Limbaugh parrots IBD piece calling Kyoto, Copenhagen "suicide pacts," smears Dunn, Holdren
October 20, 2009 2:56 pm ET
From the October 20 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
Investors Business Daily: Cap-And-Trade For Babies?
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
I marvel at how he breezes over inconvenient things like facts as debatable doctrines envisioned by the "green fringe" to create their "New World Order" where people recycle, sustain energy, demand clean air, and plant more trees.
Lions! Tigers! Bears! Oh my!
I heard a whole lot on MMfA about the $175 per family CBO cost estimate released in June, but not so much about what CBO Director Elmendorf said last week before the Senate.
If you read the June report you would see the footnotes on pages 4-6 saying how the estimate did not account for how the system will affect GDP, "reductions in the productivity of capital and labor," and increases in production costs resulting in increased prices for consumers.
Now you have Elmendorf commenting on the effects on GDP and you hear not a peep from MMfA and the many AGW proponents here. I wonder if they will also remain silent when the CBO reports on these other costs associated with the cap-and-trade debacle.
Elmendorf emphasized significant uncertainties in his estimates "& did not include any benifits from averting climate change."
Lower down mention of a University of Mass at Amherst study. Per it a net job increase of 1.7 million would be a result of passage of the House Bill.
Like the healthcare reform issue. The people with the power and money got that way with the status quo, and will spend vast amounts of time and money to defend that status quo.
As for the UMass-Amherst study, here is another take from the Social Science Research Network on the studies projecting green jobs. And how has the government of Spain fared with its huge investment in creating green jobs? Not so good. What's their answer to their problem? Yikes. Econ 101. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
The hole we're in is the status quo. It is unsustainable. Nuclear won't get us out of it. Continuing to burn hydrocarbons at our current rates, or increasing them, will not get us out of it.
Clearly you like the current energy economy. I see problems with its retention that your fine with. I have suspicions as to its utility for you. We'll see if you confirm any of those suspicions over time.
If deniers aren't concerned about facts, we certainly aren't going to convince them that their beliefs are only myths.
Unlike you, I do not need pats on the back from like-minded sheep for validation. I have explored this topic in depth and draw a different conclusion. Judging by your previous parroting posts, the same can not be said of you.
Still sometimes I have to answer such as galileonardo (no lack of ego in that tag) more for the lurkers than for him, her, or it. Still it might be possible to determine if he's just a denier or truly a company tool. Which is probably as much satisfaction as I'll get out of continuing the conversation. A cheap thrill maybe but that fits my lifestyle.
:)
One thing I've noticed about trolls, they seem to like to type long, multi-paragraph manifestos, as if anyone has time to read that drivel. I guess they get paid by the word.
Per my post below, the only way the denier's position can even work, is to have some vast multi-level, complicated conspiracy involving thousands of the world's scientists to work together to overthrow world governments. I haven't run into any scientist yet who could even think of doing something like that. They're so independently-minded, it would be like herding cats.
Deniers are just loony. }:-b
This isn't the first time I have seen you tout the consensus and make claims of "vast numbers of serious scientists" but a dissection of the facts does not support such a notion despite your parroting of IPCC/Gorey consensus claims (by the way, the notion of a consensus and claims of the debate being over are absurd if you had any grasp of the scientific method).
Before I get into that though, I also find it quite humorous that you talk about "free thinking" and being "independent" and "skeptical" in your post below when I have never once seen you do anything but toe the company line. How very sheepish of you. If I saw you bring one original thought to the discussion perhaps I could be less disparaging of your comments, but as it is you are the one that is acting in a cultish manner and thus will be treated as the fanatic that you are.
As for your "vast number," are you aware that there were only about 50 author scientists of the attribution chapter (Chapter 9) of the final version of IPCC AR4 WGI? And then there were only 60 or so reviewers of that chapter including the overlap with the authors. The most important chapter in the entire report and only a hundred-odd scientists were involved in writing and reviewing it? Where were the other "thousands" of scientists you and the IPCC claim were involved? Why didn't they stick their necks out in support? Silence is the better option I suppose considering the vociferous nature of the believers/alarmists. So your vast conspiracy is just the transparent IPCC cherry-picking of a handful of scientists who also toe the company line just as you do. No need to make it so complicated.
