL ]] the data showing it exists is known to be [[totally]] fabricated. Looks like [[“]]WE[[“]] know who the fakes are now [[Hint: meaning you people]] –if you ask me.”

    StepBack (a.k.a. SB): Well at least you admit that, like me, you are no expert in climatology.

    You know, when we patent attorneys meet up; we laughingly ask each other: What type are you? EE, ME or ChemE? As if that is going to tell us everything we need to know about the other fellow –except, err, that now a days you have to add: or gal because there are many more female patent attorneys and you have to add to your question: or are you Computer Science or BioTech or … (something else) because the world has become a much more complicated place. There are so many new flavors of patent attorney.

    (SB continued): And after the other person answers, for example, “I’m a Chem E”; you can kind of figure out that if you show that person a schematic of a simple computer circuit, their eyes will pop out because it’s all “gobbledygook” to them. And versa visa, if they show you a simple chemical reaction, your eyes will suck back into your skull the minute you see a few free radicals floating around.

    (SB continued): The point I’m trying to make in the above long winded way is that none of us is a Mr. Know-It-All. (Only Bullwinkle Moose holds that title.)

    And so when Jon Stewart says with mock in tone (in the video upthread) that Global Warming has been “completely debunked” you need to pick up on the mock in his voice. However, if you are a right wing conspiracy nut, you won’t. You’ll hear him as speaking the Lord’s holy truth.

    On the other hand, when Stewart later mocks Senator Inhofe (patron saint of the AGW denialists) in his same video, that part will probably wash right over your rightways-slanted head as if Stewart hadn’t said it at all. (He did. Play it again Sam and this time listen carefully. Stewart is mocking everybody. No prisoners are being taken in the video. This is what comedians do.)

    >> GQ: You [[SB]] seem to have finally lost it completely and are imploding. What do anti-software patent advocates and perpetual motion [[people]] have to do with THE FACT that [[ALL]] global warming data seems to have been fraudulently manipulated in order to achieve a political goal? What part of scientists making up data, squelching debate, and [[of]] political leaders with an agenda [[aka Al Gore]] forcing bad science is acceptable to you?

    SB: Fraud by any scientist (or other person) is not acceptable to me.

    (SB continued): “Bad science” by other persons (i.e. Inhofe and friends at Fox) is also not acceptable to me.

    As I have repeatedly said, a little knowledge is dangerous.
    You and I are entering the danger zone because neither of us knows much about climatology.

    The same is true when our well meaning Computational Theory friends start spouting about patent law and why all “software patents” should be abolished. You and I can instantly see that they don’t know what they are talking about. But trust me; they don’t see it. They sincerely believe in what they are saying and they look at you and me the way you look at Al Gore. They are 101% sure they hold the superior understanding of things and that we (meaning you and I when it comes to the software patents debate) are the money-grubbing political frauds.

    So when it comes to GW or AGW and that smug attitude of yours about it, may I suggest a little humble pie look into the mirror? Do you see Al Gore staring back at you? The software patent abolitionists say absolutely yes. That’s the connection.

    So, No. I’m not imploding.

    Cheers.

  20. scrappy December 4, 2009 6:05 am

    Oh goody, now we have a camping climate scientist. Might as well raise the white flag.

    [Waving.]

    Hey Jon, ever camped in the desert? There seems to be a lot of reflected IR in the day and none at night, almost like the earth changes temperatures. Wussup with dat? (Probably has something to do with the daytime CO2 hoarding, ehh?)

    Hey I heard Al Gore isn’t going to make it to his $1000 per plate (for him) reception in Copenhagen….

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/03/oh-my-al-gore-bails-on-lecture-at-copenhagen/

  21. step back December 4, 2009 6:07 am

    SB said : “>> You and I are entering the danger zone because neither of us knows much about climatology.”

    SB continued: Just to prove the point, I had an instant moment of doubt when I tried to politely correct Jon upthread about the difference between water vapor reflection and CO2 absorption.

    Was I correct? Does CO2 “absorb” or does it reflect? How sure am I about that fundamental piece of the science? Not very sure at all. So I had to go look it up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere

    Now thanks to the miracle of 50/50 guess work, it turns out I was correct. CO2 is a “strong absorber” in the IR band. On the other hand, water vapor is a wide band “reflector”.

    Do I know that science cold?
    No.

    Am I a ChemE?
    No.
    I’m an EE if you haven’t already guessed.

    And just because I slept one night at that brand name motel, that does not make me an expert in climatology. I freely admit it.

    Now it’s you turn Gene.
    Admit it also.
    We have walked arm in arm into the “little knowledge is danger” zone.

  22. scrappy December 4, 2009 6:22 am

    “Take a science class. Visible light is transparent thru CO2.”

    Hey Jon, thanks for the advice. Could you please take a logic class or an English class? I just can’t parse your sentence (though perhaps right-wing rigor mortis has set in on my brain, Go Sarah!)

    “Visible light is transparent”

    Would that make it invisible then? Just sayin’.

    “light is transparent thru CO2.”

    Did you mean CO2 is transparent to visible light? I hope you’re not trying to write claims for anyone….

  23. Mark Nowotarski December 4, 2009 7:26 am

    One of the things I’ve found is that government regulation of emissions is a very powerful motivation for innovation…..and good for the patent business.

  24. Pissed off Programmer December 4, 2009 7:48 am

    -SB

    “The same is true when our well meaning Computational Theory friends start spouting about patent law and why all “software patents” should be abolished. You and I can instantly see that they don’t know what they are talking about.”

    Notice I didn’t add any extra comments to your quote in a smug effort to talk down to you. If you are trying to claim that patent lawyers who deal with computers are more knowledgeable about software than computer scientists, then I am afraid you have completely gone off your rocker. Greedy software companies who are run by non computer scientists and non programmers will gladly suck up as many patents as they can get their hands on because it gives them an unfair business advantage.

    I tried to articulate in an article further down where Gene is attacking software abolitionists that all algorithms are processes and that patents shouldn’t be required to protect software processes because if copyright law was doing its job, it would protect software processes automatically. We are just tired of vague, non technical, non algorithmic descriptions getting rubber stamped through the USPTO and greedy anti-competitive companies suing people over stealing their ideas, but not their processes. It seems to me that if you are going to patent a process, you need to describe the process, and since every algorithm IS the process, and all algorithms that implement the same process must be identical, then all you need is A algorithm that defines the process, and rest with follow through copyright.

    People have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that computers don’t run any code that programmers type. All computer code, written in every language, is re-factored into machine code before it is run on the computer. The only possible way this system can work is if the re-factored machine code is identical in function to the original, otherwise the whole system is useless and we would all have to go back to writing machine code again.

    You may protest, but it isn’t the same code! Patents are required to protect the process over every variation of its implementation. Let me ask you this, is it really different code? If I translate a book into Turkish, does that allow me to circumvent copyright? It’s still the same book, and spoken language translations are much looser than computer code translations. Why it is that people think that computer code is special in this way I don’t understand. A program written in C++ or Pascal or any other language that implements Warshall’s algorithm (for example), is still Warshall’s algorithm. War and Peace is still War and Peace in English or Turkish.

    And since you seem to think that a patent lawyer knows more about the field he services than the professionals working in it, why not just switch over to climate patents and then you can be a real expert on climatology? [[ /sarcasm ]]

  25. scrappy December 4, 2009 8:59 am

    Mark, it’s a powerful motivator and a powerful deterrent. It moves industry the way the government says industry should go, and stymies progress in all other areas.

    Take the Clean Air Act and catalytic converters, for instance. Yeah, every car now uses the 1960s-based technology to diaper its engine (and South Africa and other bastions for human rights have been made wealthy from precious metal sales that our government is driving), but what about the technologies the Clean Air Act killed?

    Lean burn engines could be made today that get 70 mpg with 1980s (expired patent) technology, and they would put out half the evil CO2 of a stoichiometric burner (i.e., every gas engine today) and a ton less pollutants than every diesel. But guess what, they also put out nitrogen oxides (NOx), a necessary by product of combustion in the presence of extra air. And NOx is considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

    [Of course, Detroit and Gubment Motors make more profits, or incurs less losses rather, by selling gas-guzzling SUVs with catalytic converters, rather than developing NOx strippers, so that is the way the Clean Air Act necessarily played out. After all, GM isn’t in the business of making cars – they’re in the business of making money.]

    The government made a decision that NOx was evil and CO2 was not way back when: it therefore spawned one profitable, wasteful industry (SUV-cum-diaper production) while killing another ([c]lean burn engines), all while increasing our dependence on foreign fossil fuels. But hindsight is 20-20.

    So, shouldn’t these government decisions be based on open science rather than religion and economics? Unfortunately, it seems no one in leadership has a clear vision.

  26. A curmudgeon December 4, 2009 10:46 am

    Global warming is an indisputable fact, not a myth, as anyone can see for themselves in hugely shrunk or eliminated glaciers all over the world that have been there for recorded history, and rapidly reducing ice cover on Greenland [not seen since the 14th century] and at the poles.
    The only legitimate debate is over how much of that climate change is man-made, and what could actually be effectively done about it without other adverse consequences.
    Unfortunately we seem to have a large population that will believe almost anything they hear or see on the internet or from scientifically illiterate radio or TV commentators [who can make millions with extremist or paranoid scare stories or unrealistic proposals]. We also seem to have some scientists and others with no training in, or sense of, the UMC, infrastructure, engineering, and other serious reality issues with some of their alleged scientific proposals.

  27. Just visiting December 4, 2009 11:57 am

    “if copyright law was doing its job, it would protect software processes automatically.”
    Honestly, I read and reread your entire post, and I still don’t get the point you are trying to make.

    “We are just tired of vague, non technical, non algorithmic descriptions getting rubber stamped.”
    Rubber stamped? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah You have no f’ing clue what you are talking about.
    As for being vague, you are going to have to ask the Examiners for help on that. They are all trained in the relevant arts. If they can understand what is going on, then you can.

  28. Just visiting December 4, 2009 12:02 pm

    Ahhhh Gene … if you want to start a political blog, don’t let me stop you — all I ask is that you keep it separate from your patent-related blogging. The vast majority of the responses to this particular post have nothing to do with patent law, and I’m not here for partisan politics. I recognize that patents can be “political” they are rarely partisan.

  29. step back December 4, 2009 12:48 pm

    >> PoP said: “If you are trying to claim that patent lawyers who deal with computers are more knowledgeable about software than computer scientists, then I am afraid you have completely gone off your rocker.”

    @Pop,
    IF I were saying that, THEN you would be right AND I would be off my rocking chair and foaming saliva into the dirt.

    ELSE however, I was not saying that. I was saying the world is complex. Software is complex. Climatology is complex. Chemistry is complex. Electronics is complex. The human mind is complex.

    When I meet up with an inventor, there is no way that I can assume I know more about his (or her) craft than he/she does. I have no doubt you can run circles around me in C++.

    At the same time, and in similar vein, when you as a programmer start spouting about IP (Intellectual Property) law and more specifically about the subset thereof known as copyrights and patents, it becomes very clear to many of us who practice day in day out in those areas that you are woefully unknowledgeable in these areas. Well meaning, but unknowledgeable and thus wrong. (As for copyright, let me say one thing: clean room.)

  30. Pissed off Programmer December 4, 2009 1:35 pm

    -Just Visiting

    The point that I am trying to get across is that all algorithms ARE PROCESSES. There are a limited amount of (mathematical) operations that a processor can perform. All programs are never executed on a computer. They must be re-factored into machine code that uses the limited set of operations available to the processor. There are many different ways of writing the same thing. An algorithm written in two different languages is actually the same program. It is possible they will both compile into the same machine code, and if they don’t, the two sets of machine code instructions can be re-factored to be identical. If the machine code can’t be re-factored into each other, then they aren’t the same algorithm, and not the same process.

    You can’t take a book, translate it into another language, and then claim it is a different book. It is equally absurd, to me, that an algorithm written in a different language is a different algorithm. Copyright allows for protection of expression. There are special rules for software, music, books, libraries, along with many other things so it isn’t like the copyright law isn’t robust. Basically the way things are now everybody in the legal system treats (9\9) as different from the number 1.

    This idea that two separate algorithms written in separate languages can somehow implement the same process is absolutely ridiculous. All programs are algorithms and all algorithms are processes. If a “process” is generic enough that it can have more than one implementation, then it isn’t really a process.

    I would like to see software patents eliminated and copyright for software changed and reduced to around 10 years.

  31. Gene Quinn December 4, 2009 3:52 pm

    Just visiting-

    I think I will keep writing the same way I have. If you haven’t noticed, readership is up dramatically. Whether you believe patents are partisan or not is of no concern to me. There is plenty of partisan nonsense going on in the patent world, and now it is coming from the left. The ACLU lawsuit is utter nonsense, and the thought that we should give away patent rights in a climate deal is also crazy — even more so given that the globe is not warming.

    -Gene

  32. Gene Quinn December 4, 2009 3:58 pm

    A curmudgeon-

    You say: “Global warming is an indisputable fact…”

    Obviously you did not read the article and you are unfamiliar with what is going on, or you are clinging to the lies of the past. The whole point is that global warming is NOT a fact at all. You cannot call something fact that is not happening. The truth is the temperature data was falsified. So while you may believe it is acceptable to live in a cave and ignore reality I choose to live in the real world where facts matter. You know, facts that are not fraudulently manipulated in order to achieve a world order that is consistent with the political philosophy of those who fudge data.

    You say: “Unfortunately we seem to have a large population that will believe almost anything they hear or see on the internet…”

    I couldn’t agree with you more. You are, of course, 100% correct. Which is surprising given the comments you made previously about global warming being fact. I wouldn’t expect you to make such a ridiculously false statement and then immediately realize we live in a world where people will believe almost anything. Of course, what is the real tragedy is that people like you believe the lies you have been told and in the face of admissions and overwhelming evidence are clinging to a hoax perpetrated by fraudulent data. Truly sad.

    -Gene

  33. Gene Quinn December 4, 2009 4:15 pm

    Step-

    Unlike you, I am not entering a danger zone. I know fraud when I see it. I also know there is plenty of evidence that cuts against global warming, like the fact that the globe is NOT warming (for example). Mann’s hockey stick seems to be complete fiction, and they cannot explain real temperature changes. So that clearly means they don’t have the answer, there is something missing, yet they want the entire world to change and are willing to bastardize science and perpetrate lies and ruin careers and economies.

    Why you cannot open your eyes and see what is really going on here is beyond me, but I really don’t care to figure out your motivations. The world knows the truth now, and that is all that really matters in the end. Although I must confess to getting a chuckle out of your comments regarding Stewart. You have completely lost it if you think his mocking tone means he thinks global warming is real. Everyone knows there is no reason to falsify data and everyone knows you cannot dummy-up data and then rely on it in an intellectually honest way. Of, perhaps I should say everyone except for you and other zealots who don’t care that it was falsified. It still tells the story you want.

    By the way, my head is not slanted right, but thanks for the concern. It has been truly funny hearing all the right-wing garbage thrown at me. I can’t remember, but did you have trouble with me going after Bush, Dudas and others over the last several years? Oh, right, of course not, but now that I am going after your guy Obama et al and liberal wackos who want to give away patents and destroy our economy I am a right wing zealot. How can you hold such ridiculous views in your head all at the same time? Does it cause your head to hurt?

    -Gene

  34. step back December 4, 2009 6:33 pm

    Gene,

    Actually I haven’t followed your blog much in the past.

    However, lately I have found it interesting and entertaining.

    Thank you for the good quality work.

    As for GW, I’m more aware than perhaps I let on. However, I am no expert by a long shot and thus I prefer to stay out of the debate. There is something called Global Dimming. It is a mechanism that is bucking against Global Warming and scientists have known about GD (Global Dimming) for quite some time. There are also El Ninos and La Nina’s and solar activity cycles and Earth orbit cycles, etc., etc. So the picture gets quite messy. If you put out all those messages to the lay public they will just freeze up like deer in the headlights. Right now it appears that GW is winning the battle as the dominant operating mechanism. So the scientists say watch out for GW. I know you don’t believe it because who ya gonna believe? Your lying eyes or those stooped-in-it climate scientists? I can empathize with your feelings although I don’t share your conclusion.

    Anyway, since the Copenhagen conferences are coming up soon, this has been an interesting blog post. Thanks.

  35. Gene Quinn December 4, 2009 7:16 pm

    Step-

    I see absolutely no reason anyone could conclude that global warming is winning given new revelations that the data has been manipulated dating back to at least 1961 to hide cooling trends.

    I know well about all the other theories and problems. For a long time solar activity was not at all considered relevant by global warming activists because it doesn’t fit a man-made global warming model nicely if something like the sun influences climate. There are plenty of things that go into this picture and it does seem logical that man is contributing, but as you point out it is extremely complex. What I would love to see is an open and honest debate that takes into consider all facts, good and bad both ways, and which doesn’t rely on vilification of those who dissent and doesn’t rely on manipulated, fraudulent data.

    I also would like to see more energies put into understanding why the last 10,000 years are the only period of time in which the Earth’s climate was relatively constant and livable. I suspect if we pursue that we will learn much about our current climate and future climate. It has bothered me for a long time that global warming activists drown out dissent and attempt to actively ruin careers, and now it has all been a sham.

    I continue to maintain that polluting less is good, as is energy conservation, energy independence and technologies that can reduce the footprint of man on the planet. The way to achieve that is through innovation, and to reward the risk takers and investors with patents.

    Cheers to you as well!

