Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/02/climate.stolen.emails/index.html

Oh noes, I hope this doesn't distract all of us from the "catastrophic threat to our planet" that is global warming (and the taxes that come with it, of course).

I personally think this is all rediculous, Fox News actually created the whole ClimateGate Story, Keith Olbermann has more:

qbo5qiCYaNI

Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/02/climate.stolen.emails/index.html

Oh noes, I hope this doesn't distract all of us from the "catastrophic threat to our planet" that is global warming (and the taxes that come with it, of course).

I personally think this is all rediculous, Fox News actually created the whole ClimateGate Story, Keith Olbermann has more:

qbo5qiCYaNI


I'm going to need a lot more info than just "climate change fascism" or whatever they said. That article didn't discuss the contents of the e-mails with any substance. I don't feel like loooking it up (I am google'd out right now...tried looking stuff up earlier and got pissed.)


So, what was REALLY the contents of those e-mails?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232722/Professor-climate-change-scandal-helps-police-enquiries-researchers-banned.html

This has a bit more about the content of the e-mails. I do love the comments claiming the "global warming is dead" as though this research center is the only one in the entire world.

Originally posted by KidRock

Oh noes, I hope this doesn't distract all of us from the "catastrophic threat to our planet" that is global warming (and the taxes that come with it, of course).

I just noticed this. Are you claiming that scientists have been manipulating data simply so that they will have to pay more taxes?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232722/Professor-climate-change-scandal-helps-police-enquiries-researchers-banned.html

This has a bit more about the content of the e-mails. I do love the comments claiming the "global warming is dead" as though this research center is the only one in the entire world.

Cool. Thanks man. That puts it into a much better picture for me. He's basically doing what was already known to be done by many: Pushing a "we need to stop man-made global warming" agenda.

And, I find it quite funny that he was trying to manipulate recent data that shows a general trend towards cooling.


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just noticed this. Are you claiming that scientists have been manipulating data simply so that they will have to pay more taxes?

Duuuuh!

Of course!


Wait....wut?



Cart before the horse could also be the case.

Creating a demand for an "employee's" services is hardly something stupid, as you imply. Sure, they may pay more taxes, but they will have not only job security, but a better paying job. That's the way it's been for what...the last 20-30 years? I'm sure the veterans are getting paid nicely.

this is weeks old, I had thought of putting something up when it broke, but it is hardly news. More interesting is how vulnerable the supposedly confidential and private institutional networks are.

The only phrase in the emails that relates to the scientific credibility of the centre is where a "trick" is discussed in how data was made to fit a model. The university has provided a long description of how the term was used in context, long story short, "trick" doesn't have to mean deception, and is often used to describe an ingenious method of data analysis in science, especially in informal emails.

More attention has been payed to the comments of the scientists leveled at global warming "skeptics", which, OMFG STOP THE PRESSES, shows that scientists are humans who get pissy.

sad the guy had to step down. This is even worse than the harvard chair who had to step down over comments about girls natural ability to do mathematics, as the head of the centre really didn't do anything.

One thing that is always shown as an indicator of global warming is the shrinking of the ice sheets at the poles. What few seem to realise is that the antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Although this is put down to, ironically, the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole. So it seems that damage to the enviroment is actually preventing climte change.

Although the hole in the ozone layer is actually getting smaller and "repairing" itself because of less use of CFC's.

Climate change phenomena react with each other in strange ways. For instance global dimming.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Climate change phenomena react with each other in strange ways. For instance global dimming.

How much money do I need to throw at "global dimming" before I can feel safe again?

Originally posted by inimalist
this is weeks old, I had thought of putting something up when it broke, but it is hardly news. More interesting is how vulnerable the supposedly confidential and private institutional networks are.

The only phrase in the emails that relates to the scientific credibility of the centre is where a "trick" is discussed in how data was made to fit a model. The university has provided a long description of how the term was used in context, long story short, "trick" doesn't have to mean deception, and is often used to describe an ingenious method of data analysis in science, especially in informal emails.