You are mistaken if you feel I like the status quo or like the current energy economy. That is why I have proposed the answer to fix our energy issues and it is the same answer you apparently readily discount: nuclear power. It certainly has worked for France who is now an energy exporter because of it. It would fill the void needed while the transition was made to emerging cleaner technologies that could potentially replace it but at the moment fall woefully short (wind & solar), or are not there just yet (fusion power).
A five-fold increase in the number of nuclear plants would provide all of the energy the U.S. needs in the interim as we already derive about 20% of our energy from the 100 odd plants currently up and running. Also, future plants would be more efficient than the antiquated designs in use today potentially reducing the number of total plants fairly dramatically. Certainly not a perfect answer, but given the pain cap and trade would cause over the short and long term, it is far more palatable.
As for the current system, my reasons for wanting change are different than yours, for as noted by the hack below, I do not agree with the "consensus" about AGW and absolutely disagree that CO2 is the problem. That is another discussion entirely if you'd like to discuss that, or you could go through some of the other threads the aforementioned hack mentions to get an idea of my stance on AGW.
Back to the cost issue. In case you did not read the CBO footnotes I referenced regarding costs, here they are:
"The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor."
"The cost of obtaining allowances would be passed into prices in most cases because that cost would raise firms’ variable production costs (that is, the costs to produce additional units of output). In contrast, the receipt of allowances that is not linked to the quantity of output would represent a reduction in firms’ fixed production costs. Businesses generally do not change prices in response to changes in fixed costs as they do in response to changes in variable costs. Therefore, the value of the allowances received would generally accrue to shareholders (or perhaps workers in some cases)."
We have 80 years worth of fissionable fuel with current technologies. A fivefold increase reduces that to 16 years worth of fuel. Who's going to insure that fivefold increase in nuclear plants? Probably the public will get stiffed with that bill, just as they do with current plants. Fission waste is the gift that keeps on giving and costing as well. Unother unsustainable energy economy.
We have just scratched the surface of what we can do with solar power, or fuel cells. Add a large helping of geothermal prime movers,a quite viable source of green energy availible in sufficeint quantities to replace all hydrocarbon burning. This is the path to a sustainable energy economy.
Your credentials as an atmosphereic scientist would be?
You ignore Elmendorfs coment on the possible positive effects of a green energy economy.
You viciously insult SLRTX, who posts some good stuff all by himself. I didn't consider his comment a pat on the back merely a coment on what is.
That you are a company tool seems more probable than before. Keep it up to remove more doubt.
As for fission, I would actually prefer not to go that route and allow technology to develop at a natural pace rather than some artificial government-prescribed panacea that will not provide us with our energy needs. But if we are forced to give up fossil fuels prematurely (the cap and trade prescription) then nuclear would be the bridge needed.
Solar on a grand scale is the poster child for environmental degradation in my opinion. Very poor returns (currently something like 1% of our energy comes from it) at a huge cost economically and in terms of habitat destruction.
That being said, I am all for further development of alternative technologies that could allow us to transition to clean energy. I wrote Kennedy about his opposition to Cape Wind (sorry it would have "ruined" your ocean view Teddy). Solar panels on every roof would be a welcome sight. Thousands of square miles of panel fields...not so much. There are answers and more to come. And here's the thing. There are already thousands of companies involved in coming up with better answers. There simply is no need for the government prescription.
You will never once see me claim that I am an expert on this matter. But I have spent a lot of time doing research into it over the last decade and see some serious flaws in the AGW theory and even more flaws in the alarmist rhetoric used to perpetuate AGW.
I do not ignore Elmendorf's comment on possible positive effects and reiterate that I too hope to have us on a sustainable path. The positive effects that I am gleaning you predict would happen come at much too high a cost though.
Now my favorite. I "viciously insult SLRTX"? My word that is hilarious. Perhaps you missed where he first called me a denier (an allusion to the holocaust), a lunatic, and a whiner. Never mind some of his/her past gems about me and other skeptics: mad doctor, totally nonsensical, ignorant, stupid, lying, among many others. Let's see how long it takes you to scold SLR for the "vicious insults." And the pat on the back reference was in regards to the SLRTX claim of "convinc[ing]" me that my "beliefs are only myths." Nothing to do with you. It is pretty funny though that you and SLUR are patting each other on the back up there though and continuing the "vicious" attacks.
