Narrator

Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature's most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world's most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.

French Horn Fanfare Theme

Fast-cut montage of walrus mating with polar bear, astronomer peering through telescope into neighbor's window, cheetahs chasing penguins on the Serengeti, scientists filling out NSF grant proposals

Dah dat dat DAAAH dat, dah daht duh dah dee-dah dee dah-dah!

Narrator

This is the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, home of one of the largest nesting populations of climate scientists in Europe.

Gentle ant's-eye scene of idyllic campus lawn, strewn about with drunken mating undergraduates

Each year it attracts magnificent migratory flocks of graduate students, adjuncts and visiting faculty from across the northern hemisphere.

Shots of jumbo jets landing at Heathrow; herds of climate researchers busily milling at Duty Free shops, retrieving baggage, phoning for prearranged limo service

Within minutes of arriving on campus, the migratory researchers approach the entrance of the Climate Research Unit and perform the secret credential dance, fiercely displaying their prominent curriculum vitae. This signals to the security drone that they can be trusted with the sacred electronic lanyard badge that will grant them entrance to the hive's inner sanctum.  

During the upcoming research season, this hive alone will produce over 6 million metric tons of grant-sustaining climate data guano, but until recently little was known about the elusive genus of homo scientifica living inside. Where do they come from? What strange force draws them here year after year? In order to unravel the mystery, Iowahawk Geographic documentary filmmaker David Burge undertook a painstaking one-week project to finally capture the climate researchers in their native habitat.

In this exclusive footage, Burge warily approaches the hive's security drone, disguising himself as smelly graduate student. Burge has theorized that as a member of the lowest stratum in the hive's social system, the drone likely enjoys partying. He reaches into his backpack and offers the drone a pint of Guinness and a small bag of weed in exchange for the hive's internal security tapes and email files. Success.

The never-before seen security tapes obtained by Burge provide a rare glimpse into the inner working of the climate research hive and its amazing guano production. In this sequence, we see one group of researchers entering the hive each carrying a datum they have retrieved from a distant climate measuring station. This is the cause of much excitement among their colleagues, who buzz around in a grant-writing frenzy.

Infrared heat map film of highly agitated researchers

But there's a problem: as the worker researchers attempt to store each raw datum into the neat honeycomb hockey stick structure provided by the hive's Alpha Grantwriter, they discover that few will fit. The infrared shows them growing cool with fear. This signals the climate researcher's instinctive behavior to begin viciously beating, rolling and normalizing the data into submission. According to Dr. Nigel V.H. Oldham, professor emeritus at Oxford University's Centre for Metascience, this violent data dance is what makes climate researchers unique among breeds of scientists.

Professor Nigel V.H. Oldham

Like other species in the order homo scientifica, the climate researcher gathers and organizes data to lure grant money to the hive. In contrast to those other species, however, the climate researcher has evolved a set of complex violent behaviors to insure any data leaving the hive is perfectly adapted to nature's most lucrative and sweetest grants. It really is a marvel of natural selection, and explains why the climate researcher continues to thrive in any kind of weather condition....

This piece is referring to the unfolding ClimateGate scandal. If you haven't heard about it yet, don't be surprised. Most media outlets talk about Anthropogenic (man-created) Global Warming (AGW) as if it is already established indisputable scientific fact.

I'm mostly skeptical of claims like this, not because I am a scientist, but because anytime "science" blends with politics - it inevitably becomes ideological (if you don't agree, you are bad), rather than scientific (if you don't agree, that's good. Curiosity about why things are the way they are, is the foundation of science). The fact that Al Gore is the chief proponent of AGW, should be a sign, not to just write off his opinion, but to at least approach the topic with a measure of skepticism. (Political alignment is irrelevant. If Al Gore were substituted with George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, it wouldn't make AGW one bit more or less true, or scientific.) Also, red flags seem especially appropriate whenever any 'science' a) claims to be "closed," or that the "debate is over," (For example - here's the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Report which argues the opposite) or b) predicts doom and gloom on an apocalyptic scale... "unless..."

And I can't stress this point enough: Whether or not you agree that man is causing detrimental climate change is not the issue. The issue is that AGW has entered the political body and there is already legislation (Cap and Trade) on it being written which will cause drastic changes to our economy. And make no mistake - additional fees or taxes on companies to regulate their carbon emissions WILL have drastic effects. Most notably with regard to jobs, and the poor. Rising costs of energy and products, due to climate legislation will take a huge toll on people who are already hardest hit by lack of jobs and/or poverty.

If we are going to pass legislation in regard to AGW - we had better be absolutely certain that we know:

1. Beyond a reasonable doubt - AGW is a Fact,
2. How much the legislation will cost, 
3. Who will pay for it?, and most importantly
4. Will the legislation address the problem?

If AGW is just speculation - why would we need legislation? 

If the legislation will cost everyone a fortune (Important: remember the Seen vs. the Unseen), not just in jobs and rising costs, but also in restricting personal liberty - there must exist no possible alternative.

If the proposed political action will not fix the problem - but will instead dramatically damage the poor and unemployed - then it is an unscientific and irrational policy, and must be rejected.

Remember, once a law is passed to tax businesses or people for their carbon emissions - it is highly improbably that it will ever be repealed even if the 'scientific claims' on which it is based are disproven in the future. Governments do not readily give up taxes.