    -Gene

  36. step back December 4, 2009 9:09 pm

    Gene–

    The climate has not been consistent over the last 10,000 years.

    Extreme climate change is believed to have led to the collapse and basic extinction of many a civilization. Have you read Jared Diamond’s book, “Collapse”?

    Also have you read this month’s Scientific American about methane bubbles in Siberia?

    I agree with you that it would be wonderful if some super-genius inventor out there comes up with the next great thing that can solve all our problems. It’s just that sometimes the Tooth Fairy doesn’t come.

    Have a good weekend!

  37. The Mad Hatter December 5, 2009 1:16 am

    Gene,

    I’m really sorry that you don’t understand what is happening. Because it is important, but not for the reasons you think it is.

    What we have is a bunch a scientists behaving like school boys. Page 3 girl hung above their desks, clannish rivalries, etc. This is all we have.

    Yes, some people were playing with numbers, bloody well have known that they shouldn’t. This doesn’t change the basics. Climate Change is here, and unless we reduce emissions (and it’s not just Carbon Dioxide that’s the problem, other emissions have an effect), we are going to suffer.

    Let’s take last year for instance. The winter was quite warm where I live, above normal all winter. So if we subtract your weather, which was colder, what do we get? Maybe we should toss in the weather in Cobalt Ontario, or Spokane Washington, and then average it.

    What we did have, and have had more and more over the last ten years, was crazy storms, both rain and snow. This summer was even worse. In our area, we often get no rain at all in July. This year it rained every second day. Why did it do that? Simple, because the weather patterns are messed up. We have a really cool July. And then we had a November that was so warm people were wearing t-shirts (unheard of in Toronto).

    Ignore the emails. As I said, they show nothing other than scientists acting like school boys. Instead look at all the evidence. It’s pretty scary.

  38. Kritter Guy December 5, 2009 3:45 am

    This is my first addition to this blog. To make this short and sweet, SB I agree with you 100%.

    Gene, you sound like every other right winger on the subject of GW. Granted you will reply that SB and myself sound like every left winger who has ever spoken on the subject of GW. The fact is that no matter what anyone says, the other side won’t believe it. Gene, you probably still think that Obama was’t born in this country despite 100% documented proof of his birth certificate. Let me state that I am not insinuating that you’re a Birther, I am just using this to illustrate a point. Let’s forget all the data for a moment, regardless what side one is on. Why not look with one’s own eyes. Isn’t seeing believing? Look at before and after photos and videos of Ice Caps, Polar Ice, Species migration, etc etc. It is abundantly clear that Polar ice caps are melting; Ice caps are breaking up; Seas are rising; Polar Bears and other wildlife are declining and are running out of habitat. Species adapted to warmer temperatures are moving into previously cooler areas. Way too much photo and video evidence to even begin to mention in a blog. Thus how would you explain all this if not GW? Do you not believe what you can see with your own eyes. Forget all the data, just look! Or to push the point, do you still deny Obama’s legitimacy despite an actual photocopy of Obama’s Birth Certificate shown world wide on national television? (Again to eliminate any improper allegations – I am not insinuating the Birther label, just illustrating a point.

    TTFN
    Kritter Guy-

  39. Gene Quinn December 5, 2009 10:51 am

    Mad Hatter-

    I really am sorry you don’t understand what it means to falsify data. I truly feel sorry for you and the fact that you need to cling onto something that was a fraud. I hope you get the help you obviously need.

    -Gene

  40. Gene Quinn December 5, 2009 11:01 am

    Kritter-

    You are too much. You don’t know me at all, yet you feel you can put words in my mouth and then say you are not insinuating anything. You are, of course, right. You are not insinuating anything, you are coming right out and saying it and then in the true liberal way trying to back track so as to seem reasonable. Well… newsflash… you are not reasonable. Why is it so hard to stand up like a man and actually say what you mean without backing down?

    The trouble that you and so many others are having is that it appears pretty clear that the right wing was 100% correct on Global Warming, and that is driving you nuts.

    Thanks for pointing to all the circumstantial evidence, which I know is all you have now given that the scientific data that you all relied upon was false and fraudulently manipulated.

    For anyone with half a brain it is easy to explain all this circumstantial evidence. The earth is an every changing environment, and non-manipulated, non-falsified and 100% true and accurate facts, data and historical evidence prove that. That is why parts of the globe that are now desert were once fertile grounds and areas that are now fertile ground were once desert. Of course you will ignore this historical fact because it doesn’t help make your case, and in fact is further evidence that your arguments are fiction because, after all, changes between desert and fertile ground happened way before man was around and that means way before man-made anything could have caused any problems.

    Just for the record, I never said that Obama was not born in the US. Had he not been born in the US it would have saved the country from the mess he is creating, that is for sure, but I never said that. I do have to wonder though whether you were part of the liberal elite who claimed McCain should not run for President because he was born in a military hospital outside the US. That would seem to fit with your ignorant view of science and ignoring the facts.

    How do you like it when I throw baseless claims at you? Is it fun for you?

    -Gene

  41. Gene Quinn December 5, 2009 11:15 am

    Step-

    Have you looked at the temperature data over the last 10,000 years? I see that you want to focus on the “climate” over the last 10,000 years. That is fine, because as the debate moves from global warming, which was a hoax, to climate change then we can actually address the issues. Certainly the climate has changed and there are likely a lot of reasons for that. It has never been as simple as saying man is destroying the planet. It is awfully arrogant to think that humans have the ability to destroy a planet that has been around for 4.6 billion years.

    The truth is the earth always has and always will have a changing climate. Deserts of the past are where we grow food today, and fertile grounds of the past are now deserts today. The rotation of the earth’s axis changes, the magnetic fields change, solar activity changes and there are undoubtedly numerous things we don’t understand that impact the climate. It has always been fiction to focus on man-made global warming. That hypothesis never was able to predict the past, or the future, and was not consistent with many measurable events.

    I agree with you 100% about the tooth fairy not always coming. That is why we should be using patent policy to help facilitate the creation of the next tooth fairy. We also need to stop being afraid of nuclear power in the US. If it is good enough for Iran and we support a peaceful nuclear power plan in Iran why shouldn’t we support the same here? It is clean and it makes us energy independent.

    Have a good weekend. Hopefully we will be back at it next week… perhaps on a different thread 🙂

    -Gene

  42. The Mad Hatter December 5, 2009 12:36 pm

    Gene,

    1) It hasn’t been proved that any data was faked.

    2) If data was faked, does the faked data actually have any effect.

    If you think Climate Change isn’t a problem, go talk to the Inuit. They are seeing things that those of us who live in more temperate clients don’t.

    Wayne aka The Mad Hatter

  43. Kritter Guy December 5, 2009 5:02 pm

    Gene-

    Fly off the handle easily do you. NO I was not accusing you of being a Birther and I was not back tracking to make myself sound reasonable. You are on the right and thus I used the Birther analogy specifically because many on the right stuck to their beliefs despite seeing with their own eyes. We may wholeheartedly disagree on Global Warming, but you like any intelligent person can make your argument. Any any person who can make a case for themselves right or wrong could not be a Birther. However, you did prove my point. You are ignoring what is actually happening despite it going on around you.

    You stated in your last comment to SB:
    “Certainly the climate has changed and there are likely a lot of reasons for that. It has never been as simple as saying man is destroying the planet. It is awfully arrogant to think that humans have the ability to destroy a planet that has been around for 4.6 billion years.
    The truth is the earth always has and always will have a changing climate.”

    You have been saying all along that Global Warming is a hoax. Then in your own statement state that climate has changed and the earth will always have climate change.” So which is it? There is clear evidence all around us that the Earth is getting warmer over time. Climate as you state is changing. Thus what you are actually saying is that Global Warming or Climate Change is a fact but it’s natural and not Man Made. That is a different argument. You then go on to say that ” It is arrogant to think that humans have the ability to destroy a planet…..” Again do you not see what is around you? Man is leveling forests all over the world, destroying wetlands, polluting rivers at an ever increasing rate. Species are going extinct and/or becoming extremely endangered do to Man’s ability to destroy their habitat. Once a species is gone it’s gone, can’t lie about that data. If you don’t think that our on going destructive activity whether if be destroying habitats or polluting does not affect everything around us, then you’re looking but not seeing.

    However you are right – Man cannot destroy a planet that has been around for 4.6 billion years- However Man can destroy everything living on this planet including himself and our actions are headed in that direction. Earth will survive long after our demise. It will start over. Dinosaurs existed billions of years. They got wiped out and life started over again. Man has existed a nanosecond of that time. If we have any intention of surviving even a fraction more of that time, we need to alter our actions or suffer the consequences. Thus I argue that what largely is occurring on our planet is caused my humans.

    Kritter

  44. Gene Quinn December 5, 2009 5:07 pm

    Mad Hatter-

    It has been proved that the data was falsified. The e-mails released clearly show those who were keepers of the data were also the ones who made it up to suit their agenda. An admission is damning evidence.

    Why would anyone fake data unless it wasn’t material? Why would they have admitted they manipulated the data to “hide the decline” unless the real raw data demonstrated no global warming? Why would they think it is a travesty that the man-made global warming hypothesis couldn’t predict or account for the fact that the globe is not warming? Why did they have to go back to 1961 to falsify the data? Why did they delete raw data from the 1980s? It is pretty clear what they did, and thankfully the overwhelming majority of the public (including Jon Stewart) understands what that means.

    It is also interesting how over the years, in the face of data that they could not falsify, the debate has changed from global warming to climate change. There has been no warming over the last decade, and global warming is a fraudulent “scientist” hoax. Climate change has occurred for 4.6 billion years, so the fact that the climate is not static is no great mystery. It has changed countless times before man, and it will continue to change.

    I love how the global warming hoax believers simply cannot accept they have been dupped for so long. I can only imagine how this must be difficult, having put so much belief into a hoax.

    -Gene

  45. scrappy December 5, 2009 5:46 pm

    “Dinosaurs existed billions of years.”

    The dinosaurs were friggin’ CO2 factories. /

  46. Kritter Guy December 5, 2009 7:22 pm

    Scrappy-

    And your point is what?

    There are a lot more people on the planet today at one time than there ever were dinosaurs over those many years. The planet then was covered with forests and foliage all of which absorb CO2. Due to man a heck of lot less of the green stuff around to do the job.

  47. scrappy December 5, 2009 7:57 pm

    Not only that Kritter, but even millenea after they died, they’re still victimizing us and producing CO2 when they tempt us to burn the fossil fuels that they themselves produced.

    Where were the dino-condoms when we needed them? /sarc (Bolded, in case Kritter can’t tell a sarc tag when he sees it.)

  48. Gene Quinn December 5, 2009 8:02 pm

    Kritter-

    You can argue all you want, but you have no evidence to support you and I know that is killing you.

    You did accuse me, just in a liberal-typical kind of way so it was plausibly deniable.

    I am not denying what is going on around me, I just like to look at facts. That was, after all, what the global warming advocates wanted to do right up until the facts that have been relied on all these decades turned out to be man-made. Oh… the irony!

    -Gene

  49. Just visiting December 5, 2009 9:50 pm

    “You can’t take a book, translate it into another language, and then claim it is a different book. It is equally absurd, to me, that an algorithm written in a different language is a different algorithm.”

    OK … no argument here on both accounts.

    “This idea that two separate algorithms written in separate languages can somehow implement the same process is absolutely ridiculous. All programs are algorithms and all algorithms are processes. If a ‘process’ is generic enough that it can have more than one implementation, then it isn’t really a process.”

    OK. I have no idea what the relevance of the first statement I reproduced is to your second statement.

    So, let’s work outside the computer arts. Let’s take the example of:
    A method of writing, comprising:
    obtaining a pencil encasing a graphite core;
    sharpening the pencil to expose the graphite core; and
    dragging the graphite core across a piece of paper.

    There are dozens of different ways that the pencil can be sharpened (i.e., more than one implementation). As such, would you argue that this isn’t really a process?

    “I would like to see software patents eliminated and copyright for software changed and reduced to around 10 years.”
    If you are worrying about software copyrights, then you are in sorry shape. It is the EASIEST thing in the world to get around a copyright to a software. It isn’t as easy as copying the software outright, but that is what copyright law is supposed to accomplish – prevent copying. As for limiting software patents to 10 years, do you have any justification for halving the time period? Could Patentees then only pay 1/2 the fees. Also, what is a “software patent”? I would LOVE to see this definition.

  50. Just visiting December 5, 2009 10:22 pm

    “You can argue all you want, but you have no evidence to support you and I know that is killing you.”

    I don’t believe any sane scientist on either side would say that “you have no evidence to support you.”

    You can debate over the methodology used to collect the data (i.e., evidence) what it actually means, but you cannot argue that no evidence exists to support that climate change is happening and it is at least, in part, attributable to the actions of human beings.

    Also, the fact that somebody allegedly faked data (whatever that data happens to be) doesn’t mean that all other data from entirely different sources looking at entire different variables is now debunked.

    As noted earlier, this is a very complicated subject. Despite the billions and billions and billions of dollars invested both governments and private industries alike to predict short-term weather patterns, we still get lousy local weather forecasts. The problem is simply there are too many variables and not enough equations (or models including the variables). Knowing that we cannot even predict the climate over a short period and for a localized area, you can image that predicting the climate for the Earth, as a whole, over a longer period of time is considerable difficult.

    For you, I, or anybody else posting on this board to believe that they know, with any certainty, that global warning or climate change (as those terms are used by those skilled in the art) is partially the result of human actions (or not) is just fooling themselves. Like most people, our beliefs are based upon who (among the experts) we believe.

    Gene — if you were to present a position, based upon pure science, and not chock full of the partisan rhetoric, people might actually take you seriously. However, we you sound like a sound bite from Rush, Glenn Beck, or Fox News, your credibility takes a big hit.

    A little vignette, besides being a patent attorney, I also like to garden. I’m planting some trees, and I want to make sure I have the correct hardiness zone chart. I recalled that there was to be a new map issued. I searched and searched for the map and I kept finding the old map. Eventually, I learned that the new map I remembered wasn’t approved by the USDA back in 2003 — with some saying that the map wasn’t approved because it showed a warmer climate, which was not something the then current administration didn’t want to put a stamp of approval on.

    Apparently, the National Arbor Day Foundation completed an extensive updating of the U.S. Hardiness Zones in 2006, utilizing the same data rejected in 2003, which includes 15 years of data from the 5,000 National Climatic Data Center cooperative stations in the US. The new map (while showing changes from the old map) can be found here:

    http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

    The map shows some interesting evidence. What it means is open to debate, but you cannot deny that it is evidence.

  51. Kritter Guy December 5, 2009 11:28 pm

    Gene-

    You are so missing the point. Scientists are scientists and there has been fudging on both sides for many years. Facts are just theory that can be proven or dis-proven. The proof is what is around you! There is no better data than what is occurring around the planet that you can physically see and witness.

    You mentioned that it is arrogant to think that Humans can destroy the planet. No, what is arrogant is that Humans can think they can reap and pillage the planet without causing harm. There are consequences for our actions. We see it every day in every aspect of our lives and to think there are no consequences for our actions in terms of how we treat our planet and the other living things in which we share the Earth, than that is truly Arrogant. Everything is inter-connected. We are all a part of interwoven eco-systems.

    So again the proof is what is occurring around us. Just look and see.

    And again I did not accuse you and I’m sorry you took it that way. Again, it was just an analogy based on the right wing views of an issue. It had nothing to do with being Liberal, Moderate or Conservative.

    And for the record, I like John McCain. Had the Republicans had the common sense to nominate him back in 2000 instead of Bush, we would not be in the horrible situation we are in today. You may not like Obama or his way of dealing with the current crises, but don’t forget who dealt him this hand. I would not envy anyone who had to take over Democrat, Republican or Independent. The only thing I fault McCain for is bringing Palin into the light and unleashing her onto mankind. By the way McCain has always supported environmental protection and GW/CC.

    Have a good weekend-

  52. The Mad Hatter December 6, 2009 12:57 am

    Gene,

    I understand exactly what it means to falsify data. I also understand that there is no proof that this has happened, at least in this particular instance.

    And we do have solid proof that Climate Change is an issue. If you look at the frequency and severity of storms over the last 10 years, as against eh frequency and severity of storms in the decades before, you will see that there has been an increase.

    I could explain the reasons for this, and the consequences, but you wouldn’t understand it, you don’t have the background. So I’m going to have to say, trust me on this. The problem is real. It isn’t going away.

    And even if it wasn’t real, why waste fuel? We are going to run out at some point. Buying an Electric or Hybrid car for instance would make a huge difference to your household’s energy use, which also has military advantages.

  53. Kritter Guy December 6, 2009 4:13 am

    My dearest Mad Hatter and Step-

    The sad thing is we can show physical evidence over and over and over again. We could list the thousands of species that have become extinct, and thousands more on the brink due to habitat destruction and pollution by man. We can show the increase and severity of storms. We can show low lying land masses being covered by water and hundreds and thousands of people being displaced. We can show physical proof till we are blue in the face. It just won’t matter. They will keep the blinders on.

    However, lets look at it from their point of view. Lets assume there is no global warming/climate change. Then we must be mistaken and Polar Bear numbers are as high as they were 20 years ago. Mount Kilimanjaro is still snow covered. The polar caps are not breaking up. The seas haven’t risen several inches. Thus all the pictures, videos, and live camera footage must have been photoshopped by evil scientists trying to pad their statistics. WOW – I’m relieved. OR – There is climate change, the changes we see are real and increasing but it’s just nature doing it’s thing no fault of human kind. In that case, there is nothing we can do to slow down or stop the progression. We are as endangered as all the other species and our time on this planet is extremely limited. So much for worrying about our children’s children. It ain’t going to matter. We might as well live for the now and continue our assault on our planet, since we’re not affecting anything anyhow. Who cares in 100 or so years, we will cease to exist. Now that is damn depressing.