Two points.
1. lots of arid wasteland could be used as solar farms. The land under them a future possible green space.
2. No mention of geothermal in your reply.
Checked above one last time. Yup, your a company tool.
What you call arid wasteland is actually prime habitat for many desert species, some of which are endangered. In addition, the most efficient solar power arrays are water intensive and thus tax the already arid local environment disproportionately. As for the land becoming future possible green space, I thought it was "arid wasteland." The fact is it is already green space, well mostly green and brown, but functioning ecosystems nonetheless. Take a look at pictures of solar fields where you can still see the surrounding habitat. The contrast is stark.
As to your second point, I made the mistake of assuming my statement that "I am all for development of alternative technologies" would have covered geothermal. I guess I should know better than to assume anything with AGW proponents. Also, you point out my failure to mention geothermal (even though that was inaccurate), but I notice you have a tendency to ignore segments of my rebuttals without a word, i.e. my response to your request about additional costs of cap and trade. You are more than welcome to do so, but if you do please refrain from accusing me of doing that, especially when it simply is not the case.
So some shade is going to do bad things to desert envirenments? By all means, instalation will have ecological effects. Lets do it smart. There are oceanic areas that contain little life perhaps there.
Photovoltaics need water? Or are not currently the most efficient? Today perhaps not the most efficient. Recent advances doubled the efficiency of dye type photovoltaics.
Ask folks if they'd rather live next to a coalfired generating plant or a solar farm.
Geo thermal presents a very good option but little jaw power in my experience arguing on the matter.
What? I failed to cover some part of your expansive set of opinions and a particular set of frozen images in a fast moving issue.
Well dang me!
As for water usage, if photovoltaics were what was being used in solar fields that would not be an issue. But the fact is the vast majority of the large-scale solar fields are CSP systems that require lots of water, 2.5 to 8 times as much per MWh than coal plants depending on the figures/technologies used. Given that most of these arrays will be located in arid and semi-arid lands, it is no surprise that water is currently a major issue with solar.
I agree wholeheartedly with you though that if we are to do it on a grand scale, let's do it smart. Certainly advances are being made to attempt to address the water issues, but at the moment solar is water intensive. As I mentioned before, it would be great if every rooftop had photovoltaics but they are not yet affordable for most people.
Geothermal is a great alternative as well, but again, the current technologies running today mostly limit its use geographically. That too is changing as methods expand but we are not there yet.
I only mentioned your lack of comment on some of my points because you said, "No mention of geothermal in your reply" even though I advocated development of alternative energy technology.
With that in mind, I think that with more funding (say the funding used to fight wars in other nations for oil) America could well afford to research new clean and sustainable energy sources or make existing ones more efficient.
Also, you seem very knowledgeable about global warming, but in my original post I referred to all environmental costs at the expense of human consumption and "growth".
Our focus is entirely off.
I am far more worried about the environment than I am about Al Qaeda. We only get one Earth.
As for funding, the DoE has heavily invested in alternative energy since it was created in 1977, but that investment is dwarfed by the funds derived from private sources. And that has been my point. Private R&D is well-established and continues to expand yearly. This trend is definitely not going to reverse any time soon. So why do we need heavy-handed government intervention yet again into another free market?
I agree our focus is off, but mechanisms like cap and trade take our focus further off of the real environmental issues that could much more readily be addressed in real time. The focus needs to be shifted to those very real and undebatable issues.
I share your environmental concerns, but I do think it is a mistake to think that terrorist threats, both domestic and international, are a tertiary concern.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
Further, I have studied the New Scientist site and the fact that you see no issues with a lot of what is proposed there proves to me that you have not thoroughly investigated the AGW theory. And that is the larger problem. You never concede that there are issues with the AGW theory despite the fact that many scientists who themselves are AGW proponents acknowledge publicly there are serious issues with the science. Blind faith.
Even better than I can, apparently.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Rather than use the parrot sites, why don't you read the actual scientific papers and draw your own conclusions. Even perusing the abstracts would do you a world of good to realize that the issue is in fact not settled. I have done this and, as mentioned often before, see many problems with AGW. Perhaps you can do the same and show a bit of independent thought yourself since you claim to be educated in science.