More attention has been payed to the comments of the scientists leveled at global warming "skeptics", which, OMFG STOP THE PRESSES, shows that scientists are humans who get pissy.

sad the guy had to step down. This is even worse than the harvard chair who had to step down over comments about girls natural ability to do mathematics, as the head of the centre really didn't do anything.

Oh that'come on. The guy was openly advocating the ignoring of contrary evidence and also openly admitted that they were not in a position to validate their target findings. You making this out to be some hasty mis-understanding doesn't fit; he was violating the most basic principles of producing just a study.

And this is more significant than this being 'just one' research centre. It provided fully one third of the data that the IPCC used to make its judgment on climate change, and that being the case the data, and the means by whuich is was produced, is immensly important to the debate- even more so as another third, the data by Hansen's institute, has come under fire for arbitrary adjustments also.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh that'come on. The guy was openly advocating the ignoring of contrary evidence and also openly admitted that they were not in a position to validate their target findings. You making this out to be some hasty mis-understanding doesn't fit; he was violating the most basic principles of producing just a study.

in informal emails

Originally posted by inimalist
in informal emails

He actually suggested ignoring contrary evidence? Cause I think that would be a pretty for a head of a scientific institution. Even if it was in "informal emails"...though I am not sure what they are defined as.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He actually suggested ignoring contrary evidence? Cause I think that would be a pretty for a head of a scientific institution. Even if it was in "informal emails"...though I am not sure what they are defined as.

biologists very publicly advocate ignoring the so called "darwin skeptics", people who study history often refuse to acknowledge the work of Von Danichan and other "alternative history" writers.

Decontextualized into a talking point on an internet forum, it can sound as bad as you want it to. The thing is, if data were being excluded, it would show up in the peer reviewed material. One wouldn't require these internal emails.

Further, any sufficiently large body of text will produce sentences that can prove any point. If you were to go through the emails me and my prof sent to each other about a review process we felt was a little unfair (given our results didn't support the journal editor's thesis), you could probably make it look like we aren't scientists or that the whole endeavor of vision research is a fraud.

Originally posted by inimalist
biologists very publicly advocate ignoring the so called "darwin skeptics", people who study history often refuse to acknowledge the work of Von Danichan and other "alternative history" writers.

Decontextualized into a talking point on an internet forum, it can sound as bad as you want it to. The thing is, if data were being excluded, it would show up in the peer reviewed material. One wouldn't require these internal emails.

Further, any sufficiently large body of text will produce sentences that can prove any point. If you were to go through the emails me and my prof sent to each other about a review process we felt was a little unfair (given our results didn't support the journal editor's thesis), you could probably make it look like we aren't scientists or that the whole endeavor of vision research is a fraud.

Well, I didn't read the emails of course, but I don't know it does sound pretty bad to advise to ignore evidence. Cause evidence implies that it is valid. If he was saying to ignore empty attacks on their evidence, sure.

But yeah, you are probably right that you can construct something from such a large amount of data, though I assume like I, you didn't read all those emails either, so we both go by what we heard about it, no? (perhaps I am wrong, you seem a weird enough fellow to have checked it out yourself)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I didn't read the emails of course, but I don't know it does sound pretty bad to advise to ignore evidence. Cause evidence implies that it is valid. If he was saying to ignore empty attacks on their evidence, sure.

But yeah, you are probably right that you can construct something from such a large amount of data, though I assume like I, you didn't read all those emails either, so we both go by what we heard about it, no? (perhaps I am wrong, you seem a weird enough fellow to have checked it out yourself)

no, I haven't read them all myself. (though I admit, it is not for lack of trying, I just don't know where to find them hosted)

it depends what the evidence is. David Icke has "evidence", Alex Jones has "evidence", Micheal Behe has "evidence". However, if we assume the evidence is valid, then we are in the almost untenable position of proposing a "grand conspiracy" within all of climate science, much like creationists propose a grand conspiracy of all biologists. For the same reasons it is impossible that the scientific community is ignoring biological data that would prove creationism, it is ridiculous to think that all people doing real science on climate are deliberately ignoring work which meets scientific rigor.