With that in mind, here's ClimateGate in a nutshell

Basically - some hackers got their hands on a ton of emails between a notable group of climate scientists who are leading the charge for the idea that man is causing climate change through carbon emissions (AGW). The emails reveal many disturbing things, from attempts to manipulate the data to fit their hypothesis, unlawful destruction (hiding) of data contrary to their position, and even spite against other scientists who disagree with their position.

Obviously - if this is true - then it is a big deal given everything we just discussed.

Here are some articles to get you started:

• Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
• In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes - washingtonpost.com
• Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean?
• Hacked E-Mails Heat Up Global Warming Dispute  -A.P.
• The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
• Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate

The Senate bill would provide coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans by vastly expanding Medicaid and creating insurance "exchanges" for individuals who do not have access to affordable coverage through their employers. For the first time, it would require most people to carry health coverage, although families with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level would receive subsidies to buy policies.

The legislation would also force widespread changes to the insurance industry to end discriminatory practices, including the rejection of coverage based on preexisting conditions. It would provide new incentives to encourage disease prevention and to institute the most effective treatments for chronic conditions such as diabetes and asthma.

On the revenue side, the Senate bill would extract about $400 billion in cost savings from Medicare and Medicaid, and would impose an excise tax on the most generous health-care policies, dubbed "Cadillac" plans. It would raise payroll taxes for high earners and levy a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery.

The ripple effect from this bill cannot be fully known. If history is any indication; it will be worse from the beginning, crumbling within a decade and bankrupt within a generation.

This is a thoughtful critique of the private vs. public control of our air traffic control system. However, it raises some important issues which deserve more attention.

Whenever someone trots out the 'Profits vs. People' line (or its various forms - as above: "Profits over People"), it is important to recognize this as nothing more than an economically illiterate straw-man. We live in a society of free people, not of slaves.  Therefore, there is no such thing as People versus Profit, rather - they go hand in hand.

In a free society, Profit in not something which necessarily requires the sacrifice of People. In fact, Profit is not possible without People - whether workers or consumers. Nor is Profit simply "making money," though it is almost exclusively discussed this way. (Note that money is nothing more than a representation of value, and a means of easily trading it. Without money - trading would be nearly impossible. I would have to barter hours of web development directly for flight control service, or mexican food, or Wii games, or my mortgage payment, etc.) People trade things they value and produce, (usually represented by money), for things they value more or are incapable of producing. This creates a 'profit' for both traders. The one offering the service - turns a profit on the service provide, the other gains a profit from the service rendered. There is no 'versus'.

Likewise, the animosity toward the 'profit motive' is also illogical. This phrase is often used as a pejorative describing an enterprise making money. But what of the consumer's 'profit motive' to obtain the service for the cheapest cost? Both parties are negotiating a trade of value. Why is only one seen as profiting, and is thus demonized? As a service provider or producer in a free market - it runs counter to the 'profit motive' to 'put profits over people' and do something that is destructive to your customers or the public image of your company. Because a private entity does not have the ability to use force (in contrast with the government, which IS force), it is inherently imperative to, not only, earn your trust and support - but provide something of greater value, than whatever thing of value (money) you would trade for it. If a certain product or service is not of greater value - or if the provider is known to harm its customers, you are free to trade for something else that isn't harmful and is a better deal. Essentially - you are free to choose to pursue a better trade - one in which you gain a bigger (here comes that 'evil' word again...) profit with regard to what you offer to trade. The profit motive is hardly more than the desire to not get screwed over when making a trade.

Consider these thoughts the next time someone attempts to decry Profits, the profit motive, or pushes the false idea that Profits and People are enemies fighting for opposing teams.

One Crucial Distinction About Capitalism

Above I am arguing for capitalism. It is essential to point out that private entities who do use governmental force to compel consumers to trade for their service are not practicing capitalism. Capitalism is free trade, hence -laissez faire.  The power to determine and negotiate value and fairness is on the individual traders. Forced trade is a feature of socialism, communism, and/or fascism. With forced trade, the government (force) is used to increase a private entities influence or bargaining power. For example: Let's say General Electric is lobbying congress (which they are) for all sorts of things (as is their constitutional right). Among those things is likely a push to pass legislation against incandescent light bulbs in the interest of climate change. Congress then may outlaw these bulbs, and you will be obligated to purchase the new curly florescent bulbs. Obviously, G.E. will profit greatly from this new legislation, even if you buy your new bulbs elsewhere, because the new law will necessarily create an increase in demand. The point is that G.E. will have bargained with the politicians to borrow the government's monopolistic force to influence the market and raise the value of florescent light bulbs. This is anti-capitalism. 

Perhaps you may argue that you get to vote about the new legislation (usually you don't, but for the sake of the argument...) - but your decision is either upheld or overruled by the majority of other voters. This is a far cry from actually freely choosing - "I will trade some value, in exchange for something you value more".

This difference is crucial and must be distinguished, as it is commonplace to blame laissez faire capitalism (free trade) for the faults which are actually aspects of socialism (government sponsored forced trade). Ayn Rand further lays out this distinction in the video below:

Сначала никакой экономики не было, а было одно говно и ягоды.
А потом прошло несколько тысяч лет.

Удивительный опус на тему говна. Не требует умственных усилий, однако, скрывает обучающих подтекст. :)

Tug-of-war over Pearl River Delta
By Cristian Segura and Wu Zhong

BEIJING and HONG KONG - Chinese civilization originated and flourished from the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River in the north, and the country's power center has traditionally been based in the north.

Places such as Guangdong, on the southern coast, were considered "barbarian" and viewed with suspicion for their different cultural identity, while the people from these areas also tended to distance themselves politically from the power center.