    OR we can take responsibility for our actions. Realize that humans are contributing to the planetary and atmospheric changes. Realize that there are repercussions and consequences to our actions and try to do whatever we can to slow down or reverse the damage that has been done. But that’s the logical approach, who needs that!

    In the words of Jim Rome – I’m Out!

  54. step back December 6, 2009 7:07 am

    KG-

    To all that stuff you mentioned; yes.

    And in particular to the part about “However, lets look at it from their point of view.”, that latter piece of the puzzle is what fascinates me most. Why are “they” the way they are? Why is it that probably forever “They will keep the blinders on”?

    But in asking this I immediately posit that “we” (the Lilliputians who open our AGW eggs on the yes it’s true side) must –under the laws of relativity– appear to be doing exactly the same to “them” (the Lilliputians who open their eggs on the GW is a hoax side). In other words, we appear to them to have our liberal nutcake eater’s blinders on and why can’t we see the “truth” of the hoax? Why are we so irrational in the face of overwhelming evidence that points to the opposite conclusion?

    *That* question is, or should be, of heightened interest to those out there who work as advocates in the role of attorney or patent agent or even as an IP Watchdogging engineer. Why do “other” people believe the insane things they believe and how can I get those people on the other side to change their point of view?

    The number one commonality all of “US” have (meaning big us; both the “them” and the “we”) is that we are human. We have a brain. It is the brain and how it works that makes us what we are and makes the “them” what they are.

    “Just look and see” is what you ask of Gene two posts up.

    But there lies the rub my friend.

    The human brain never did and never can operate that way. First we believe and then we see.

    So if you believe that GW or AGW or CC or AAECC (Anthropogenically Accelerated “Extreme” Climate Change) are all hoaxes, your brain will instantly filter out evidence in support of the contrary and will automatically flag for approving attention, evidence in support of the proposition you already adopted into your family of accepted other beliefs, where all those are things you will never let go of, because to do so would be like casting out a member of your own family.

    Accordingly, for the other side, this “seeing” of the clear truth (namely, that AGW is of course an absolute hoax) will persist even though there are rational parts of the brain that keep nagging away at them with trickle-down bits of reality like:

    >Trees don’t grow to the sky.
    >Santa Claus turned out to be a hoax.
    >Grandpa died.
    >I don’t want to be one of the reindeer on St. Matthews Island.
    >Tom Friedman may have a point when he argues the world is a more crowded, hotter and flatter place than it used to be.
    >Buzz Lightyear has a few gears loose in his caboose when he thinks he can go to infinity and beyond.
    >Never in the history of humankind have there been 6.7 Billion with a capital B of us on this planet –and by the way it sure does look small and finite in that photo taken from the moon even if that photo shows up in that faker’s movie, what’s his name again, oh yeah Al Snore, ha ha ha

    Well these and many more little drips of reality turn out to be –shall we say it?– inconvenient truths that we quickly sweep out of our skulls because they interfere with the belief in perpetual prosperity and in American exceptionalism and in the flag and that God is clearly on our side and will never let bad things happen to us as long as we stay the course and keep working harder and harder in the same way we always did and therefore all those other people are heretics who need to be cast out in the same the way Galileo was. (The Earth is a finite globe that revolves around the sun, yeah right, ha ha. Tell me another lie Pinocchio.)

  55. step back December 6, 2009 7:15 am

    Oops.

    I forgot to conclude the above screed with a tension diffusing joke.

    So this nymphomaniac is out walking in the woods one day when she meets a wooden boy named Pinocchio and ….

    Have a good weekend one and all. 🙂

  56. Gene Quinn December 6, 2009 9:53 am

    JV-

    What exactly is your problem? Why do you continue to try and steal the debate with lies? Does it feel good for you to need to have to manipulate and misrepresent in order to cling to your preconceived notions?

    ‘ou say: “I don’t believe any sane scientist on either side would say that ‘you have no evidence to support you.’ You can debate over the methodology used to collect the data (i.e., evidence) what it actually means, but you cannot argue that no evidence exists to support that climate change is happening and it is at least, in part, attributable to the actions of human beings.”

    Anyone who can read, which sadly doesn’t seem to be a skill you have, knows that I have never disputed climate change. In fact, I have done the contrary. I have explained OVER and OVER and OVER again that in the 4.6 billion year history of the earth the climate has changed repeatedly. I have also pointed out the clear and unambiguous truth that the overwhelming majority of climate changes in the history of the earth came at times when humans were not around. I know you don’t like that because you would prefer to say that climate change is being caused by man.

    What I was referring to was global warming. There is NO evidence of global warming because the globe is NOT warming. Not only is the globe not warming but the data that has been relied upon was falsified.

    Can you please enlighten us as to why you have such a difficult time understanding what it means to falsify data? You do realize that means the data was false and it was all a hoax and lie, correct? Or are you clinging to a belief that has now been disproved by admission of those who falsified data?

    -Gene

  57. Gene Quinn December 6, 2009 9:57 am

    Kritter-

    You say: “You are so missing the point. Scientists are scientists and there has been fudging on both sides for many years. Facts are just theory that can be proven or dis-proven. The proof is what is around you! There is no better data than what is occurring around the planet that you can physically see and witness.”

    You are the one missing the point. Real scientists do not fudge (i.e., fraudulently create) data.

    It is truly humorous that now without any reliable data to support global warming advocates now want to look at circumstantial evidence all around us. When you all had what you believed to be hard, scientific evidence global warming advocates never wanted to look at anything else, and scientists who pointed to other clues were ridiculed and belittled for ignoring the data. The irony is extreme!

    I explained away everything you brought up, yet you are so devoted to the hoax that you will never see reality. I really feel sorry for you.

    -Gene

  58. The Mad Hatter December 6, 2009 10:02 am

    Gene,

    I have no doubt you are a capable lawyer. You are not a scientist. Take a long look at what Kritter Guy, Step Back, and myself have written. A long look. It amazes me how someone who don’t have the education to understand the science, can decide that THEY are right, and that the scientists are wrong.

    But let’s get back to patents. As an engineer, I’ve said several times in the past here that the current patent system doesn’t work. The patent system is supposed to “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”, instead it’s promoting gridlock. I did a study, and over 90% of the patents I read for that study failed the “Obviousness” clause of the regulation (the other 10% were either for subject matter that I didn’t understand, or were scientifically impossible).

    A good example is 6237565. That this case ended up going to the Supreme Court to be settled, is shocking. That the patent was issued in the first case, well, I have my doubts about the mental accuity of the examiner involved.

    These junk patents are a drain on the economy. How much money did it cost to fight 6237565? Where would the company be is that money has have been available to spend on product development? How much money has been wasted on the litigation of junk patents over the last 20 years?

    If I’m right in my claims that 90% of patents are junk patents, which should have never been issued, it’s one hell of a lot of money.

    How about the patents that are “scientifically impossible”, how much money has been raised by venture capitalists for companies whose sole value is a patent that should not have been issued. Like the Dean Drive.

    Instead of inspiring innovation like the Founders had envisioned, the US Patent system has instead inspired greed and gridlock. If you want innovation, go to China.

  59. Gene Quinn December 6, 2009 10:06 am

    Mad Hatter-

    You say: “I understand exactly what it means to falsify data. I also understand that there is no proof that this has happened, at least in this particular instance.”

    Wow! What denial. Of course that is what happened here. Anyone who is objective knows that.

    You say: “And we do have solid proof that Climate Change is an issue.”

    I have never disputed that, and have admitted that. In fact, the earth has changed repeatedly. Even before there were humans changes occurred. In fact, areas that were once fertile are now desert and areas that were desert are now fertile. Most of us understand the environment is complicated and changes in the magnetic fields that surround the earth, changing of the rotation of the globe, the sun and solar radiation and many other things impact the climate. I just don’t understand the arrogance necessary to believe that climate change, which has happened many thousands of times throughout history, is caused by man. Really? Science demands that you start with simple explanations, not exotic explanations because it is almost always the simple explanation. You simply cannot conclude that man is causing this and that the other many thousands of changes of the same sort were caused by something different. Real scientists would not accept that as at all likely, unless of course you are going to fabricate data to meet your predetermined conclusions.

    You say: “And even if it wasn’t real, why waste fuel? We are going to run out at some point. Buying an Electric or Hybrid car for instance would make a huge difference to your household’s energy use, which also has military advantages.”

    I have NEVER disputed this. As a matter of fact, if you read every article I have written on this you will notice that I have repeatedly explained polluting less is better, conservation is better, clean technologies are better as are renewable energy sources. Nevertheless, everyone simply ignores that and would rather put words in my mouth? Why? I really would like to know why anyone has the audacity to lecture me and point the finger at me when you don’t even read what I write?

    -Gene

  60. The Mad Hatter December 6, 2009 10:28 am

    Gene,

    I read what you write. The problem is that what you are writing is nonsense. You don’t understand the science. That’s OK. Not everyone is a scientist, just like not everyone is a lawyer.

    The problem is when a lawyer tries to claim he knows more about science than a scientist. That’s a problem.

  61. Kritter Guy December 6, 2009 11:28 am

    Gne-

    No, it is I who feel sorry for you. There is plenty of real scientific data to support GW/CC. Just because one group of scientists fudged data to support what is going on doesn’t negate the reality of what is happening in the world.

    I was trying to show you that one really doesn’t need scientific theory to prove GW/CC as you just have to look around you, which you fail to grasp.

    Here is a few another analogies. You have a serial killer. The prosecution and everyone else knows he is the killer but gets so entwined in the case they fudge their evidence to link the killer as to convict the felon. The defense finds out and the killer walks. The prosecutors in their mind did the right thing to try to get the killer off the street but erred in their ethics. However it doesn’t make the killer any less the killer.

    Next – You keep stating I am pointing out circumstantial evidence. Same case as above, except this time they don’t need to fudge the evidence because they found the 10 dead bodies. The bodies are not circumstantial evidence and neither is all the evidence I continue to point out to you. All those points that I continue to bring up are like having tons of dead bodies piling up around you.

    You state that you never disputed Climate Change and that is happened over and over again throughout time even before man. Thus it is arrogant to think humans can cause climate change. The earth has existed as you state approximately 4.6 billion years. In that time species have died out, climatic changes did occur. Absolutely! The difference now is the SPEED of which it is occurring. We have existed thousands of years not billions yet the changes we are seeing which took millions of years before is happening in minutes (geologic time).

    Take off the blinders. If you honestly believe that cutting down 90% of the worlds forests has no effect on our planet and pumping tons of pollutants into the air or into our oceans and waterways has no effect on our plant, than it is I who feels sorry for you. It is truly arrogant to think our actions have no consequences!

    But go ahead and again refer to the scientists who fudged the data to justify your thinking that all this “circumstantial” evidence is just a hoax.

  62. Gene Quinn December 6, 2009 12:10 pm

    Mad Hatter-

    It is easy to know more than scientists who fraudulently manipulate and fabricate data.

    You know as well as I do what I am writing is not nonsense, and we both know I understand the science.

    -Gene

  63. Pissed off Programmer December 6, 2009 12:16 pm

    -Just Visiting

    “So, let’s work outside the computer arts. Let’s take the example of:
    A method of writing, comprising:
    obtaining a pencil encasing a graphite core;
    sharpening the pencil to expose the graphite core; and
    dragging the graphite core across a piece of paper.”

    Well, no, I wouldn’t consider that personally as good enough to obtain a patent because it doesn’t tell you how to do anything. Each of those steps can be broken down into their own process and can all be done differently.

    “Sharpening the pencil to expose the graphite core.. ” and how exactly is that accomplished? Does that mean it covers every conceivable way to sharpen a pencil, even if a new way becomes available that is both unique and non- obvious? How about something like…

    Place into a conical metal container that contains an opening and a sharp blade, and turn the pencil inside so that the blade shaves the pencil and ejects the shavings through the opening until the pencil end becomes conical in shape and exposes the graphite inside.

    Using a generic process like you described lets write one up for mining gold.
    A method of mining gold and other metals
    Find a mountain that contains gold or other precious metals
    Move rock and earth to expose the gold and other precious metals.
    Remove the gold and other precious metals, and get filthy rich.

    Obviously I am adding some sarcasm, but the steps in that process are no more valid than yours for writing. All you are doing is defining an idea. There are plenty of problems people would like to solve and plenty of tasks people would like to accomplish, but simply stating the problem or idea in a broken down fashion doesn’t provide any way to actually do it.

    Maybe I am just retarded, but I think a process patent ought to be of sufficient detail that somebody can use it to actually accomplish what the process sets out to accomplish. Why not just say a method for making a bomb and then list one of the steps as … “split an atom”. That doesn’t really help anybody make a bomb does it. How about a process for going to the moon that contains the step… “travel through space”.

  64. Gene Quinn December 6, 2009 12:18 pm

    Kritter-

    Why do you ignore what I write? If you are going to comment could you at least read please!

    Also, please educate us with respect to why you continue to link global warming with climate change? I suspect it is to transition away from the hoax and into climate change so you can continue to make all the same arguments, only this time not supported by evidence. Or should I say not supported by evidence that is not fabricated.

    -Gene

  65. Kritter Guy December 6, 2009 1:45 pm

    Gene-

    I do read what you write. I have quoted you in each of my entries. I wish you would read what I write. I understand that you are stating that these particular scientists fabricated data thus Global Warming is a Hoax. I understand that you are stating that Climate Change has been going on since the beginning of time without human interference. I actually did not even hear of the report you’re referring to until I read your blog. I have not read the entire report. I tend not to listen to news blips without researching the entire story. So until I do, I am not commenting on this report because I don’t know the depth of it. The only comment I will make is that there have been many scientists that have studied the effects of the human impact on our environment and not all studies are interlinked. Thus even if these scientists fudged data, that doesn’t necessarily mean all scientific reports supporting GW are false.

    My point from the beginning was that one can see what is going on around us without any scientist or report telling us. I have made that point very clear.

    First, the reason I link GW and CC change is because GW is a part of CC. It’s not the only part but it is a part. Separate for a moment politics from the natural world. GW was a term used by scientists to describe an effect of CC that they have been documenting over time. Politics got involved and coined the term and then made it a national debate. But CC is more than just GW. Thus now politicians are coining that terminology. The reality is that it goes much deeper than GW or CC. GW is a part of CC and CC is just one (a large one, but just one) part of the bigger picture. We need to quit being lemmings to the politicians and think for ourselves.

    The big picture is the whole environmental picture. All ecosystems, all life on earth is interconnected. When one thing is effected, it affects something else. And it grows.

    Again in my last entry, I stated that yes CC has always been occurring, but it’s the SPEED, in which it’s now occurring which is the problem.

    Again I refer to my last entry where I state it’s not CC that man is directly causing, but the SPEED of which we are impacting. Again if you read my last entry, I quoted you in that the Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years and climate changes, ice ages etc have occurred without human impact. The difference is that it took hundreds of millions of years for those changes to occur. We have existed on this planet for approx. 10 thousand years. Our life span is a nanosecond of a nanosecond. Human existence would equal a few second in time. At the rate in which our planet is currently changing another major climatic change will occur potentially within the next 100 or so years. Humans are the only living creature on this planet that alters the planet without any checks and balances, short of the Earth itself.

    I stated in an earlier entry that yes the Earth will continue to survive long after we are gone. The question remains how long will we exist. Life began again after the Age of Dinosaurs who walked upon this planet for billions of years until a meteor took them out. Are you telling me that Humans and all the creatures we share this planet could not or should not exist just as long? At the rate of environmental change (GW/CC/Habitat loss/SpeciesLoss etc etc etc – whatever name you want to give it or politicize) that we are experiencing, we are not long for this planet.

    So the short of it becomes that we apparently all agree that CC (just using the current coinage of term) occurs. You (representing the right) state that humans have no impact and that what is occurring is natural. SB, MH and myself (representing the left) state that Humans are a causative effect. There is the divide.

    In your argument, in essence, there is nothing we are responsible for, and thus either nothing we can do to mitigate or stop the environmental changes we are seeing and experiencing, and in essence our fate is sealed or you actually believe there are no changes occurring.

    My argument ( I am not speaking on behalf on MH or Step here as I will await there response) again is that Humans are the only species on this planet that has no checks and balances. No other species rapes, pillages and plunders the Earth as Man. I believe our actions are a direct effect on what this planet is experiencing and that we can change our fate if we alter our actions if we are not already at the point of no return.

    In my opinion, If Man thinks there are no negative outcomes for our actions, no consequences, no repercussions, than that arrogance will be our demise.

  66. scrappy December 6, 2009 2:26 pm

    “In my opinion, If Man thinks there are no negative outcomes for our actions, no consequences, no repercussions, than that arrogance will be our eternal demise.”

    Kritter, I added one word. Truer (or more sobering) words were never spoken….

  67. Gene Quinn December 6, 2009 2:27 pm

    Kritter-

    Now it all makes sense. You are ignoring reality and you refuse to acknowledge that the data has been fabricated. No point in continuing to discuss this matter with someone who won’t consider the facts.

    -Gene

  68. Just visiting December 6, 2009 3:34 pm

    “Each of those steps can be broken down into their own process and can all be done differently.”