We can talk about zeitgeists and interpretation, but the charge that there is real, valid science that would survive a real peer-review being ignored by all climate scientists because... ?.... doesn't seem like a very good argument at all.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I haven't read them all myself. (though I admit, it is not for lack of trying, I just don't know where to find them hosted)

it depends what the evidence is. David Icke has "evidence", Alex Jones has "evidence", Micheal Behe has "evidence". However, if we assume the evidence is valid, then we are in the almost untenable position of proposing a "grand conspiracy" within all of climate science, much like creationists propose a grand conspiracy of all biologists. For the same reasons it is impossible that the scientific community is ignoring biological data that would prove creationism, it is ridiculous to think that all people doing real science on climate are deliberately ignoring work which meets scientific rigor.

We can talk about zeitgeists and interpretation, but the charge that there is real, valid science that would survive a real peer-review being ignored by all climate scientists because... ?.... doesn't seem like a very good argument at all.

That is not evidence though. Perhaps he meant that, I don't know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is not evidence though. Perhaps he meant that, I don't know.

fair enough, though such academic distinctions between types of evidence is not something people really care about when they email each other.

also, this begs the question, what evidence? most evidence against global warming comes in the form of single statements focusing on a single piece of evidence that isn't immediately reconcilable with the dominant theory. The only line of reasoning that would produce any testable hypotheses is that of "its the sun", but that is only relevant if we are talking about anthropogenic warming vs natural, not questioning warming trends in general. Even then, the sun argument has been rebuked, at least as the dominant driver of climate change.

Then we can bring it back even further. While there might be allegations here or there against climate scientists who support man-made global warming, there is irrefutable evidence of collusion between big business, conservative government and some research groups who have shown evidence against global warming (which has never been peer-reviewed). The anti-warming side is closer to the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" group rather than determined scientists looking to poke holes in a grand cover-up.

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough, though such academic distinctions between types of evidence is not something people really care about when they email each other.

also, this begs the question, what evidence? most evidence against global warming comes in the form of single statements focusing on a single piece of evidence that isn't immediately reconcilable with the dominant theory. The only line of reasoning that would produce any testable hypotheses is that of "its the sun", but that is only relevant if we are talking about anthropogenic warming vs natural, not questioning warming trends in general. Even then, the sun argument has been rebuked, at least as the dominant driver of climate change.

Then we can bring it back even further. While there might be allegations here or there against climate scientists who support man-made global warming, there is irrefutable evidence of collusion between big business, conservative government and some research groups who have shown evidence against global warming (which has never been peer-reviewed). The anti-warming side is closer to the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" group rather than determined scientists looking to poke holes in a grand cover-up.

Well, I think what is probably an interesting discussion is the actual consequences arising from the warming and the steps that should be taken, if any. As this is a heavily politicized topic, and politicians do have a tendency to jump the gun and at times create much more damage than good, even if good in intentions.

The way I see it is that to many people acceptance that global warming exists and is man made is a direct acceptance of having to start recycling, stop fossil fuels completely, etc.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think what is probably an interesting discussion is the actual consequences arising from the warming and the steps that should be taken, if any. As this is a heavily politicized topic, and politicians do have a tendency to jump the gun and at times create much more damage than good, even if good in intentions.

The way I see it is that to many people acceptance that global warming exists and is man made is a direct acceptance of having to start recycling, stop fossil fuels completely, etc.

you will get no argument from me about any of that. Spending tax dollars on climate change is not the most effective way to make human existence better at this point, if ever. Its become a stupid issue. Mainly, environmentalism has been a way for companies to push costs onto consumers, be it in bags or in raising costs to "offset" "environmental" policies.