Keep asking questions, keep showing the same goofy "proof" over and over and over, and expect everyone else to prove you wrong.
Deniers choose to be ignorant, stupid, or just plain lie.
If you don't want to educate yourself, that ain't our problem.
The scientists have this under control. Your opinion doesn't matter.
Keep dodging questions, keep showing the same links over and over and over, and deny that there is anything wrong with your precious AGW theory. "Nothing to see here."
Then go into name-calling but also whimper elsewhere about being called names in reply.
So, wouldn't it be sane to change the social and economic constructs regarding environmental policy to see if a different input affects the output in favor of restoring and sustaining the Earth?
Cap and trade and the IPCC AGW machine could care less about the environment and are politically motivated rather than scientifically/environmentally motivated. It is a classic case of a wolf in sheep's clothing and an affront to the true environmental causes that I and so many others are a part of. The green movement has been largely hijacked by AGW hacks who see climate change as a vehicle to achieve their political goals. When the AGW house of cards falls, the damage done to the environmental movement may very well be permanent.
However, I must ask what you believe to be the cause of climate change? If CO2 is not the protagonist, then, what is? Do you believe that climate change even exists?
Moreover, have you heard of Occam's Razor? It dictates that the simplest answer is often correct.
Am I to believe that climate change is politically motivated and engineered by the Democrats? Did the Democrats truly need environmentalists on their side? Was 'progressivism' not enough to obtain votes so much so that they needed to invent a manufactured scientific phenomenon in which the players paid off scientists to conduct bogus research all in the mastermind effort to win an election? Or is possible that recently obtained scientific data (and might I add historically complied) has disrupted the status quo, and that a lot of people will lose a lot of money if sustainability and reducing oil consumption became the top priority. Secondly, look up the top reasons why Americans voted this election. What priority was the environment on their list?
It is perfect that you bring up Ockham's Razor as it perfectly illustrates what is happening with AGW. The simplest answer is natural variation. The failed AGW models are the source of assumption and complication.
This is not a party issue. All politicians feed at the trough. Cap and trade is about control though and it is a mechanism that will grossly expand government intervention into our daily lives.
As for the implied conspiracy, no, scientists were not paid off to conduct bogus research. There was no need. Instead the IPCC propped up existing bogus research (the 800-pound gorilla being the Mann hockey stick) to get the ball rolling and cherry-picked its attribution science from there to make it gain speed (Briffa et al).
As for the environment as a priority among voters (as an aside, it is second on my list after economy), the first link I found doing a google search on "global warming concerns poll" led me to a NYT Revkin article written the day after the inauguration. It indicates that global warming is a "top priority" for 30% of voters and was "last among 20 voter concerns."
Please explain how this conspiracy that surely involved so many people - especially scientists who are notoriously independent - works. Please site evidence.
In the meantime, here's a list of other conspiracies you can support at:
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
This is how these lunatic ideas work:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/conspiracy-theory.htm
As for your oft-mentioned conspiracy, although I have also said this on numerous occasions on MMfA, a conspiracy implies that something is being done in secret. There is no secret concerning the redistributionist transnationalist ends of the UN's IPCC. I look forward to reading the actual Copenhagen Treaty once it is available. If it at all reflects the currently available NGO Copenhagen Treaty, as I suspect it will, you will be forced to concede that the aims of the IPCC and climate change legislation are less about climate change mitigation than they are a naked attempt to weaken national sovereignty and achieve a socialist agenda. And if you ever needed proof of the hijacking of environmental movements by political hacks, that link ought to suffice.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Just go there to answer your questions.
Also, the web site owner will be more than happy to address your concerns. I noticed he responds to deniers, until they start becoming time-wasters.
Time for the adults to talk. You children run along & go play in the street.
He's referring to "forcing and feedback", which continues to be under study, but the data strongly points to AGW.
Here's a link to a good site that explains the factors behind climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Like all deniers, they say they know what is causing climate change, but cannot explain how this vast conspiracy of scientists works to spread so-called lies about AGW. They can't be cause it's not true. Their spoiled brats who can't get their way, so they throw tantrums.
Other good sites:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics
You act as though that is an extreme claim when the evidence for it is actually stronger than the so-called consensus evidence for AGW. The fact that you discount the notion outright points more to your biases than it does to your understanding of the science.