    Welcome to the real world. If I told you to sharpen the pencil with a knife, you would then argue that there are various different types of knifes. If I claimed a particular type of knife (i.e., a Bowie-knife), you would then argue that there are different manufacturers of Bowie-knifes. If I described a particular manufacturer, you could argue that the manufacturer uses different batches of materials having slightly different properties that affect the cutting property of the knife. I can take this a couple more steps. In the end, you be asking that I identify the particular knife, by serial number, and the particular human performing the cutting, and the particular types of strokes that the person uses — all of which are not reasonable.

    “There are plenty of problems people would like to solve and plenty of tasks people would like to accomplish, but simply stating the problem or idea in a broken down fashion doesn’t provide any way to actually do it.”
    Learn the differences between the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112. Enablement (i.e., describe how to make/use the claimed invention) is covered under the first paragraph. This is covered under the specification. All the claims have to do is distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art — they don’t have to enable the invention. You are asking that the claims enble the invention, but there is no such requirement.

    35 U.S.C. 112 Specification.

    The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

    The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.

  69. Just visiting December 6, 2009 3:44 pm

    “There is NO evidence of global warming because the globe is NOT warming. Not only is the globe not warming but the data that has been relied upon was falsified.”

    Really? what about the link I provided. The data was data from 15,000 independent sites in the U.S. over a 15 year period. It seems to me that there is some global warming based upon this data alone. Mind you, this was collected by people who just want to know whether they can plant a Japanese Maple in a particular geographical location. I know it is a tree organization, which sounds dangerously close to “tree-hugger,” but do you have to import a nefarious motivation to everybody that disagrees with you?

    “Can you please enlighten us as to why you have such a difficult time understanding what it means to falsify data?”
    I have no problem understanding what it means. However, the fact the SOME data was falsified does not mean that ALL data was falsified. This was the point of Jon Stewart’s joke that went straight over your head. There are likely dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of different sets of data that are being used. However, just because some scientists falsify one set of data (or perhaps it was a couple – I don’t know, and honestly, I don’t particularly care), does not mean that ALL the data was falsified.

  70. Kritter Guy December 6, 2009 3:59 pm

    Gene-

    You are arrogant. That there is no mistake. You don’t comment on any of the facts or statements that I point out or make. I do in fact answer and comment on all your points. You want to focus just on that one report. Fine. If you want to ignore everything else and everything around you, then you are the one ignoring reality. Remember I stated that GW was just a political coin and is just a cog, one part of CC and in the whole process. The changes in our climate, irregardless of GW have been increasing in frequency and severity at a far greater rate. These studies are completely independent of any GW studies. I repeated several times about the SPEED of CC, which again you completely avoid to acknowledge. The environment is completely intertwined. Your fail to acknowledge my comment on the connections of our ecosystems. You obviously hold man completely unaccountable for habitat destruction and species extinction. I am looking at the complete picture and you one study. You obviously feel we have no impact on the planet. The ultimate in arrogance.

    Facts are just theories that are proven and dis-proven. Once studies stated that molecules were the smallest particle. A fact until they discovered atoms were the smallest particle. A fact until they discovered electrons. A fact until we discover again. The magic of science. Tomorrow someone may prove without falsifying data that GW is part of CC thus dis-proving your “facts.” What does it all mean? Again why I say over and over open your eyes and see, that is the best data of all.

    Here is the difference. You are a patent attorney and from what I hear and read a pretty good one. However you work in an office, day in day out, getting what you know from news reports, the internet, blogs, and other secondary sources. The media is controlled. You hear and read what they want you to hear and read. I am a wildlife biologist and animal behaviorist. I am not a scientist, but I am in the field researching, seeing with my own eyes and feeling with my own hands. Get out of your chair, turn off the boob tube, shut down the computer and get dirty. If you still feel man has no impact, than there is truly nothing left to say.

    KG

  71. Gene Quinn December 6, 2009 5:49 pm

    Just visiting-

    What about the NASA data that shows the globe is not warming?

    -Gene

  72. Gene Quinn December 6, 2009 5:53 pm

    Kritter-

    I would comment on your facts if you had any. All you want to do is look at circumstantial evidence and claim it is a fact. You also said you are completely ignoring the fact that multiple researchers fraudulently fabricated data, and then you have the audacity to call me arrogant? So let me get this straight… it is Kritter’s position that we should ignore facts about fabrication because he has not yet had time to confirm them. With the fabricated data removed from consideration all the evidence is on your side. I see… so as long as we continue to ignore the bad facts you have all the evidence.

    It is no surprise that you are not a scientist (as you admit). It is troubling that folks like you are at all involved in the research. Now I understand why the “research” has provided fraudulent data.

    By the way, just for the record, allow me to SAY IT ONCE AGAIN… I have never said that man has had nothing to do with climate change. Please learn to read!

    -Gene

  73. scrappy December 6, 2009 6:29 pm

    Gene, as it is today that most of the “news reporters” today are no longer reporters, but rather cheerleaders, so also most of the “scientists” today are no longer objective, but rather (to English-ify a slang term, if I may) “players”.

    It just shows how far our society has fallen. As the leader of another disintegrating society once asked without wanting to know the answer, so too many climate scientists (at UEA and elsewhere) are now asking, for public show and with their fingers in their ears, “What is truth?”

    May we not be played.

  74. scrappy December 6, 2009 6:30 pm

    “So why the scare-mongering? Could it be because there is money involved? If you inhabit a tiny island and can convince the world that its very existence is under threat because of the polluting policies of the West, the industrialised nations will certainly respond. The money is likely to flow in more quickly than the ocean will rise.”

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml

    You see, the leaders of most Third World nations are corrupt (Kritter is right about human nature) – unfortunately, that corruption is usually how they achieve (or maintain) power. With an international “Cap ‘n Trade” scheme, the leaders of Third World nations will be able to trade away (for $$$*) the carbon allotments of their citizens to build their own private financial empires (hehh, we could have the next Bush clan originate from Zimbabwe, oh joy). We’ve already seen, for example, the promises that oil (pipeline) profits would better the lives of the people in Chad and Nigeria were just hot air – the government elite never parted with the profits, while their people died in misery.

    Kritter, by international Cap ‘n Trade, we will be enabling Third World leaders to rape and pillage not only their lands, but their people as well.

    Ordinary Third World citizens will never share the financial Cap ‘n Trade “windfall” from the West in any way, shape or form, under such the U.N.-sanctioned enrichment of the rich that Copenhagen will explore. (Nb. these corrupt leaders make up the majority or a large plurality of the U.N., sad but true, so of course any treaty will be designed to protect the corruption.) And the West will continue to pollute.

    If you think even 1% of the money flowing into the Third World will flow to the citizenry, you don’t know history. Or (like Step Back said) you’re waiting for the Tooth Fairy to arrive.

    You really want to limit CO2 production world wide: have a CAP SYSTEM with different caps for differing levels of development. No trade, no shenanigans, no favor for the rich, no reward of corruption or financial power or Wall Street or Dubai. And no U.N. people voting for it simply because they will be enriched monetarily.

    Vehicular emission controls in the US work only because it is a CAP SYSTEM. (Nb. diesels don’t have the same caps as gasoline engines.) Cummins can’t manufacture a cleaner (high-tech) diesel engine and then sell (i.e., TRADE) its pollution credits to GM so GM can make an OHV Low-Tech-4-banger that spews out sewage. Everyone has to comply (though there are different caps based on the level of technology development, and the caps are not, and never were, impossible to meet), and there’s no buying your way out of it.

    Of course, industry and politicians and world leaders aren’t interested in pollution control. (Not even Al Gore, who’s probably just payin’ us back for 2000.) They’re interested in financial control. So no one will ever agree to a CAP SYSTEM when an opt-out-if-you’re-rich / enrichment-for-Third-World-corruption Cap ‘n Trade system is on the table. And btw, there are some people (even commenting here perhaps) who just want to see U.S. capitalism (and everything it has become) fail. I actually respect Bill Ayers and Tweety and anti-war Cindy (God bless her as she deals with the grief) a whole lot more than the green hoaxers, because the former lefties (Ayers et al.) are being true to their convictions (which truthfulness I respect), while the latter hoaxers are merely lying for theirs. That’s the big difference – the latter hoaxers are arrogant Machiavellian scum (nicely put, Kritter!) who think they understand “how the world should be” better than anyone else and therefore can rationalize (in their own small minds) the “fabrication of facts,” because the ends justify their own immoral means.

    And as Kritter so aptly put it, that arrogance will be their demise.

    *the smart ones will trade for Euros. 😉

  75. Pissed off Programmer December 6, 2009 7:06 pm

    -Just Visiting

    “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

    The specification shall CONCLUDE with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”

    What part about that is not clear to you?

    “Learn the differences between the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112. Enablement (i.e., describe how to make/use the claimed invention) is covered under the first paragraph. This is covered under the specification. All the claims have to do is distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art — they don’t have to enable the invention. You are asking that the claims enble the invention, but there is no such requirement.”

    Where the hell are you getting that from? Exactly why does paragraph one not count? It says to conclude, to entirely be made of. It very clearly says the process needs to include exact descriptions that a person of ordinary skill in the trade would need to in order to reproduce it.

    It doesn’t say, follow either paragraph one or two. It doesn’t say read it however the hell you want. The clear intent is that processes claims be made in exact detail, not vague descriptions of concepts with no directions for how to action accomplish them.

  76. scrappy December 6, 2009 7:31 pm

    POP, Just Visiting has correctly described the case law.

    Case law, as you know, comes from real cases where patenting software companies argue their cases in favor of broad patent rights. It is just as much “law” as what Congress passes (35 USC 112). I believe there are a ton of problems with software patents and business method patents today (I think the case law has sent us in wrong directions), and this blog has had some of the best discussions on these topics. Perhaps Gene will revisit the enablement, description, and “best mode” requirements for software, both as they are defined by case law and (better) as they should be in a perfect patent world that isn’t tilted in favor of the patenting software companies….

  77. scrappy December 6, 2009 7:36 pm

    CORRECTION: that isn’t unduly tilted in favor of the patenting software companies….

  78. Pissed off Programmer December 6, 2009 7:45 pm

    -Scrappy

    That’s why I said the intent was…. I know that things have been screwed up by legal decisions, which is why I am hoping Bilski will undo some of the damage and be upheld by the supreme court, or preferably, go further down the same track.

  79. scrappy December 6, 2009 8:23 pm

    POP, I feel for you. My thought is Bilski won’t undo anything, but will rather be undone…. (Bilski was, at the CAFC level, the sort of bad law and vigilantism that has been commonplace in patent circles for the last decade or so. That happened because the PTO was acting as a headless organization, and the PTO solicitors that briefed cases often had no idea of, and no care for, what would be “good” for the patent system, or more importantly, for industry. A reversion back to 1980s case law, to rid ourselves of the hodge-podge of cases the PTO has solicited from the courts, would be a good start. Of course, that’s not going to happen.)

  80. Gene Quinn December 7, 2009 10:00 am

    Scrappy-

    I agree with you. In the popular press and polite scientific community there is far too much cheerleading and not enough (or sometimes any) interest in fact. I can understand when scientists really believe in their positions and dedicate themselves and through focus get blinders. That is natural, human and something that has gone on throughout history. Where it ceases to be a productive aspect of a vigorous debate between committed individuals is when one side fabricates data, observations or test results.

    By the way… going back to Kritter… I just want to point out that he says he is a researcher in this area but claims not to know about the fabrication of data. Obviously he is lying. Either he is not a part of the research community or he does know about it and is in denial. There is no way anyone in the global warming or climate change camps couldn’t know about this news story. He also refers to this as “one report” when it is not a report at all, it is a series of admissions over time that the key global warming data has all been fabricated. Mann’s hockey stick is now gone, and with it the data that has been relied upon by hundreds of scientists to show the earth is warming.

    -Gene

  81. Kritter Guy December 7, 2009 11:00 am

    Gene-

    What I said Gene, was that I was a wildlife biologist and animal behaviorist. Thus meaning I study wildlife and animal behavior. I am out in the field all over and see up close and personal what is happening. Sorry wrong use of the term report. What I was just trying to get across is that I just prefer to learn the entire story not just what they throw at us over the airwaves and newsprint. I stopped watching news shows and their diatribe long ago. Again it is my belief that it is Man’s disregard for this planet that is changing or is speeding up the changes we are seeing and experiences. You cannot do what we are doing to the planet and not expect severe repercussions. Call it what you will, if not global warming, increased climate change, if not that than how about ecosystem erosion. Everything is intertwined. Again the names applied to it are for the most part just for political fodder. What is happening is real. Besides I just returned from the Caribbean on a Sea Turtle study, analyzing the effects of increased tourism on Loggerhead Sea Turtle behavior and breeding. So excuse me for not being completely up to date on the latest news. But I really don’t need to explain myself to you.
    You’re a pill-
    KG

  82. Gene Quinn December 7, 2009 12:23 pm

    Kritter-

    Obviously you did need to explain yourself.

    It appears as if we are finally potentially converging on an agreement here. Everything is indeed intertwined, and there are great concerns with respect to ecosystem erosion, as you say. The real tragedy is that global warming alarmists have vilified dissenters for decades, and they were fabricating evidence all along. This vilification and fabrication of data is darn near criminal. It has cost real scientists and researchers decades. Rather than look for answers to the problems and try and figure out what is really happening these ethically challenged individuals corrupted the scientific debate and caused science and real research to come to a halt for no reason other than personal gain and ideology. We always should have been pursuing alternative theories and not ruining careers of those who were brave enough to dissent. The real tragedy is we have wasted decades.

    Man’s disregard for the planet is extremely troubling. How anyone could think polluting natural resources is a good idea is beyond me.

    Keep up the good fight out in the field!

    -Gene

  83. step back December 7, 2009 12:26 pm

    “Call it what you will, if not global warming, increased climate change”

    Gene,

    I submit respectfully that KG’s line above is the bane of our so called “debate”.
    We all use the same words and yet ascribe entirely different meanings to them.
    This was the prime theme of almost all of Shakespeare’s tragic-comedy plays; one character would interpret an ambiguous word used by the other and then all sorts of mischief would follow.

    The same is true of many of the characters who show up in your blog’s comment section. The term that is pregnant with ambiguity might be “Climate Change” or it might be “Software Patent” or something else.

    In each case the “debaters” speak right past each other by ascribing very different meanings to the same buzz noise.

    I’m not 100% sure what meaning you, Gene ascribe to the buzz noise, “Climate Change”.

    The way I learned it, “Global Warming” is not the same thing as “Climate Change” and the latter is a shortened code phrase for Permanent, Abrupt and Extreme Change of an Area’s mean climate.

    “Global Warming” on the other hand used to refer to an increase in the mean temperature of the Earth’s water and land masses. A 1 degree C increase can make an enormous difference if you are talking about an area where the mean Temp was 0 deg C and now it goes up to +1 C and there is a large mass of ice in that area.

    Whether these things are anthropogenically driven (AGW versus GW) is yet another question.

    I don’t think there are too many legitimate scientists questioning whether “GW” has been occurring. There are just too many melting glaciers all over the world. To assert that they are not there is to defy what is plainly in everyone’s eyes. The fraud of Climategate does not make the melting glaciers not melt.

  84. scrappy December 7, 2009 1:18 pm

    Step Back, Antarctica has 90% of the earth’s ice, and it’s growing!!

    Are you saying 10% of the world’s ice is shrinking, to prove prove your non-point? Watts up with that??

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking/

  85. Gene Quinn December 7, 2009 1:22 pm

    Step-

    So let me get this straight. It is your position that there is global warming despite the fact that the globe is not warming. Brilliant! So then I should be able to logically say I am a billionaire, I just lack a billion or more dollars!

    -Gene

  86. scrappy December 7, 2009 1:34 pm

    No, no, no, Gene, Al Gore showed us the hockey stick!! It is warming, honest, I sawr it on the TV!!! Honest to Mother Earth!!!

    al-gore-ithm (n. al-gor-ith-uhh-m) : a mathematical process whereby a limited data set is continually examined while being manipulated in order to obtain a desired outcome, after which the original data set is deleted.

  87. scrappy December 7, 2009 2:13 pm

    CORRECTION: the hockey shtick 🙂

  88. step back December 7, 2009 2:31 pm

    Gene,

    I already professed and confessed to not being a climatology expert.

    What I see are two warring groups in the AGW and GW debates.

    On one side I see Sen. James Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh and other “conservatives” telling me that things will stay the same as they always have; that the glory of the past will be “conserved” no matter what because of a variety of reasons, but mostly because the what’s-yours-is-mine evil minded lefties on the other side are perpetrating a grand hoax and have an evil plan of world domination through Al Gore’s Cap and Trade plan.

    To my mind, this is resort to the rhetorical technique known as ad hominem attack. Basically, avoid the message and attack the messenger.

    On the other side of the “debate” I see various groups trying to respond on the basis of real science to all the criticisms. For example, Scrappy points to Antarctic sea ice build up but does not answer the melting glaciers question.

    I’m not an Antarctic climate change expert and my answer is, I don’t know. But at least the AGW-believers community takes on the challenge and responds to criticisms. For example, see here (or should I say “sea” hear re Antarctica sea ice?):
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is-Antarctic-sea-ice-increasing.html

    But I don’t see the AGW-denialist’s camp responding to fact based arguments. They continue to merely sling ad hominem mud.

    Now if you have ever been to the zoo where the monkeys are caged up, you know that sometimes they get bored and irritated and for entertainment or whatever they start slinging “mud” of a sort at each other.