My personal thoughts are that we didn't need global warming to tell us that we should look after the world and not pollute. Those are good ideals in and of themselves. Thomas Friedman, who I like most of the time, talked about how everyone thinks we are having a green revolution, but we are only having a "green party". We do these symbolic things, like bumper stickers or New Age mumbo jumbo (which is possibly one of the greatest beneficiaries of this green party), but nobody is willing to make the real cutbacks necessary to produce a carbon neutral, or whatever buzzword, society. We shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot to be environmentalists, but we also shouldn't just be environmentalists because of potential global calamity. So what, as soon as there is no disaster looming in the future we should dump motor oil on our lawns?

Originally posted by inimalist
you will get no argument from me about any of that. Spending tax dollars on climate change is not the most effective way to make human existence better at this point, if ever. Its become a stupid issue. Mainly, environmentalism has been a way for companies to push costs onto consumers, be it in bags or in raising costs to "offset" "environmental" policies.

My personal thoughts are that we didn't need global warming to tell us that we should look after the world and not pollute. Those are good ideals in and of themselves. Thomas Friedman, who I like most of the time, talked about how everyone thinks we are having a green revolution, but we are only having a "green party". We do these symbolic things, like bumper stickers or New Age mumbo jumbo (which is possibly one of the greatest beneficiaries of this green party), but nobody is willing to make the real cutbacks necessary to produce a carbon neutral, or whatever buzzword, society. We shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot to be environmentalists, but we also shouldn't just be environmentalists because of potential global calamity. So what, as soon as there is no disaster looming in the future we should dump motor oil on our lawns?

It's too bad that environmentalists killed nuclear power.

Now the people will make those communist leaders of America cut taxes! Finally!

Originally posted by inimalist
Even then, the sun argument has been rebuked, at least as the dominant driver of climate change.

Actually, I was under the impression that it IS the dominant climate changer with manmade influence falling in at .3-.5% of the global "warming" trend.

Also, some of the global warming that has been "discovered" is not really warming at all, but simply an "urban heat island effect." Satellite measures of global mean temperature are much more accurate and they don't show a warming trend, at all.



And.......


VIVA LA HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!


And, increase in temperature may actually cause CO2 to increase, not the other way around.


But, for me, it is mostly solar activity.

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/duhaudej-phases-2008.pdf

Originally posted by dadudemon
Satellite measures of global mean temperature are much more accurate and they don't show a warming trend, at all.

How many hundreds of years of data do we have from those again?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How many hundreds of years of data do we have from those again?

You want my post to say something it is not.

The trend I referred to is for the last 18 years.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, I was under the impression that it IS the dominant climate changer with manmade influence falling in at .3-.5% of the global "warming" trend.

Also, some of the global warming that has been "discovered" is not really warming at all, but simply an "urban heat island effect." Satellite measures of global mean temperature are much more accurate and they don't show a warming trend, at all.



And.......


VIVA LA HOLOCENE MAXIMUM!


And, increase in temperature may actually cause CO2 to increase, not the other way around.


But, for me, it is mostly solar activity.

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/duhaudej-phases-2008.pdf

/shrug

I'm going from what I've seen on livescience

those paper being published, however, is glaring evidence of their being no conspiracy against non-anthropogenic global warming evidence.

EDIT: I also have a general beef with the way you are talking about "global warming", and its nothing to do with you personally or even what you are saying, its just the whole way the name has stuck. Global warming really might not lead to "global warming", but rather, drastic climate change that alters how people live on the planet. That satellites don't show an upward trend, to me, isn't really surprising. Climate is too complex for there to be things that are completely uniform as the term "warming" would suggest.

greenland used to be green. earth goes through massive warming/cooling trends. everything happening now is natural. relax it would take FAR MORE than we have going on now to do anything to the environment. hint: cows produce more methane (a gas far more harmful to the environment than c02) than cars do c02.

Originally posted by One Free Man
hint: cows produce more methane (a gas far more harmful to the environment than c02) than cars do c02.