And once again you go for the conspiracy straw man. It is getting pretty old and is a pretty transparent attempt at marginalizing critics of your religion.
The facts are, climate change is caused by humans.
Here's a site you may (or may not) want to read.
It seems to address all your concerns in one site. And it has sources - you know, those things that back up claims.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
I'll quote Lindzen's Senate testimony to address that since it is apropos: "There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not."
I suppose you would qualify as a politician, though I am less than charmed by your superficial platform.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
A little from column A, the little from column B.
In order for their AGW "conspiracy" to work, it would take vast numbers of serious scientists gathering like some secret society to hatch some nefarious, evil plan to bring down world governments in the name of "global climate change".
Sounds silly, doesn't it?
Well, that's the only way their "beliefs" can work.
Scientists are notorious for their free thinking ways. They're too independent and skeptical to go along with some complicated plan like the deniers claim.
Deniers are lunatics, just like those who believe in a government cover-up of captured aliens from space.
Thank god the sane, intelligent scientists have influence over the policy-makers, while the deniers just whine like a bunch of spoiled kids who don't get what they want.
Deniers, run along & play in the street. Let the adults handle this.
Global temperatures have not been warming for 15 years and have actually been cooling since 2002 even though CO2 continues to increase. UAH, RSS, GIS
Your text to link here...
There is virtually no loss of polar sea ice in the last 30 years of measurement according to NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
In fact the NSIDC shows an overall increase in ice.
Your text to link here...
The Arctic sea ice extent in September 2009 was 24% larger than the year before in 2008. Antarctic ice is one million square kilometers larger than 2008 as well.
http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/global-sea-ice-area-variation-bootstrap-algorithm1.jpg
Temperatures have been warming since the early 1800s, long before man started pumping out a lot of CO2. There was a little ice age between 1300 and the early 1800s. it has been warming as we came out of this very frigid period from natural causes.
Antarctica has 90% of the worlds land ice, it has the most ice ever recorded in 2008. Antarctic temperatures average 55 below zero, and has been cooling in 96% of the continent for 50 years!Your text to link here...
The Oceans have been cooling since 2002. Argo Research has over 3,300 buoys floating all the earths oceans, they show temps are cooling.
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
Global hurricane and cyclone storms and storm intensity is at a fifty year low according to the experts, Florida State University. Cooling seas contribute to this lack of storms.Your text to link here...
Polar bear populations are three to five times larger than the 1950s. the largest bear population ever recorded. Bears eat seals, seal populations are swelling, thus the bear population is exploding due to abundant food supply. Research this on Google. it's that easy.
CO2 makes up less than 4/10.000ths of the atmosphere. As a percent of the atmosphere CO2 has only grown 1/10,000th since the 1700s. CO2's ability to absorb heat is logarithmic, meaning the more CO2 there is the less warming it causes. If you double CO2 in the atmosphere temperatures can not rise more than 1.5C (absent positive feedbacks which have not been observed). If you dont believe this, you can easily research it.
Besides, CO2 is only 3.5% of the greenhouse gases, and man only contributes about 3.5% of the CO2, the rest if from natural causes. Lets see, what is .035 multiplied by .035, wow, a whopping .001%. 99.9% of the greenhouse gases are not caused by man. Water vapor is 95% of greenhouse gases, guess we should make water a pollutant too while we are at it!
And there is lots lots more information like this, which naturally, would cause one to seriously doubt the man made global warming theory.
The facts speak for themselves. This is why people consider a conspiracy. Either some peoples science is really really bad, or there is a political reason for making these false claims.
I await an expected barrage of attacks, I must be paid by a fossil fuel company (wish I was), someone will try to research me (that is a bit scary don't you think), some nutty claims about scientific consensus (science is not supposed to have consensus, consensus it is a political term), they will say I am not a scientist (which is true) (where did Al Gore get his scientific credentials?).
And if you want even more proof take a look, I have a bunch. www.isthereglobalwarming.com
We've gone down this path before. All your "evidence" has been refuted time and time again. You fit the pattern of the typical conspiracy theorist, so I won't waste my time with you.
Instead, I'll just keep showing you all for what you are.
Just how can all these scientists line up in a conspiracy of the magnitude you, "galileonardo" and all the other deniers imply?