    I think we humans are no different. I see mud slinging contests happening all over the internet. When I see one side slinging nothing but mud and the other responding with scientific-like explanations, I tend to conclude that the 100% mud slingers have nothing but “mud” to back up their argument.

    More particularly, I take it that a GW-denialist such as yourself must support the proposition that mankind can continue to pump more and more CO2 (and other GHG’s) into the atmosphere for ever (to infinity and beyond) and there never will be consequences because … well honestly I don’t know what your “because” is. But to me that is not a rational model. There has to be consequences at some point in time. For every action there is a reaction, kind of like that. We are 6.7 Billion strong and driving the oceans’ fish into extinction. How hard is it to phantom that we might also be irrevocably altering the Earth’s climate?

    Trust me. I wish it too that our non-negotiable way of life can continue forever because the alternative really sucks. However, so far I have seen nothing but mud slinging venom from the GW-denialist camp and that kind of tilts my non-expert’s head toward trusting the AGW-proponents more than the denialists.

    I think we are all in the same camp in hoping that some inventor (not “innovator”) out there will come up with a magic bullet or two. But what if no one does?

  89. step back December 7, 2009 2:33 pm

    Gene,

    You are a billionaire.
    But just not in terms of dollar count.
    In something else. 😉

  90. Gene Quinn December 7, 2009 2:37 pm

    Scrappy-

    Genius! I may have to misappropriate that definition in an article some time!

    -Gene

  91. scrappy December 7, 2009 2:57 pm

    Have at it Gene – though I do echo what was said above about not turning this into a political (cheerleading) blog. Your efforts are much better spent on improving the patent system, in my mind.

    Anyway, back to global warming, I’m just worried about the antarctic penguin habitat that is being encroached on by the growing ice in ways I could have never imagined. Maybe GM will come up with a Peta-like ad campaign:

    Buy an SUV, save a Penguin. /

  92. Noise above Law December 7, 2009 3:12 pm

    Brilliant –

    Step Back: “…same buzz noise.” – harkens to my moniker.

    Scrappy (worth repeating): “al-gore-ithm (n. al-gor-ith-uhh-m) : a mathematical process whereby a limited data set is continually examined while being manipulated in order to obtain a desired outcome, after which the original data set is deleted.” – Send this to Jon Stewart – guaranteed to make the air!

  93. step back December 7, 2009 3:43 pm

    NAL,

    I never realized that was the basis of your moniker. Interesting.

    Mine is based on the idea that we should “step back” and calmly see the bigger picture instead of always deep diving into supposed details of the situation because quite often we miss the forest on account of our concentration on the trees and on account of our raging emotions and our tendency to immediately begin slinging “mud” at each other.

    In the case of all this “anti-al-gore-ism” we see out there, it might be said that Gene is in the same camp with the software-patent abolitionists because they are all reacting to the emotions of the buzz noise rather than to substance of that which is intended to be communicated.

    I think that when the software-patent abolitionists (SPA’s) hear the noise, “software patent”, their ear canals get inflamed with raging emotion and they cannot thereafter hear the explanations as to why patent attorneys are not planning to block the free exchanges of “ideas” about how to do software. All they see is a cage into which the evil lawyers want to lock them up so as to prevent them from ever coding freely again.

    Similarly, when the AGW-Denialists hear noises like “Al Gore” or “Cap and Trade”, their ear canals get inflamed with emotion and they cannot thereafter hear the explanations as to why some of these things (unpleasant as they are) might be necessary so as to prevent extinction of the human race as we know it.

    As between the two issues, certainly AGW is the bigger and more important problem because life will go on even if governments do away with “software patents”. However, since most of us are a lot more knowledgeable about patents and software than we are about the AGW debate, we should stick to the knitting we know best and not get embroiled in debates about stuff we know little about. A little knowledge is always dangerous, especially when toying with explosives.

  94. scrappy December 7, 2009 4:08 pm

    “For example, Scrappy points to Antarctic sea ice build up but does not answer the melting glaciers question.”

    Step back, if you can’t see the logic in my response, it’s because you choose not to. You were right – we believe first and then we see. (And blessed are those who have not seen, and still believe.)

    AGW: I’ve lost 40 lbs this year as a result of CO2 poisoning.

    Scrappy: You lie, AGW.

    AGW: (arrogantly hitting the delete key) Prove it!!

    Scrappy: You’re 20 lbs heavier then you were this time last year. Here’s the leaked data.

    AGW: That’s immaterial. I did not lie. Though I did put on 60 lbs after losing the 40.

    Step back: Scrappy, stop it with the ad-hominem mud!! And in typical right-wing fashion, you still haven’t addressed the 40 lbs.

    Scrappy: (tail between his legs) Aww, you win Step. I, a lowly righty, aspire to be a civilized non-name-calling progressive like you. Let’s watch a movie.

    [They settle down to watch some Zohan cr*p. The boob tube does its magic on them both. Step falls into a blue funk and worries about glaciers he’s never seen. Scrappy, on the other hand, loses control and pees on the couch.]

    Scrappy: (after coming to his senses) Dang, you know I think I hear my mum calling me. Gotta go. You can have my seat, Step.

    🙂

  95. Kritter Guy December 7, 2009 6:00 pm

    Step & Gene-

    Step – I do know the technical definition of GW. While we are on the same side, the problem is both sides are preaching to the choir and we can go around and around forever debating whether or not GW is actually occurring, just like we could debate forever any other of the political, ethical and moral issues that exist. Climate Change is a more encompassing buzz word and can include GW. My coined term in a previous entry – Ecosystem Erosion, if presented to the media and gov’t could be the next buzz word and is even more encompassing and deals with all the issues we face environmentally. But terminology is meaningless unless we act.

    Gene is his last email to me stated: “Everything is indeed intertwined, and there are great concerns with respect to ecosystem erosion, as you say….Man’s disregard for the planet is extremely troubling. How anyone could think polluting natural resources is a good idea is beyond me.”

    This is the point I have been trying to get across. If we can all agree on that, and with common sense extrapolate that what we are doing does affect our planet, then we can take the measures necessary and allow the planet to slowly heal, thus hopefully correcting or at least mitigate all the ills we are facing, species extinction, habitat loss, water and air quality, climate et. al.

    The reason I now try to avoid news and the politcal media and look at the whole picture, just read below. Wasn’t it just days ago Gene unleased the info regarding GW being based on fraudulent data which thus spurred this on-going repartee? Well today…

    Today’s headline reads: WASHINGTON – In another major climate development, the EPA today formally determined that greenhouse gas pollution imperils the health and well-being of present and future generations. This finding sets the stage for U.S. action.

    EDF President Fred Krupp issued the following statement:

    “The danger of global warming pollution is clear and present, the solutions are at hand, and the time for action is now. It’s time for Congress to finish its work on U.S. legislation to cap and reduce the 19 million tons of heat-trapping pollution we emit every day. American leadership on climate change will strengthen our security, wean us off of foreign oil, and ensure that America wins the race to clean energy innovation in the global market place.”

    NEXT?

    KG

  96. step back December 7, 2009 6:00 pm

    Scrap,

    LOL.
    Thanks for leaving that “stream” of consciousness on my couch.
    ___
    p.s Will it make my hair silky smooth? 🙂

  97. step back December 7, 2009 6:26 pm

    Hi KG,

    Although we are indeed on the same page in terms of ultimate goals, use of language like “Save the Planet” and “CC” gives the other side an awful lot of ammunition in the psycho-linguistic department.

    “Save the Planet” is merely prettified code word for save humanity from mass-dieoff due to overshoot and resource depletion. The Planet (Earth) is just a piece of rock. It doesn’t need saving and it doesn’t care as to what life forms cling to its surfaces. That’s their problem.

    Gene is correct to argue that change over to CC was a political move. It wasn’t done however because there is no Global warming as Gene suggests. It was done mostly for psycho-linguistic effect. The average Joe 6 Pack (and actually all of us) responds more attentively to alliterations. CC has a poor man’s alliteration of a hard “Cl” sound followed by a soft “Ch” sound. GW has no alliteration and sounds too warm and cozy. People instinctively fear change. Thus CC activates the fear centers of the human brain. It’s more effective from a psycho-linguistic perspective.

    If all this sounds like lunnie leftist plots by the bleeding heart “progressives” it must be recalled that Global Warmdenier Bush used the same tactics with great effectiveness: CC=Compassionate Conservative, LL= Life Lover, FF= Freedom Fighter, TWHOF= Them Who Hates Our Freedoms, MM= Mission Mishandler (oops never mind the last one because now we have OOO= Obama’s Onother One –in Afghanistan).

    Anyway, best hopes for all of us in reducing pollution and moving to cleaner modes of SSL (super sized life styles).

  98. scrappy December 7, 2009 6:36 pm

    Kritter, everyone on this blog knows how a mis-behaving Federal agency is dealt with. That’s why the Founding Fathers set up the Separation of Powers. They knew our national enemy would come from within.

    It’s sad to see the Executive Branch continue to usurp Congressional authority, a la wider Bush doctrine.

  99. step back December 7, 2009 6:39 pm

    Scrap,

    You’ll be happy to hear that James Hansen disses Cap ‘N Trade here (NYT link):
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html

  100. scrappy December 7, 2009 8:55 pm

    [Sorry if this is a multiple post….]

    Step back, I just set up an appointment with an ENT specialist to treat my righty inflamed ear canals which you so kindly diagnosed, and now you’re saying I might have been righty all along? But I thought you said just three hours ago that “Al Gore” and “Cap and Trade” might be necessary to prevent extinction of our human race. Surely, you haven’t changed your mind so soon, as if your position wasn’t based on facts at all? (P.S. I was also going to ask the doctor to do something about my nose, just in case you were right about Gore.)

    I’ll repeat it for you s-l-o-w-l-y (I hope): I   t   ‘   s     n   o   t     a   b   o   u   t     p   o   l   l   u   t   i   o   n     c   o   n   t   r   o   l   ,     i   t   ‘   s     a   b   o   u   t     f   i   n   a   n   c   i   a   l     c   o   n   t   r   o   l   . (And it never was about “hope and change,” nor is there a tooth fairy.)

  101. scrappy December 7, 2009 9:09 pm

    [Sorry if this is a multiple post….]

    Step back, I just set up an appointment with an ENT specialist to treat my righty inflamed ear canals which you so kindly diagnosed, and now you’re saying I might have been righty all along? But I thought you said just three hours ago that “Al Gore” and “Cap and Trade” might be necessary to prevent extinction of our human race. Surely, you haven’t changed your mind so soon, as if your position wasn’t based on facts at all? (P.S. I was also going to ask the doctor to do something about my nose, just in case you were right about Gore.)

  102. Just visiting December 7, 2009 10:59 pm

    “What about the NASA data that shows the globe is not warming?”

    The only NASA data that I’ve found referred to is this post is the following reference:
    “NASA’s imagery showing that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007).”

    The PDO is described as “a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability”. If this is what you are referring to, I’m not sure how that supports your position.

  103. Just visiting December 7, 2009 11:13 pm

    “What part about that is not clear to you?”

    You tell me — I’ve drafted many hundreds of sets of claims and the number of sets of claims I’ve prosecuted number in the thousands. I’m pretty comfortable working with the 2nd paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.

    A claim merely needs to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the world of animals consisted of frogs and birds, I could distinguish birds from frogs by claiming: an animal comprising a feather. Not very satisfying for you, but that’s the law – and it isn’t going to change anytime soon so get used to it.

    “It very clearly says the process needs to include exact descriptions that a person of ordinary skill in the trade would need to in order to reproduce it.”
    OK, could one having ordinary skill in the art reproduce the following limitations:
    A method of placing an order for an item comprising:
    under control of a client system,
    displaying information identifying the item; and
    in response to only a single action being performed, sending a request to order the item along with an identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system;
    under control of a single-action ordering component of the server system,
    receiving the request;
    retrieving additional information previously stored for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request; and
    generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request using the retrieved additional information; and
    fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the item
    whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model.

    It seems to me that this bare description alone would be sufficient for one having ordinary skill in the art to reproduce the method being described. Now, there are something that might be need the specification to help one skilled in the art to practice the invention, but again, we are talking about the requirements for the claims, not the specification.

    “The clear intent is that processes claims be made in exact detail, not vague descriptions of concepts with no directions for how to action accomplish them.”
    Dude – if you cannot figure this one out (or many of the software-related methods being claimed in various patents), then I know why you are a pissed off programmer – it must be because that you are not particularly good at it. A good programmer doesn’t need code to reproduce this invention. It might be helpful, but it isn’t necessary.

  104. Pissed off Programmer December 8, 2009 10:28 am

    -Just Visiting

    This isn’t about weather myself or anybody else could do it with or without the details, but about weather or not those details matter when you are giving somebody a monopoly.

    “under control of a client system,
    displaying information identifying the item; and
    in response to only a single action being performed, sending a request to order the item along with an identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system;
    under control of a single-action ordering component of the server system,
    receiving the request;
    retrieving additional information previously stored for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request; and
    generating an order to purchase the requested item for the purchaser identified by the identifier in the received request using the retrieved additional information; and
    fulfilling the generated order to complete purchase of the item
    whereby the item is ordered without using a shopping cart ordering model.”

    What a generic bunch of crap. How much of that has to be interpreted? What constitutes a “component”? What constitutes a “single action”? What if I invented the bicycle and then made a claim for moving from point A to point B on a mechanical device that uses wheels? I suppose if cars and airplanes were invented right after that they would be in violation?

    I thought patents were supposed to enable people to improve inventions, but if just make your patent claim generic enough, it will cover all uninvented improvements and then you can just decide how things will progress for the next decade or two.

    A decade is a long, long time in computer science. A field so new that it hasn’t been around for a hundred years yet. When a bullshit generic patent gets rubber stamped for some software process it pretty much kills it because by the time that patent expires it will be outdated. It’s no wonder that a hand full of software giants control all the software, they have all the patents and all the monopolies.

    Monopolies and innovation are starkly opposed, so you better have a really good reason to try to get one to spur the other. In fields where research lasts for decades and costs millions of dollars and completely makes or breaks an industry that millions or billions rely on, then yes it makes sense. In a field like software, where most of the innovation takes place at Universities, happens yearly or faster, and costs almost nothing but the price of a budget computer, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

  105. step back December 8, 2009 12:14 pm

    Scrap,

    That is a bad line of argument for you to pursue, namely, the follow the money argument.

    Because if you do follow the money, you will find the main flow of it emanates from the fat cats in the oil, coal and other air polluting industries sector. They’re the ones who are funding the lobbyists to get to people like you. They’re the ones who are spreading the good news about Global Warming (that it doesn’t exist). I wish the latter was true. But then again, there are all those melting glaciers to explain away. I know the solution for you. Steal Obama’s campaign line: Change Happens. There. Now it is all explained away in a highly scientific manner. You’re satisfied. Not me.

    P.S. Make sure to clean out the ear-clogging oil and coal particles from both ears.
    P.P.S. When are you coming over to clean up that mess you left on my couch?

  106. KenyG December 8, 2009 3:46 pm

    Looking at the dataset presented here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

    It appears the that for the entire Holocene period – the last 10,000yrs – a pattern emerges, at least to me. The MWP looks to be part of the norm. What does stand out is the Little Ice Age. In fact it looks at though there has been a general cooling cycle for the previous 1000yrs or so, followed by a minor uptick (graph it yourself and see). I count 12 major warming cycles, all much warmer than our current one.

    If you use a Vostok core:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2453.html

    You can go way, way back, and see that the interglacial periods are but breif warm periods amongst ice-ages. In fact our current inter-glacial is not as warm as the previous one.

    Looking at the data myself – our warming trend looks, well, normal – and a part of some normal cycle.

    Do I think the planet is warming? Yes I do. Do I think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Yes I do (but so is water vapor, and it is a much better one), But – do I think our current CO2 output is causing the current warming trend? No. It may contribute, slightly – but it is evident that there are much larger planetary-wide cycles in effect – and I do not think we have much impact on them.

    I am all for being a good steward of the planet. I look forward to ever greener technologies, and less pollution. However – as far as AGW goes – please show me the data. I do not want someone’s blog, or thesis. I would like the raw datasets.

    – Ken

  107. Just visiting December 8, 2009 10:33 pm

    “What if I invented the bicycle and then made a claim for moving from point A to point B on a mechanical device that uses wheels? I suppose if cars and airplanes were invented right after that they would be in violation?”

    Yes they would. Ain’t patents grand?? 🙂

    “How much of that has to be interpreted?”
    Welcome to the world of patent law … or law, in general. There is no such thing as perfect language — only good enough.

    “In fields where research lasts for decades and costs millions of dollars and completely makes or breaks an industry that millions or billions rely on, then yes it makes sense.”

    I guess you want to throw out most mechanical devices as well then? You’ll probably ditch most electrical patents as well.

    “In a field like software, where most of the innovation takes place at Universities, happens yearly or faster, and costs almost nothing but the price of a budget computer, it doesn’t make any sense at all.”
    Hello? People cost money.

    What do you say patents and innovation are starkly opposed? You can innovate to your heart’s content with your software, and no matter how many patents you infringe, so long as you keep it to yourself, my guess there is a 0.0001% chance that you’ll be sued for patent infringement.

    Now of course, if you want to sell your innovation, then you’ve got a problem. Of course, you can always give away your software. Once given away, you cannot be responsible for what happens to it otherwise. Since you didn’t make any profits on it, you wouldn’t be worth suing.