Correction: No they don't. Not even close.

The "50 times more potent as a greenhouse gas" idea is slightly misleading, as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Correction: No they don't. Not even close.
Correction: Yes they do.

Originally posted by One Free Man
greenland used to be green. earth goes through massive warming/cooling trends. everything happening now is natural. relax it would take FAR MORE than we have going on now to do anything to the environment. hint: cows produce more methane (a gas far more harmful to the environment than c02) than cars do c02.

even if that were true (though it does fall victim to the "singular statement that doesn't seem to fit the theory" issue, and cows are a man-made product anyways, thus effects on the environment from farming them is a anthropogenic) your conclusion is not necessarily valid.

By relative volume, the effect of alcohol on a human body requires very little substance. a change of 05 to .08% blood alcohol content, a minuscule change of .03, to go from being tipsy to being off the wall hammered (numbers may vary). Very small changes in systems that are in delicate balance can have huge effects. That humans produce less green house gas than other things does not mean humans are not the driving factor behind climate change.

There is also the fact that, while the climate on the earth does change, the rate of change is unprecedented.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Correction: Yes they do.


Prove that cows produce more methane gas than humans do C02 from their cars.

EDIT: whoops, I misread that... what a crazy argument.

anyways, my point: Both , however, are anthropogenic causes of global warming, so it makes even pointing this out completely incongruent with his argument that it is all natural and that humans couldn't have any effect. This leads me to think his position is more of a collection of counter-points and interesting anomalies rather than a coherent model of global climate.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: whoops, I misread that... what a crazy argument.

anyways, my point: Both , however, are anthropogenic causes of global warming, so it makes even pointing this out completely incongruent with his argument that it is all natural and that humans couldn't have any effect. This leads me to think his position is more of a collection of counter-points and interesting anomalies rather than a coherent model of global climate.


Indeed. Your point would actually be more correct than me simply point out that he's wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: whoops, I misread that... what a crazy argument.

anyways, my point: Both , however, are anthropogenic causes of global warming, so it makes even pointing this out completely incongruent with his argument that it is all natural and that humans couldn't have any effect. This leads me to think his position is more of a collection of counter-points and interesting anomalies rather than a coherent model of global climate. cows were not the cause of my "all natural" argument.

when the vikings settled greenland it was in fact green, thus the name. the stories tell of them planting crops in the prosperous "green" land.

we go through massive cooling/warm stages as a planet.

Originally posted by One Free Man
cows were not the cause of my "all natural" argument.

indeed, I argued that they weren't in the post you quoted.

Originally posted by One Free Man
when the vikings settled greenland it was in fact green, thus the name. the stories tell of them planting crops in the prosperous "green" land.

we go through massive cooling/warm stages as a planet.

we sure do

however, that really doesn't do much about the evidence that man is contributing to the current climate change

for instance, it is possible that the earth could be changing AND that man might be effecting it

Originally posted by One Free Man
cows were not the cause of my "all natural" argument.

when the vikings settled greenland it was in fact green, thus the name. the stories tell of them planting crops in the prosperous "green" land.

we go through massive cooling/warm stages as a planet.

Actually, parts of Greenland are still verdant today.

Natural cooling and warming does not preclude human influence on the climate.

Originally posted by inimalist


however, that really doesn't do much about the evidence EVIDENCE? WHERE?!?!

Originally posted by One Free Man
EVIDENCE? WHERE?!?!

by this do you mean:

a) I actually did not realize there was any evidence supporting anthropogenic global climate change, can you show me?

or

b) I disregard all present climate science that points to anthropogenic climate change

a.

Originally posted by One Free Man
a.

You seriously thought that most of the climatologists in the world didn't even claim to have evidence of global climate change?

Originally posted by One Free Man
a.

I'd start with this: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html

and the wiki for climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

for any particular questions you might want addressed that aren't explicitly covered there, I'd suggest: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

for instance, here is their answer to the idea that past climate change disproves anthropogenic climate change:


A much more thorough answer is given at this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

as is done with all "skeptical" questions answered by the site.