Conspiracy theorists are deluded. Aliens, Bigfoot, no moon landing, etc. What next? Oh, that's right - there's a conspiracy to control world gov'ts through the so-called lie about AGW.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/07/why_do_people_believe_in_consp.php
It is true that the earth has been warming in general since the early 1800s. We came out of a brutally cold period called the "little ice age". Changing solar activity is closely linked to temperature change on earth. The Sun has a cycle that averages 11 years. When there are short cycles there is warming on earth, when there are long cycles, there is cooling. There is no deviation from this over hundreds of years of observation.
The solar cycle today is the longest since the 1780s and its not over yet. Expect 30 years of very cold temperatures from this. Bavaria had this month the lowest October temperature ever recorded, Washington DC had the coldest temperatures this week ever recorded for that date in 135 years of records, the US had over 4,500 snow and low temperature records broken just his month. Now I realize this is part of weather, but it is an indicator of the change in solar activity, there are many signs of cooling.
Why push a global warming theory when the earth is chilling? (unless there is a political or economic motivation to do otherwise)
I answered your "facts" below. I'll post my response to you again here. But, I suspect it is you who denies the truth. Hell, your own links don't even work in your favor!
Your first link, from http://www.woodfortrees.org/ also has other graphs that you conveniently left out - as deniers often do:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12
(This web site is posted by a programmer, not a climate scientists - get real.)
Your selective use of the ice chart is also an indication of how you nit-pick the details, ignoring facts:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
And your third link about Antarctic ice is addressed by this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648-climate-myths-antarctica-is-getting-cooler-not-warmer-disproving-global-warming.html
You obviously don't know how to read a chart. Fortunately, we who have a formal science education can. The chart I am referring to is Figure 1.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
Perhaps your "friends of science" needs to compare notes with argo? The charts don't seem to match. Personally, I'll stick with argo, as will most normal people.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Just review the "Hottest Skeptic Arguments" section.
It does a good job at debunking all the denier's claims in one, easy-to-read site. With sources.
How's that for "denying the truth and moving on"?
The facts speak for themselves. This foolishness about consensus, it doesnt exist. You just hide behind these propoganda slogans. I was talking about climate change, and then you mention Aliens, Bigfoot, no moon landing etc.
If this is all you have to dispute the facts, temperatures are falling, polar ice is growing, polar bear populations have grown to record size, hurricanes are at 50 year lows.
Clearly you dont have any supporting evidence that isnt cherry picked, your hoax is falling apart, the public is pretty smart, they can only be fooled for so long. This is why you are pushing laws when no one has time to even read them, just ram it through, don't worry about the details, others have done it for you. "We have fifty days to save the earth" and other foolishness like that.
These issues are too large, to important, not to be debated and all the evidence thoroughly investigated. It is clear that you, and others like you, do not want to address the data. Clearly your motivation is purely political.
As I've said, I can't dispute facts, when you haven't presented any to dispute. I've just been disputing distortions and lies.
I guess that would explain your sheepish mentality when it comes to cap and trade/AGW. Hard to know what a buck is really worth when you've never had a real job.
And it is quite ironic that you throw around "spoiled brats" and "screaming kids" and "tantrums" when you yourself act in such a childlike manner. Pot calling the kettle black perhaps?
Any comments about this site? Care to pick this apart to? http://www.skepticalscience.com/
I like the site because it lines up all the deniers' whining and rips it down. Feel free to ask the site owner your inane questions.
You are hung up in the politics of the issue. I'm sticking strictly to science. Deniers think they know science, when they obviously don't.
No one "owes" you an explanation. You want to be ignorant, stupid or just lie, that's your problem. You enter a forum like this and drain it dry. But that's your objective, isn't it?
The smart scientists, not the deniers, are working with the policy makers now. You whining won't change that. Whine as much as you want.
Run along, children. Let the adults talk.
I commented on that site but considering how many times you posted it in this thread I am not surprised you missed my response. I guess the site is new to you since you treat it like a child does a pony shaped gift on Christmas morning. Not new to me though (as previously mentioned) and another attempt by you to have me tread upon the hamster wheel.
I am "hung up" in the politics of the issue because it is THE major component of AGW whether you care to admit it or not. The fact that you seem to think it is irrelevant is telling.