    Oh, you want to make money on your software? Well, in your perfect world, you are going to run into some trouble. You see, once one person gets a hold of your software they are just going to sell it to other people — or perhaps even give it away. If that happens, what are you going to do. How will you stop someone from stealing the fruits of your labor.

    Ponder those issues and get back to me.

  108. P. Jones December 9, 2009 9:47 am

    Ken, you really need to look at the value-added data which is much, much easier to interpret. Once we add the correct value in degrees Centigrade (e.g., by using Mike’s nature tricks for the period from 1981 onward), our SOP is to delete the raw datasets so they can’t thereafter be misinterpreted by the unlearned who have a capitalistic agenda (also, storage of literally terabytes of data would be absolutely prohibitive in terms of cost). I’m sure you understand, what we do we do for your own good.

    Besides, I’m sure you can’t remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago either, so why are you questioning AGW? The science is settled.

    P.S. (from scrappy) Ken, if you want to see a comparison of some raw data and the value added stuff:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

  109. P. Jones December 9, 2009 9:55 am

    … dang, forgot to use my full name, sorry Folks.

    Pee Jones
    (puts tail back between his legs)

  110. Pissed Off Programmer December 9, 2009 1:54 pm

    -Just Visiting

    Two things to start with… commercial software still has protection against resellers and illegal copies through the copyright law, so don’t’ act like patents are the only thing keeping people from illegally copying and reselling software. Second, don’t pretend that people don’t illegally resell and copy software anyways. In case you hadn’t noticed, piracy (even though I don’t like the term) is a pretty big problem. I suppose next you are going to tell me that prohibition stopped people from drinking too, and that the ‘war on drugs’ has prevented pot smoking.

    If I don’t release the source code, with or without patents or copyright, people will make copies and give them away, and there is almost nothing anybody can do to completely stop it. Short of reverse engineering the program, a long, tedious, error-prone process, people aren’t really going to be able to modify software released without source code so illegal copying is about the extend of the problems. You act like patents somehow prevent that.

    Let me tell you a little story.

    A patent lawyer and a survivalist are walking through the jungle. The survivalist steps off to take a leak. When he comes back the patent lawyer is gone but he can hear some screaming. The patent lawyer had accidentally stepped into some quick sand and was already half buried. He was flailing his arms and leg screaming bloody murder. The survivalist stood there and did nothing.

    The patent lawyer exclaimed “please help get me out of here”, but the survivalist did nothing.

    A minute later he opened his mouth and said “Sorry, but the only method I know for getting somebody out of quick sand is patented, and I don’t have permission to use it.”

    The patent lawyer exclaimed again “Please it will only take a minute and nobody will know”

    The survivalist answered “Wrong, it would only take a minute and 20 years. Nobody appreciates the resources that go into developing such techniques”

    Desperate the patent lawyer pleaded “You don’t understand this is a matter of life and death!”

    The survivalist answered “You mean how it is a matter of life and death for people who die every year because they can’t afford patented medications?”

    The patent lawyer replied “But without incentive from the patent system, those companies never would have developed those drugs and those people would have died anyways”

    The survivalist replied as he was walking away “And if the man who came up with the quick sand technique hadn’t been incentivized by the patent system he never would have created his method either and you would have died anyways, such is the moral cost of innovation”

  111. step back December 9, 2009 5:57 pm

    @PoP,

    So the moral of your story is … ?

    I see it as you favoring the amoral survivalist who puts his extremist ideology ahead of helping a fellow human being.

    (BTW, did you know that many Big Pharma companies give their drugs away for free to indigent patients who otherwise can’t afford life preserving medicines? They don’t advertise the programs of course. But they do it quietly in the background without all the moral chest beating and indignation.)

  112. Just visiting December 9, 2009 7:20 pm

    “Two things to start with… commercial software still has protection against resellers and illegal copies through the copyright law.”

    You forgot what I previously mentioned. Copyright is easy to get around It might take a little time to do it, but it will take a semi-talented programmer (or some automated process) a whole lot less time to reproduce your program to get around copyright infringement than it took you to write it to begin with.

    “Second, don’t pretend that people don’t illegally resell and copy software anyways. In case you hadn’t noticed, piracy (even though I don’t like the term) is a pretty big problem.”
    However, IP protections prevents customers with reputations to preserve from stealing software. Also, it’ll prevent somone else from trying to invade your “turf.” I don’t like piracy either — I think stealing just says it all without the romanticism associate with being a pirate.

    Nice little story — you should get a copyright on it. Actually, I’ll come up with a deritive piece. The method was developed 50 years ago because quicksand has been around forever and it was a problem begging to be solved so somebody did, told people about it, and made a little money on it. Because the method was off-patent, the survivalist practiced the method and everybody lived happily ever after.

    You keep forgetting that patents have a wide variety of benefits. Using your hypothetical, say somebody came up with a method for escaping quicksand and got a patent with it. Once he had a patent on it, he began to spend his own money marketing the method. People would go to his seminars, pay a little money, and he extoll the benefits of his method. Along the way, somebody determines that there are a lot of valuable things hidden on the bottom of quicksand and he wants to mine them. Based upon this method, he develops a new method that doesn’t save people, but mines for objects. He knows that practicing his new method would infringe the old one so he get a license to practice the new invention. Then both people make money off the idea.

    We live in society largely governed by the desire to make money. In a perfectly altruistic society there would be no need for patents — however, we ain’t there yet and won’t be, I’m guessing, for a few hundred years. As such, those that come up wih good ideas need to be able to make money off those ideas. Patents protect those ideas, plain and simple.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. No matter how much a minority screams and complains about patents, the average Joe on the street likes patents because it represents an opportunity for the little guy to make it big. They don’t care whether or not some company cannot perform a particular method or not because it is patented.

    If you been around enough inventors as I, you would know that they are very possessive about their ideas. These are their babies. When you tell somebody that they shouldn’t be able to get a patent on …. whatever … what you are saying is that “I don’t think that idea is valuable — you should just give it away for free.” That attitude isn’t going to get you anywhere.

  113. Pissed off Programmer December 10, 2009 12:16 am

    -Step Back
    (I didn’t forget about you Just visiting, I’ll respond to you later)

    It seems you have either never read any of my other posts or you don’t know how to read stories. In case you hadn’t noticed, I was reversing the rolls and making the survivalist spout out all the usual rhetoric used to defend medical patents that cause poor people to die because the UN tries to get American patent law enforced in countries producing low cost drugs for their citizens.

    You people always paint drug companies as these great men who are just trying to scrap together enough money to cover the costs of saving the world and us zealots are being unreasonable monsters. Yeah, just like the oil companies are trying to scrap together enough money to cover their costs too right? I realize that research is expensive, but stopping pharmacies in other countries outside the US from making life saving drugs is evil, no matter the economic costs.

    Even with all the $4 dollar generic drugs being sold, we still have record bankruptcies due to medical bills. Sorry lady, I realize that you are DYING, but the doctors, administrators, CEO’s and other top cock sucking brass in some of the worlds richest corporations need to put their kids through private school, so you can just drop DEAD, because after all, they are just trying to recoup costs right?

    Some people advocate that drug patents last FOREVER, these people need to be shot, if they deserve such a painless death, unlike the people they would deny life saving drugs to. Here is an idea, if a drug company can’t recoup their costs (not profits, but costs), then the government can come in and pay them the difference. Half the country and all the people in the poorest countries don’t pay any taxes to the Federal government, so what harm does that do? People who do well can save lives and nobody has to die just because they were born to a poor family or in a poor country.

    Saying that patents encourage innovation is like saying that killing off all variations of a species encourages evolution. Sure, there might be an increase in speciation after that, but only because you killed off all the competition.

  114. step back December 10, 2009 7:04 am

    You people always paint … us zealots are being unreasonable monsters.

    @PissedOff,

    Actually, I can empathize with how you feel (Translation: I know where you’re coming from buddy.)

    The world is not a fair place
    And but for the grace of God, mine could easily be one of those bankrupt families due to medical crisis.

    Pharmaceuticals are just part of the bigger picture (the step back picture) of what is wrong with delivery of medical care by the various health care providers in our country. That is precisely why the politicians on Capitol Hill are now debating so fiercely over the so-called Health “Reform” Bill.

    It’s easy to look for a scapegoat or two in the midst of frustration. So why not pick on the damn lawyers in this case? Heck, everybody else seems to.

    But then again, why don’t we pick on those @#$%& programmers to blame for our current situation? After all, they are the ones who make all those poor nurses push around those computerized pill dispensing carts in all our hospitals and they make those poor nurses fill out all those senseless forms just to dispense a single pill; which means the overburdened nurses have no time to provide actual health care to sick people dying in our bureaucratically run hospitals. Right? And aren’t those @#$%& programmers also to blame for the health insurance company computer kicking back and saying this procedure or that is “not covered”?

    Yeah.
    Yeah.
    It’s all their fault, those @#$%& programmers.
    Let’s blame them. Blame them for everything.

    Well of course not. Hopefully you’re smart enough to realize I’m arguing with tongue in cheek.

    On the other hand, I suspect that you are the kind of person who would like to find a single boogey man to blame for all the world’s ills. Given that you have this venomous hatred for patent law and the people who work in that area, you might as well blame them for everything. You might as well conclude that if it weren’t for the @#$%& patent laws, this world would be a far far better place. Why if it weren’t for the @#$%& patent laws, you would have personally written that killer software application that solved all the problems in the medical field. And then you would have been invited to Oslo to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine, and then … But those @#$%& patent people got in your way. Didn’t they?

    It’s time to step back and take a slow breath of sanity.

    Patent laws are not perfect.
    But then again nothing (except “computational theory”) is perfect in this world. We can fight with each other all day long; or we can pool our talents to try to resolve some of the world’s lesser problems.

    So what do you say? Do you say that the government should run all the pharmaceutical companies and decide what each should get as compensation for their attempts to come up with the next useful composition of matter? (That last bit is patent lawyer talk for pharmaceutical compound.) What exactly are you saying?

    Peace and Cheers. 🙂

  115. Pissed off Programmer December 10, 2009 9:09 am

    -Step Back

    I think you need to “step back” and read some of my posts and you will see that I am not against all patents. I don’t blame patent lawyers for anything but I do disagree with some of the patent law. I am in support of protection for software, but I would just like to limit it to copyright protection.

    It’s a good thing you were talking tongue and check because the last time I checked the reason people started using computers was to increase productivity, otherwise any smart person would just stop using them. Programmers are the ones “forcing” nurses to push around computerized pill carts? Programmers are the ones setting insurance policy just because they write the programs that process it? What a joke, you can’t even string together a good bad argument.

    Here is the bottom line. I don’t care if poor people can’t get $4 Viagra, but there is no reason to stop people from making life saving drugs. Whatever the possible options are for paying for the research, letting people die is not an acceptable option. I’m not even against charging people who have the means to pay for it, but if somebody can’t, they should still be able to get the drugs, especially when they are so cheap to manufacture.

  116. scrappy December 10, 2009 9:40 am

    POP, I agree with you about all the problems with software and business method patents. The way they are administered today, they let anyone “imagine” something a computer could (might, maybe, possibly in the future) do, and then stake a claim pre-empting any one else from actually reducing it to practice.

    Software and business method patent have become the Jerome Lemelson of the 21st century!!

    But don’t go saying that the only non-important (non-life-saving) patents should be subject to patent protection. That is completely logically inconsistent.

    We want you to invent, but don’t invent anything that might (at some point in the future) be considered essential! That you won’t have any rights to!!! That is so logically ludicrous, programmer!!

    Also, if you look at world history, innovation has only come where there are strong IP rights, back to at least the 18th century. (If I’m not mistaken, the first “patent system” was in the Venice vicinity centuries earlier, when the great enlightenment thinkers were all coming from that area….)

    In the last 10 years, China has strengthened their patent system a hundred fold, and we have weakened ours. Seriously, go to the SIPO web site… pretty soon that’s where we’ll all be learning about the cutting edge….

    http://ensearch.sipo.gov.cn/sipoensearch//search/tabSearch.do?method=init

  117. Attorney from Germany December 11, 2009 6:26 am

    Gene-
    what is absolutely beyond me is:

    How can you consider stolen (or hacked) information legitimate?

    First of all the information as stolen. A crime by my account. No lawyer should use that information.

    Furthermore:
    How can one be sure, that the information published by the thieves is complete or unedited? There simply is no way!

    Even if some of the mails are legitimate, how can one take a mail absolutely out of context and discuss it?! It is the same as reading a sentence in a patent application out of context and interpreting it in a totally different way as intended, for which the PTOs are often harshly critizised.

    i do not care whether you believe in climate change or not, but I am deeply dissappointed by the way you handled this.

  118. Gene Quinn December 11, 2009 9:54 am

    Attorney from Germany-

    And I am deeply disappointed that you are ignoring the facts. And what is beyond me is how or why anyone couldn’t understand what is going on. Your reaction and denial is deeply troubling.

    First, what evidence do you have that there was a crime, hacking or otherwise? That has been alleged, but in the US we require proof, not suspicion.

    Second, in the US such information is not inadmissible. Perhaps we are more concerned with the truth than German courts would be.

    Third, there is no taking mail out of context. There were thousands of e-mails to provide plenty of context. Also, not much context (if any) is actually required when scientists state that they are fabricating data to hide reality. Pretty self evident what that means either with or without context.

    Fourth, as far as I can tell none of these scientists have refuted anything. That seems strong evidence of tacit admission. If not true they would be everywhere telling their story, and they are not. It is not as if the liberal media wouldn’t give them a platform, yet they have said nothing.

    Finally, what you choose to ignore is that this fabricated evidence all makes perfect sense and fits with what is observable, it also fits with historical temperature information dating back at least 400,000 years and with research conducted by NASA who for some time have known that the models created using this data just didn’t work. So you can get on your high horse if you like, but there is plenty of evidence pointing away from global warming and the story about fabrication (which has not been refuted by anyone) fits with all the other evidence.

    I am disappointed any attorney would ignore facts in support of a particular agenda, which seems quite clearly what you are doing.

    -Gene

  119. Noise above Law December 11, 2009 11:42 am

    I can see in my mind’s eye: Jon Stewart, with his famous half scowl and with almost utmost umbrage – “but they STOLE our emails showing our lies…”

    Those blind to the truth often include those so passionate about a cause that the cause supersedes reality, and dogma replaces truth.

    This dogma driven blindness can also be seen with the topic of “software” patents.

    Coincidence that posts on such topics drive the highest volume of replies? I tend to view this as the “Trainwreck” syndrome.

  120. step back December 11, 2009 12:07 pm

    Dear Attorney from Germany,
    (BTW, is that you Max?)

    This one thread (on AGW) has little to do with calm and dispassionate discussion about law and facts.

    It has everything to do with rage and human emotions.

    Let’s say for sake of analogy that the police had illegally broken into your distant cousin’s house and thereby found incriminating evidence.
    Would you say that this evidence should be inadmissible no matter what?

    But let’s say for continued argument’s sake that the evidence appeared to prove your distant (very distant) cousin murdered in cold blood a more proximate family member of yours.

    In such a case, most people would say the law should be ignored because the discovery shines light on a dangerous cold blooded murderer lurking in our midst.

    That’s kind of the way the AGW-denialist camp (Gene included) looks at the ClimateGate emails.

    On the other hand, the AGW-proponents see the illegally purloined emails as showing that the cousin cheated on one minor high school algebra exam but then went on to finishing trigonometry and calculus on his own without cheating and to getting the correct “answer” regarding an important question (is AGW true?).

    In the second case it is very easy to say that the illegally admitted evidence should be disregarded.

    But that is not the way Gene and his familiars see the situation. They see evidence of cold blooded murder. Their eyes are red with rage.

    Cheers.

  121. step back December 11, 2009 12:14 pm

    An additional note.

    This argument about wrongly obtained evidence and Mann’s “trick” is besides the point.

    The glaciers melt nonetheless.

    (Recall that Galileo is rumored to have muttered, “It moves nonetheless”.)

    For a more in depth and scientific discussion, take a look at this off-site posting:
    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6031#comment-568643

    And for a discussion about human emotions, see this:
    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6028#comment-568298

    Cheers again.
    May the farce be with us. 😉

  122. blind dogma December 11, 2009 5:21 pm

    “The glaciers melt nonetheless.”

    Would that be “nonetheless”- with humanity and its so-called massive imprint on the world, or “nonetheless” without humanity’s imprint as the data shows over the last 400,000 years?

  123. The Mad Hatter December 15, 2009 3:00 pm

    I see that Gene is still convinced that Climate Change isn’t man made, and that we aren’t seeing unusually heavy amounts of Glacial melting. Maybe he needs to read about DenierGate:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18279-deniergate-turning-the-tables-on-climate-sceptics.html

    Or possibly he needs to read “Astroturf in the Climate Change Discussion”

    http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/2009/10/astroturf-in-climate-change-discussion.html

    Or maybe he needs to take a trip to Greenland, or Nunavut, and talk to the Innu people who live there, and who are seeing these things first hand. He might believe them, where he won’t believe us.

  124. Gene Quinn December 15, 2009 5:19 pm

    Mad Hatter-

    Please define “unusually heavy amounts of Glacial melting.”

    Do you realize that throughout history the glaciers have melted, formed, melted, formed, melted again and formed again. You do realize there have been ice ages throughout history, correct? You do realize that man was not around to cause or contribute to any of those patterns, and that they repeat continually throughout history, correct?

    Exotic theories that solve one event while being unable to solve explain that same events throughout history are questionable at best, and rise only to the level of a hypothesis, certainly not a theory or law.