EDIT: this link specifically answeres the charge that there is no empirical evidence for man-made climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

The Reality of 'Climategate'
Benjamin Radford
Livescience.com
http://www.livescience.com/environment/091206-climategate-emails.html

.

Originally posted by inimalist
The Reality of 'Climategate'
Benjamin Radford
Livescience.com
http://www.livescience.com/environment/091206-climategate-emails.html http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm I see that in there. It is assumed by the analogy that global warming is as obvious and irrefutable as a solar eclipse, which it isn't, thus: false analogy.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd start with this: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html

and the wiki for climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

for any particular questions you might want addressed that aren't explicitly covered there, I'd suggest: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

for instance, here is their answer to the idea that past climate change disproves anthropogenic climate change:


A much more thorough answer is given at this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

as is done with all "skeptical" questions answered by the site.

EDIT: this link specifically answeres the charge that there is no empirical evidence for man-made climate change: http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm I think i've given myself a base understanding of global warming by reading the first link, it's late so i won't read the rest now, but apparently, the only thing that can be attributed to us are greenhouse gasses. so what are we looking at, in theory, if nothing is done to prevent global warming? sauron skies with obsidian ground?

massive loss in biodiversity, increased conflict in Africa and other drought sensitive places, increased aridity in places like Arizona, major disruptions in 3rd world economies.

In real terms, its not a huge threat, per se, to the west, though it will cause problems. Drought in what is now farmland will be much more common, though agriculture may just move further north.

The kicker is that unless carbon sequestering is possible, most of this is unavoidable regardless of policy. The pollution is already there. I've largely thought that, in this respect, the origin of climate change is irrelevant and adapting to a changing world should be the crux of policy, not trying to fight an already lost battle.

EDIT:

Most scientists would agree with this , it is the radical environmentalists who might better be criticized for such doom saying.

Originally posted by inimalist
massive loss in biodiversity, increased conflict in Africa and other drought sensitive places, increased aridity in places like Arizona, major disruptions in 3rd world economies.

In real terms, its not a huge threat, per se, to the west, though it will cause problems. Drought in what is now farmland will be much more common, though agriculture may just move further north.

The kicker is that unless carbon sequestering is possible, most of this is unavoidable regardless of policy. The pollution is already there. I've largely thought that, in this respect, the origin of climate change is irrelevant and adapting to a changing world should be the crux of policy, not trying to fight an already lost battle.

EDIT:

Most scientists would agree with this , it is the radical environmentalists who might better be criticized for such doom saying. That's my stance on the issue, too. We should see what we can do about it now to make it not so much of an issue. I'd also assume that places that are now hostile mostly would become livable so perhaps there even comes some good for it. What probably isn't going to help though is what we do atm which is try to reverse the problem with disastrous effects on other areas.

Originally posted by inimalist
adapting to a changing world should be the crux of policy, not trying to fight an already lost battle.

Obviously adapting will be necessary but if we just let people continue with actions that contribute to climate change won't the effects get worse and worse?

Not to mention that the human causes of climate change are bad for us in plenty of other ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (afaik this isn't in dispute)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obviously adapting will be necessary but if we just let people continue with actions that contribute to climate change won't the effects get worse and worse?

Not to mention that the human causes of climate change are bad for us in plenty of other ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification (afaik this isn't in dispute)

I agree entirely. I was more addressing the extremes at both ends, as (I think) you mentioned in another thread, it was environmentalists who killed nuclear power.

I'm totally for protecting the Environment, even though I consider it largely a human aesthetic (though I do believe that impact on any part of the ecosystem will make life harder for humans in the long run, if we have to some how account for things which nature does for us now, like honeybee pollination of food crops). I just think that there are better ways to address human suffering, though, I think all of these initiatives suffer mostly from inept politicians rather than being competing ideals.