    Maybe you need to study history before telling others they need to take a trip to Greenland.

    -Gene

  125. The Mad Hatter December 15, 2009 9:49 pm

    Gene,

    Do you realize that the Earth used to have a Reducing Atmosphere?

    Think about it.

  126. step back December 15, 2009 10:11 pm

    The problem with all us patent people debating over AGW or over CCHPLDD (Climate Change Hoax Promoting Lying Democratic Dogs) is that essentially all of us are insufficiently knowledgeable in this subject area.

    As they say, a little knowledge can be enough to make you dangerous, but not right.

    I know some of what I don’t know (but not all of it) about CC / GW / AGW / CCHPLDD

    1. There are all sorts of short term and long shifts in the orbit of planet Earth –some of these are major forcing factors into pushing Earth into a next Ice Age and some are not

    2. There are all sorts of short term and long shifts in the output of the Sun (But as I understand it, we are currently in the cool part of an 11 year solar cycle. The hot part is supposed to show up in 2013. I’m no expert. This is just what I read someplace!)

    3. There are all sorts of countervailing mechanisms for cooling the Earth as well as warming it. If you have never heard of Global Dimming, you are just plain naive and unknowledgeable. On the other hand, the presence of Global Dimming does not mean it is the dominant mechanism. Most reputable climatologists assert that Global Warming is at present the dominant mecahnism and that CO2 generated by human activities is a not-negligible factor.

    One thing I do know is that this kind of debate seems to draw out the emotional rage of those on both sides and there are few calm and rational discussions. As between whom is more or less emotional in these “debates”, I’d say it is the so-called “skeptics” who are more emotionally enraged and less rational.

  127. blind dogma December 16, 2009 12:28 am

    Interestingly, the science channel just had a special about how the land under New York City was formed by a glacier A MILE THICK.

    Funny, how that glacier melted without the help of modern man and all the evils of today that we MUST regulate.

    Nonetheless…

  128. Kritter Guy December 16, 2009 2:41 am

    Kritter here-

    Tis been a few days since I have commented. Why, because there really is no purpose. I have sat back and watched and read the on-going comments on Global Warming. I have been watching (reluctantly) all the news on this subject. There is no way anyone who is opposed to man’s influence in GW or CC is ever going to accept this fact no matter what proof is provided. The same is true the other way around. Although those opposed can’t show evidence that GW doesn’t exist nor can they show any evidence that man’s influence is not attributing to CC. All they can do is try to jab holes into scientific data.

    But it really doesn’t matter what any lay person believes no matter which side he or she is on. It is a fruitless and tiresome debate. Our fate lies in the hands of the politicians around the world. We can voice our opinions one way or the other, but it’s those with the biggest $$$$ who will shape the politicians mind and in the end whatever policies that are put forth. All we can do is sit back and bitch at each other.

    So I will believe what I perceive and believe to be true and you will too. Then we can all sit back together with beer and pizza, doing what’s really important, watching if the Colts and Saints can remain perfect.

    So let’s quit wasting our time debating what’s undebatable.

    Go Colts. And what about the Phillies trading Lee to get Halladay? Lackey going to the Redsox! Meanwhile my Dodgers lose Wolf and are just watching all the pitching go elsewhere. Sigh!

  129. scrappy December 16, 2009 6:14 am

    Blind dogma, I see your problem – you’re not watching enough Hollywood drivel. Watch a few end-of-the-world CO2 suffocation flicks and you’ll likely become Step back’s mental match. (But be careful who you watch them with.)

  130. scrappy December 16, 2009 6:22 am

    “The problem with all us patent people debating over AGW or over CCHPLDD (Climate Change Hoax Promoting Lying Democratic Dogs) is that essentially all of us are insufficiently knowledgeable in this subject area.”

    Asking opponents to “please stop opposing” for want of total knowledge is the last gasp of a losing argument (and a losing advocate).

    And Step back, if you are insufficiently knowledgable in this area (which I do not deny), why did you feel compelled to speak up? Do you truly have nothing more worthwhile to do with your time that to spout off about things you have insufficient knowledge of? Why not become knowledgable instead instead of spoutin’?

    “I’d say it is the so-called ‘skeptics’ who are more emotionally enraged and less rational.”

    Project much, Step back? You who are paradoxically a font of emotion (“The glaciers are melting!” “The sky is falling!”) and a logical vacuum at the very same time? Making your ultimate argument point “to the man”, Step back?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    You are, ma’am, unfortunately for us, a hypocrite.

    P.S. I ignored your first rage comment, figuring you were just spoutin’ like many do, but perhaps you (in your logical vacuum) took the lack of response as validation, as if perhaps your “argument” had hit home and was worth repeating… you know, if you say something often enough some people (i.e., you) will believe it.

    Here’s a tip: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

  131. step back December 16, 2009 6:49 am

    Hey BD,

    This is great.
    I’m a fan of the Sci Channel also!
    We have something in common.

    Yes. As a matter of fact the Sci Channel did a giant story last night (at least in my Not-Right Coast area) about measurements taken over different lengths of time, from the ultra short to the ultra long. It was called Exploring Time (Short and Long Time Series). See:
    http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science-channel/29710-exploring-time-global-warming-and-the-ocean-belt-video.htm

    See also:
    http://www.aboutus.org/ExploringTime.com

    I didn’t catch the whole thing (2 hours) but they did mention some things about the orbital cycles of planet Earth: the Wobble periodicity and the Circular to Elliptical Orbital periodicity. The latter is about 100,000 years and thus matches with the timing of the last major Ice Age. The Wobble, IIRC is about 43,000 years. They also discussed various techniques for scientific measurement including taking ice cores from glaciers and measuring organic deposits on the sea bed.

    From what I could make of it, despite my left-wobbled perspective, is that the current warming cycle does not at all match with the 100,000 and 43,000 year cycles. This is what gives AGW-proponents great concern. The current “warming” is not in synch with the “usual” natural cycles. Something “else” appears to be causing it.

    I understand where you are smugly coming from with your “little knowledge is dangerous” attitude. But what is the factual basis for you concluding that the 100,000 year cycle has been suddenly sped up at such an alarming rate? Inquiring Sci Channel fans want to know.

  132. step back December 16, 2009 7:01 am

    P.S.

    I found the segment I had in mind. Here is the link:
    http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science-channel/28778-exploring-time-earth-dance-and-its-effect-on-climate-video.htm

    Actually, the “Wobble” is 20,000 years and “Tilt” is 40,000 years and Ellipto/Circular is 100,000 years

    Fascinating stuff.

  133. step back December 16, 2009 7:06 am

    Scrappy,

    My fact based posts are currently “awaiting moderation”.
    That’s because they have links to supporting evidence.

    But while we wait for Gene to approve them, please explain this: Why are you going after B Dog when he is on your side of the “argument”? Shouldn’t dogs of a pack bark together? (Sort of like birds of a feather and the whole flock thing.)

    🙂

  134. scrappy December 16, 2009 8:25 am

    “Shouldn’t dogs of a pack bark together? ”

    Talk about a logical vacuum. Step back, from here on out I ignore you on global warming (or anything else non-patent). Sorry.

  135. The Mad Hatter December 16, 2009 8:32 am

    OK, so Gene doesn’t know what a reducing atmosphere is, or why the Earth used to have one, or why it’s important.

    The point is, that we understand why the Earth had a reducing atmosphere. We understand why it changed. We understand the mechanics. The same way that we understand the mechanics of greenhouse gas (such as NO2, NO, N2O, CO, CO2) and other greenhouse multipliers (PM10, PM2.5). We know how much of the current atmospheric levels is man made, and how this varies from the levels of 230 years ago, when a rebel named George lead his army across a Delaware river that was thick with ice floes.

    Yes, there are natural variations in climate. What we are seeing currently is not natural.

  136. scrappy December 16, 2009 8:38 am

    “he same way that we understand the mechanics of greenhouse gas (such as NO2, NO, N2O, CO, CO2) and other greenhouse multipliers (PM10, PM2.5).”

    Mad Hatter, if you’re so knowledgeable about greenhouse gases, why didn’t you mention “water vapor” which is over 90% of the culprit?

    http://moreheatthanlight.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/the-human-contribution/

  137. step back December 16, 2009 11:53 am

    Scrappy,

    With almost 140 comments in this thread, rational readers can take count of your approach and see it for what it is, a set of rabid attacks based on hate and enragement.

    For example, here you attack a member of your own wolf pack (“you’re not watching enough Hollywood drivel”)

    And here you attack Al Gore (“That “several million degree” core Gore talked about is just about oozing out through the crust.”)

    On and on it goes. One can simply do a search (Ctrl F crappy) through the many s_crappy posts upthread to get a flavor of your argumentation style: all ad hom and no cattle

    By contrast, I have repeated inserted links to scientific sites to back up what I say.

    Yes, I know very little about AGW / CC / whatever. I know that I know only that little much to become dangerous. On the other hand, you demonstrate an even smaller knowledge base and an extreme pride and hubris in knowing little but nonetheless attacking all the players on an ad hom basis.

    How about responding with something new instead of repeatedly boring us with ad hom’s?

    What is your theory about mankind pumping toxins into the atmosphere from here to infinity and beyond? What consequences do you see? Let me guess. You see everlasting “prosperity”.

    No hard feelings though. 😉

  138. step back December 16, 2009 11:55 am

    Scrappy,

    With almost 140 comments in this thread, rational readers can take count of your approach and see it for what it is, a set of rabid attacks based on hate and enragement.

    For example, here you attack a member of your own wolf pack (“you’re not watching enough Hollywood drivel”)

    And here you attack Al Gore (“That “several million degree” core Gore talked about is just about oozing out through the crust.”)

    On and on it goes. One can simply do a search (Ctrl F scrappy) through the many s_crappy posts upthread to get a flavor of your argumentation style: all ad hom and no cattle

    By contrast, I have repeated inserted links to scientific sites to back up what I say.

    Yes, I know very little about AGW / CC / whatever. I know that I know only that little much to become dangerous. On the other hand, you demonstrate an even smaller knowledge base and an extreme pride and hubris in knowing little but nonetheless attacking all the players on an ad hom basis.

    How about responding with something new instead of repeatedly boring us with ad hom’s?

    What is your theory about mankind pumping toxins into the atmosphere from here to infinity and beyond? What consequences do you see? Let me guess. You see everlasting “prosperity”.

    No hard feelings though. 😉

  139. Gene Quinn December 16, 2009 7:37 pm

    Mad Hatter-

    You are an arrogant and obnoxious. All you know how to do is put words in the mouth of others. How funny that you never get it right, and you always mischaracterize. You seem to have a pathological problem with truth and accuracy.

    I also notice that you never address any points I raise, and simply go on to other points. You must be a liberal!

    I didn’t expect you to address the history of glacial retreat, reformation, retreat, reformation, etc. etc. It doesn’t fit in with the story you want to tell so you just ignore it. Trying to debate with you is like spitting into the wind.

    -Gene

  140. step back December 16, 2009 10:06 pm

    Gene,

    By contrast, I did supply links to the Exploring Time series on the science channel. (Sorry for the double posts. I didn’t get confirmation that it loaded.) If you wind to the end of the one posted in comment 136 you will see the scientists explaining that the wobble, tilt and eccentricity cycles do not always align in phase and thus sometimes they can reinforce cooling or warming; and sometimes they can cancel one another out. Beyond this there are issues of Atlantic conveyor belt, of Pacific Ninos and Ninas, etc. etc.

    Again, I’m no expert. I’m just knowledgeable enough to know how little I know.

    Climate prediction is very complex and very difficult.

    But here’s the thing. Let’s say you are driving down an unfamiliar country road and looking through your windshield to predict what’s coming next. Is there a hairpin turn to the right? OK. Slow down and prepare to make it. Did a deer just jump out in the middle of the road? OK. Start braking to avoid a disastrous collision.

    But let’s say you find out that what you have been looking through is not a clear windshield. It’s a 3D television screen of a possibly fictional world model and now you’re not sure what lays ahead of you. Is it a clear road or one full of hazards? So what would be the prudent thing to do? Full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes? Or should you start scaling back on your business as usual (BAU) behavior?

    Climate scientists (most) are saying that the BAU (business as usual) behavior of pumping ever larger amounts of combustion byproduct into the atmosphere is not sustainable and that we need to drastically scale back.

    What your side is saying (or at least what I see your side as saying) is damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. To me that just doesn’t make prudent sense. Where is the precautionary principle?

    No hard feelings. Everyone is entitled to his model of how the world works.

    P.S. I hope you are right and I am wrong.

    Cheers. 🙂

  141. The Mad Hatter December 17, 2009 12:52 pm

    You are an arrogant and obnoxious. All you know how to do is put words in the mouth of others. How funny that you never get it right, and you always mischaracterize. You seem to have a pathological problem with truth and accuracy.

    I also notice that you never address any points I raise, and simply go on to other points. You must be a liberal!

    I didn’t expect you to address the history of glacial retreat, reformation, retreat, reformation, etc. etc. It doesn’t fit in with the story you want to tell so you just ignore it. Trying to debate with you is like spitting into the wind.

    You think I’m obnoxious, because I don’t believe that a Lawyer has the skills and/or knowledge to evaluate a scientific issue. Would you recommend that I go to a plumber to have a will drawn up? Or to an auto mechanic to get my sink fixed?

    No, you wouldn’t.

    The problem is that you are treating this as a legal issue. In legal issues calling into question the testimony of a witness is a basic tactic. If you can weaken the testimony of the witness, it can win the case for you. Based on what you’ve seen, you believe that the witnesses credibility has been destroyed, by the release of the emails that were stolen from the CRU server.

    But this is a scientific issue. 2 + 2 will not equal 3. Even if the witness has no credibility, it still can’t equal 3, any more than the sun can rise in the west.

    During the Bush Administration, there was a push for what they were calling “Sound Science.” What this Orwellian term actually was actually designed to do, was to make it extremely difficult to prove anything. For example when we looked at the proposed rules, if someone had started to argue that the sun rose in the west, it would have been virtually impossible to prove it wrong. It also would have been difficult to prove that things fall when they are dropped. Basically the “Sound Science” push was based on a misunderstanding of how Science works.

    And no, I’m not a Liberal. Pierre Trudeau ruined the Liberal Party.

  142. Gene Quinn December 17, 2009 8:13 pm

    Mad Hatter-

    I am not treating this as a legal issue. It is one of fact, plain and simple.

    You, like most who think they know everything, don’t know nearly as much as you believe you do. For example, it seems clear that you don’t know that patent attorneys are engineers and scientists. So it might surprise you that when I need advice on my car I actually go to a patent attorney who knows far more about auto mechanics than any auto mechanic.

    If you think it is impossible to prove the sun does not rise in the west that really explains all anyone needs to know about you. You ignore reality on every level, obviously do not understand science, you clearly don’t understand law and you choose to ignore fact and rely on fiction. Getting through a day in the real world must be quite a challenge for you. I pity you.

    -Gene

  143. Gene Quinn December 17, 2009 8:23 pm

    Step back-

    You say: “Climate scientists (most) are saying that the BAU (business as usual) behavior of pumping ever larger amounts of combustion byproduct into the atmosphere is not sustainable and that we need to drastically scale back.

    What your side is saying (or at least what I see your side as saying) is damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead. To me that just doesn’t make prudent sense. Where is the precautionary principle?”

    Obviously you have not actually read what I wrote. Too bad. If you had you would have noticed that repeatedly I have said the polluting less and conserving more is the responsible thing to do. I said that over and over, yet you continue to ignore those statements and want to put words in my mouth. Why? Why must liberals always ignore what is said in favor of putting words in the mouths of their adversaries in debate?

    What is clear is that the data relied upon by climate scientists was fabricated, and that means any conclusions reached on fabricated data are useless. That being the case, and since the global warming nuts have vilified and suppressed all dissent for years, it is stupid to ruin our economy in the name of a lie. This is particularly true given that India, China and others who are far worse polluters than us have made it clear they will do nothing to change.

    -Gene

  144. step back December 17, 2009 8:36 pm

    Gene,

    May I respectfully suggest that the above comment number 145 is … if you step back and take an unemotional look at it … an attack against the person and not a fair discussion about the issues.

    Let me add one more thing to the factual side of the discussion. Let’s assume that the Globe-is-Warming part of the so-called Climate Change movement is a total hoax.

    Even then, even with that as a concession for argument’s sake, we still have the problem of Ocean Acidfication and the Keeling curve.

    The Keeling Curve is the one that Al Gore (ithem) made famous in his Inconvenient [Whatevers] movie. It shows the unrelenting linear rise of ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. That ramp up began in coincidence with the start of the Industrial Age. I don’t think it can be fairly argued that the Keeling ramp is not caused by mankind.

    At the same time, there are disturbing reports about what is happening to shelled ocean creatures as a result of ocean acidification. See for example these links:

    http://www.www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean_acidification

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-acid-ocean-the-other-problem-with-cosub2sub-emission/

    http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2009/12/acidification-irreversible-on.html

    On a lighter note: Hey guess what?
    Starting tomorrow, only 7 shopping days left to XMAS 🙂

  145. step back December 17, 2009 8:44 pm

    Hi Gene,
    Looks like you were writing comment 146 at same time I was typing 147.

    Anyway. If you take my comments as suggesting that you favor polluting the air, then I apologize. I did indeed note your earlier remarks about going renewable and reducing pollution and I applaud those.

    At the same time, making the argument that China and India will continue pollute and therefore we must also (for the sake of the health of Mr Economy) does not seem rational. They can say the same thing in reverse. Then we are all caught in an endless loop of pumping ever greater amounts of pollutants into the air and into the seas.

    What is really needed is an end to the rhetoric and an extreme push in favor of advancing non-polluting or low-polluting technologies –even if it means giving Mr. Economy a kick in the hindquarters every so often. Business as Usual (BAU) simply cannot continue forever. If not now, then when? If not us, then who?

  146. step back December 17, 2009 8:50 pm

    “since the global warming nuts have vilified and suppressed all dissent for years”

    Gene,

    That is simply not true.

    The RealClimate web site has taken on all criticisms and addressed them on a factual basis. They have even acknowledged ClimateGate.

    Where is the Denialist counterpart to the RealClimate web site? Where do the Denialists propose a model of what is going to happen if we (mankind) continue to pump unending streams of pollutants into the air and sea?

    Luckily astronomers have found a “Second Earth” some 40 light years away. So after we finish ravishing this planet we can simply move on to the next. 😉

  147. The Mad Hatter December 17, 2009 10:39 pm

    I am not treating this as a legal issue. It is one of fact, plain and simple.

    OK, let’s define this. What exactly do you think the “fact” is?

    You, like most who think they know everything, don’t know nearly as much as you believe you do. For example, it seems clear that you don’t know that patent attorneys are engineers and scientists. So it might surprise you that when I need advice on my car I actually go to a patent attorney who knows far more about auto mechanics than any auto mechanic.

    I know quite a few lawyers. Some are competent. Others aren’t, for example a QC that I know, who is either less than competent, or suffering from some form of dementia. Some have secondary skills (like your BS in Electrical Engineering). Some don’t. It’s like any trade. You have good, bad, and average people in it.

    If you think it is impossible to prove the sun does not rise in the west that really explains all anyone needs to know about you. You ignore reality on every level, obviously do not understand science, you clearly don’t understand law and you choose to ignore fact and rely on fiction. Getting through a day in the real world must be quite a challenge for you. I pity you.

    You misquote me. I said that under the “Sound Science” rules that the Bush Administration was trying to have adopted, it would be difficult to prove that the Sun rose in the east. I suggest that you read the Junk Science entry on Wikipedia, and also the Sound Science entry on Source Watch. Many scientists who worked for the government during this period were very concerned, as the proposed rules would have set the bar for proof so high, that it would have been impossible to meet.

    If we use the “Sound Science” level of proof, the human race is having no effect on the average temperature of the biosphere of this planet. If you use the standard scientific level of proof, that science has successfully used for the last several hundred years, than the human race is having an effect on the average temperature of the biosphere of this planet.

    We run into the same issues with Evolution. Under the “Sound Science” rules evolution is unproven. Under the rules that Science uses, its proven.

    I don’t know which set of rules you are using, though it sounds like you are an adherent of the Bush/Cheney Sound Science rules. As I said, using those rules it’s damned hard to prove anything. They were designed that way. As I said above, I don’t know why they were designed that way, but it based on the backing that they had from the Fossil Fuel industries, I believe that they were proposed to make it harder to prove that pollution was causing damage, so that they industry would not have to engage in expensive clean up operations. Since the Obama Administration is as deeply in debt to industry as the Bush and Clinton Administrations, I doubt that we will see much action on cleaning up the environment officially.

    However consumers are already taking action themselves. When I was car hunting this summer, I talked to the Sales Manager at one of our local Toyota dealerships. He was willing to give me a great deal on a Hummer H3, the original owner had traded it in on a Toyota Yaris.

  148. The Mad Hatter December 18, 2009 1:33 pm

    Article from The Guardian about the Copenhagen meetings.

  149. The Mad Hatter December 18, 2009 1:35 pm

    Article from Mother Jones about the Copenhagen meetings.

  150. step back December 18, 2009 2:17 pm

    I don’t know which set of rules you are using, though it sounds like you are an adherent of the Bush/Cheney Sound Science rules.

    Mad Hatter,

    May I suggest that this kind of vitriol is unproductive?

    I suspect that Gene is going to object strongly to being called a Bush/Cheney doctrine lover.
    And what Gene is or is not, that’s not the issue.

    The issue is whether ClimateGate “proves” that Global Warming is a complete hoax.

    It appears to me that Gene thinks, yes it does.

    I take that position that one should not be so hasty. The mere fact that a few scientists may have been engaged in a cover up (whether major or minor) does not change the “fact” as to whether CO2-driven Global Warming is occurring or not. Mother Nature doesn’t care what Dr. Mann and his fellow “tricksters” may have done. Mother Nature does her own thing irregardless.

    When Galileo signed his confession to the effect that heliocentricity is a “hoax” (the Church made him confess that Sun goes around the Earth per the Bible), Mother Nature didn’t listen. The Earth continued to orbit around the Sun with its attendant wobble and tilt of spin axis and with its attendant shift (every 100,000 years) of orbit eccentricity.

    It moves nonetheless.
    Ditto for Global Warming, Climate Change and Ocean Acidification.

  151. step back December 19, 2009 5:25 am

    Rather than “debating” amongst ourselves, we can watch a bunch of pros debating the climate change hoax/reality by way of whatever ideological prisms we bring to the party by following the “watch the debate” link provided at this web site:

    http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=6645

  152. The Mad Hatter December 19, 2009 7:39 am

    I don’t know which set of rules you are using, though it sounds like you are an adherent of the Bush/Cheney Sound Science rules.

    Mad Hatter,

    May I suggest that this kind of vitriol is unproductive?

    I suspect that Gene is going to object strongly to being called a Bush/Cheney doctrine lover.
    And what Gene is or is not, that’s not the issue.

    Vitriol? What vitrilo? All I asked was what set of rules he is using, because it makes a difference. Rather like when playing Hearts, it makes a difference if you use the “deuce of clubs leads” rule, as to how you play the game.

    The issue is whether ClimateGate “proves” that Global Warming is a complete hoax.

    It appears to me that Gene thinks, yes it does.

    It appears to me that he thinks it does too. As I noted above, I think that Gene may be looking at this from a legal point of view, where the credibility of the witness is important. The credibility of the witness has no effect on natural law (you can’t fool Mother Nature).

    I take that position that one should not be so hasty. The mere fact that a few scientists may have been engaged in a cover up (whether major or minor) does not change the “fact” as to whether CO2-driven Global Warming is occurring or not. Mother Nature doesn’t care what Dr. Mann and his fellow “tricksters” may have done. Mother Nature does her own thing irregardless.

    When Galileo signed his confession to the effect that heliocentricity is a “hoax” (the Church made him confess that Sun goes around the Earth per the Bible), Mother Nature didn’t listen. The Earth continued to orbit around the Sun with its attendant wobble and tilt of spin axis and with its attendant shift (every 100,000 years) of orbit eccentricity.

    It moves nonetheless.
    Ditto for Global Warming, Climate Change and Ocean Acidification.

    Having had the time to look over the emails in question (no, I didn’t read them all, I don’t have that much time) what I saw was a bunch of people discussing several situations:

    1) The publisher of one journal wasn’t following the rules, and they wanted him outed.
    2) Some of the data didn’t make sense, so they didn’t use it (possible equipment failure)
    3) Some of the data appeared to have been collected incorrectly (sensor in wrong place) so they didn’t use it.

    To put this into legal terms:

    1) A judge wasn’t following the rules for his area, and they wanted him outed.
    2) A witness claimed to have witnessed a crime in New York, but the witness was in Europe at the time, and so that witness was not used.
    3) The video camera which was supposed to cover the crime scene was aimed in the wrong direction, and so the video wasn’t useful.

    In other words, the emails show no evidence of a conspiracy of any kind. Go read them. They are a great cure for insomnia.

  153. The Mad Hatter December 19, 2009 9:49 am

    For those who are interested, the politicians messed up in Copanhagen.

  154. step back December 20, 2009 12:04 am

    Mad Hatter,

    You gotta stop feeding the IP Watchdog folk with “Happy Feet ” news.

    It’s time they wake up and feel the “Despair”:
    http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2009/12/2000-2010-decade-of-climate-change.html

    Below is a test to see if IP Watchdog allows inserts of linked images (from National Geographic):

  155. step back December 20, 2009 6:56 am

    Never mind ClimateGate. How about some discussion concerning the DenierDom:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 ???

    (If you don’t want to watch the above YouTube, the quick summary is that it demonstrates Denier Dom’s claim that scientists were predicting cooling to be a crock. The “consensus” even back to the 50’s was that human-produced CO2 was going to lead to warming and loss of glaciers. Even in the “Soylent Green” movie way back when, Edward G Robinson remarks on how hot things have gotten since the good old days.)

    If there is fraud and deception, the bulk mass of it lies in the Denier Camp.
    Yes Virginia, there is fraud and deception. It’s just good old Big Business as usual.

  156. The Mad Hatter December 20, 2009 10:47 pm

    Heh. Thanks for the link. Did you see the article on the super earth that they’ve discovered? Fascinating stuff.

  157. step back December 21, 2009 4:00 pm

    MH,

    See my comment 149. We’re talking about the same thing.

    The videos posted by greenman 3610 (comment 158) have been a real eye opener for me.

    It shows the Greater Hoax perpetrated by the Denier Drones about the alleged “hoax” perpetrated by the ClimateGate scientists.

    I wonder if Gene is going to bemoan the fact that his “skeptical” friends are actually the grander hoaxters?

    They make up a hoax about an alleged hoax right before the Copenhagen Summit and then run away as the truth squads start to uncover this grander hoax generated by the so-called “skeptics”.

    But then again, the public has short attention span. So it works. The public remembers only the small hoax which is actually not a hoax but something fabricated inside a Grander Hoax (the Skeptic’s Hoo Ha Hoax).

    Where is Gene now as the truth starts to trickle down like an air-clearing drizzle after the grand showboat parade has passed by?

  158. blind dogma December 23, 2009 1:03 pm

    “Where is the Denialist counterpart to the RealClimate web site? ”

    Perhaps, in China.
    http://volokh.com/2009/12/23/china%e2%80%99s-victory-at-copenhagen/#comments

  159. step back December 24, 2009 12:16 pm

    BD,

    Asked not, did I
    where reside the largest number of CO2 emitters,
    Asked instead did I
    where there is a science based web site that explains the Denialist position on the basis
    of well established scientific principles and not on the basis of
    pure ad hominem rage.

    At the moment all I hear is one chirping cricket.

  160. Gene Quinn December 24, 2009 2:30 pm

    Step back-

    You hear chirping cricket because everyone knows you choose to ignore all the evidence presented. I have repeatedly given you links to such websites, to articles by well respected scientists and more. Yet, like a true Monty Python character you continue to act as if everyone is ignoring your requests. Such tactics have gotten old and stale.

    -Gene

  161. step back December 24, 2009 5:16 pm

    Gene,

    First of all, have a Happy, Healthy and Merry Holiday Season and a Prosperous New Years.
    Best Wishes.
    –Steppy

    Now back to business.

    Gene: You are correct, I did not seriously look at all the “evidence” you posted links to. I watched your Jon Stewart clip and saw that he was comically making fun of everybody –including your C Street buddy, Senator Inhofe.

    OK. So in fairness, I have now gone back and looked at your Professor Easterbrook link. His predicitions are based on ice cores from .. from Central Greenland? You got to be kidding me. Why not some from Eastern Greenland? You can’t be serious. Global means global. It does not mean cherry picked temperature proxies.

    Your Professor Easterbrook opens his arguments by asserting that: “Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, …”

    As far as I can tell, this “skeptical” geologist bases his analysis on another hoax of the unethical skeptical denialist community; the idea that Global warming has stopped. In fact the past decade of 2000-2009 has been charted as one of the warmest in history. Global warming continues unabated.

    Well it continues unabated unless … unless you listen to the Suffering Succotash Sylvester Limb Back Cat (a.k.a. the “Rush”) who this morning on his dystopia radio show proclaimed that everything is a lie, that we humans are too insignificant to change the world. (I guess he hasn’t paid attention to how many animal species “we” have driven into extinction including major fish populations.)

    I have repeatedly said that I wish you were right and I was totally wrong and indeed this whole Global Warming and Climate Change and Ocean Acidification stuff was a giant hoax perpetrated by a bunch of cigar smoking fake scientists locked away in their conspiracy weaving back rooms. And indeed this “conspiracy” has to be the grandest one ever put together because all scientist from all over the world are in on it. Only you and Rush Limbaugh (and Prof. Easterbrook) are tuned into the “real” truth. The glaciers are not melting, the perma-frost is not thawing, the methane is not being released, the oceans are not becoming more acidic and sea levels are not rising. It’s all a hoax, a hoax I tell you. I wish upon a star that truth is there, where you are. But it ain’t.

    Chirp. Chirp.

    Happy Holidays from Jimminy Cricket (your conscientious adviser)

  162. Gene Quinn December 24, 2009 10:47 pm

    Step-

    I see you haven’t changed your tune at all. You ask for evidence and it is provided and you ignore it, oh well. As far as this being the warmest decade in history, that is simply false and you know it is false, or perhaps you just ignore the data that clearly and unambiguously proves otherwise. The funny thing with data is that if you selectively look at it whatever story you want to tell can be told.

    I notice you ignored the NASA data and findings, because you undoubtedly cannot brush them off with “are you kidding me” logic. Too bad, because if you didn’t ignore the NASA data you would have learned that according to NASA (and many others you also chose not to read) the earth has entered a cooling cycle.

    Your problem is you focus on things with many explanations and ignore all reason. Perhaps the glaciers are melting and not just getting thicker. If that is true it is not a hoax, but just because glaciers might be melting doesn’t mean global warming can’t also be a hoax. I know you know that but are just choosing to play dense, but I am getting really tired of your if 1+1 = 2 then the moon must be made of cheese arguments.

    Fact is that the seas are not rising at the levels predicted, if at all. Again, I know you know that.

    As far as the data, believe what you will but everyone who is being objective knows there is only one reason to fabricate data.

    Happy Holidays!

    -Gene

  163. The Mad Hatter December 24, 2009 11:31 pm

    Boys, boys, boys, please behave. There’s only 30 minutes to Christmas in my time zone, and I really don’t want to see bloggers fighting it out in my inbox.

    Merry Christmas – and let’s all come back on Monday, when we are hopefully sober, and happy.

  164. The Zohan (messes again) December 25, 2009 5:55 am

    MAd HAtter,

    The Zohan no observe diz XMAS festivity. But Heppy Holiday to one and all nonetheless.
    Unfortunately for the Zohan, his apple sauce run out and the old lattke (lat-keh =deep fried potatoes eaten during Hebraic holiday of Hanukkah =miracle of no Peak Oil) they no taste good no more.

    My good friend Gene say that the Step Back ignore zis NASA data.

    Person by name of James Hansen, he is a prominent scientist at NASA, no?

    He publish recent paper at following web site, yes?
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf

    You go to page to Page 6, Fig. 4 of his PDF and you see big oy vey problem.
    This year 2009 (CE) is in coolest part of 11 year solar hot/cold cycle.
    In another 5-6 years things will get hotter again. Oy vey.

    If you go to page 2, Fig. 1 of information-filled Hansen paper, you see there was no “cooling” in last 10 years. Global warming continues unabated.

    The Zohan would like very much that all this is big hoax and that Hansen and all other scientists in world are part of smokey room conspiracy.

    There is indeed a smokey room conspiracy. It is called Industrial Age.

    Since around mid 1800’s the good peoples from all around world have begun to pump geometrically increasing amounts of unnatural chemicals into the atmosphere with hope that such messy muchen tuken will simply go away. We do same ting with big oceans, dumping plastics and other garbage with belief that we too small and ocean too big for our unclean ways to have effect.

    But now days there be 6.7 Billion (that’s with a Bet, not a Mem) of us on this finite sized planet. When we all pee pee in ocean at same time it does add up. When we all cut forests and burn wood, burn coal and oil, it does add up. It no go away because we want to believe it not there. It no go away because our lying eyes don’t see it.

    There is funny thing in science called “conservation of mass”.
    When you put large mass of CO2 into atmospheric cesspool, it tend to stay there. It no disappear by magic.

    There is other funny thing in science called “conservation of energy”.
    When CO2 absorb IR rays, the generated heat energy tend to stay there. It no disappear by magic.

    There is funny planet in Solar system called “Venus”.
    Over there, the experiment of what happens when atmosphere is full of CO2 is going on as we speak.

    We should send “skeptics” to this Venus place so they can check it out for themselves.

    Anyway, the Zohan has spoken too much and is no intending to put coal lump in tomorrow morning stocking. Have Heppy Holiday and we talk more after this message is moderated,

  165. Dk May 22, 2011 9:51 am

    Now that the so called “fraud” has itself been debunked, and the continuing accumulation of data confirms warming, will Gene recant?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384390/Climategate-scientists-secretive-broken-Freedom-Information-laws.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

  166. Gene Quinn May 22, 2011 10:54 am

    DK-

    Why would I recant? The e-mails of the researchers clearly say what they said. They said they fabricated the data in order to hide the fact that the data showed no warming trend. Please watch the John Stewart clip. He lays out the facts nicely, quoting the e-mails and news reports.

    You see DK, investigations the don’t take into account admissions by the wrong-doers are not at all convincing. Particularly when the admissions of the wrong-doers were made in private and they thought they would never get out. Clearly the data was fabricated, they explained in e-mails that they needed to hide the lack of a warming trend, and then they discarded the raw data.

    Please use your head, will you?

    -Gene