No one "owes" me anything, not that I even used that word anywhere here. When the day comes that this AGW canard is duly blown out of the water, the one thing I do expect from you is silence. And lots of it.
By the way, issues with some of your "reconstruction" scientists continue to emerge. If you know anything about such temperature reconstructions, you will see GIGO is a pretty prominent problem, as is the lack of data sharing. How long did it take Briffa to provide his data? Hmm, is that the "formal science education" or scientific method you tout? I never heard word form you about Hans von Storch's comments about this "unfortunate period of climate science." Wonder why that is.
On the getting-old conspiracy front, since you like to post the same link over and over again, I will follow suit. Please read the NGO Copenhagen Treaty and let me know your thoughts about whether or not a socialist political agenda, what you call a conspiracy, is at its heart.
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
But as typical conspiracy theorists go, you probably think this list is posted by some uber-scientist scheming to over-throw the world. Calling Dr. Frankenstein!
This link has a good definition of "consensus", but you won't accept it anyway:
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/role-of-consensus-in-science.html
Deniers can't grasp the easiest answer. They need a complex conspiracy theory to hold on to like a security blanket. Then they expect everyone to prove to them why their goofy notions are wrong. When the denier's "proof" is shown to be the phony snake-oil that it is, they keep bringing up other time-wasters. Then, when no one plays along, they cry about how their viewpoints are being ignored. Like spoiled brats.
Still waiting for an explanation of how this conspiracy theory works.
On consensus: "Have you ever heard of GIGO? It applies to many of the AGW cornerstones so frequently cited to claim consensus. Many of the scientists who you claim are part of this consensus point to the GIGO evidence and thus regurgitate the claims implied."
On the "easiest answer" (hilarious by the way): "It is perfect that you bring up Ockham's Razor as it perfectly illustrates what is happening with AGW. The simplest answer is natural variation. The failed AGW models are the source of assumption and complication."
On your conspiracy fetish: "As for the implied conspiracy, no, scientists were not paid off to conduct bogus research. There was no need. Instead the IPCC propped up existing bogus research (the 800-pound gorilla being the Mann hockey stick) to get the ball rolling and cherry-picked its attribution science from there to make it gain speed (Briffa et al)."
And
"As for your oft-mentioned conspiracy, although I have also said this on numerous occasions on MMfA, a conspiracy implies that something is being done in secret. There is no secret concerning the redistributionist transnationalist ends of the UN's IPCC. I look forward to reading the actual Copenhagen Treaty once it is available. If it at all reflects the currently available NGO Copenhagen Treaty, as I suspect it will, you will be forced to concede that the aims of the IPCC and climate change legislation are less about climate change mitigation than they are a naked attempt to weaken national sovereignty and achieve a socialist agenda."
Ok. One more time, just so everyone can see how deniers apply wacky logic to their arguments. You are using junk data.
Your first link, from http://www.woodfortrees.org/ also has other graphs that you conveniently left out - as deniers often do:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12
(This web site is posted by a programmer, not a climate scientists - get real.)
Your selective use of the ice chart is also an indication of how you nit-pick the details, ignoring facts:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
And your third link about Antarctic ice is addressed by this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648-climate-myths-antarctica-is-getting-cooler-not-warmer-disproving-global-warming.html
You obviously don't know how to read a chart. Fortunately, we who have a formal science education can. The chart I am referring to is Figure 1.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
Perhaps your "friends of science" needs to compare notes with argo? The charts don't seem to match. Personally, I'll stick with argo, as will most normal people.
Contrary to your claims the URH, RSS, and GIS data set is correct that shows atmospheric temperature cooling since 2002. Yes, the data is on a website from an independent researcher, who says he is a green and a conservationist. Yet data is data, if data is not on an official website I suppose you think the information is automatically false, even if it is the official data.
You did not correctly address the ice chart. You linked to a site that only shows Artic sea ice extent. I agree that the Arctic ice has had Summer melting (though there was 24% more ice this September than just two years ago). My chart shows the extent at both poles. The data is from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center. You hoaxers like to conveniently leave out Antarctica which has 90% of the worlds land ice and has the most ice ever recorded in 2008. Yes, I know, you say the ice shelves and sheets are about to collapse, yet there is still more ice than has ever been recorded before. With an average temperature of -55F I dont think the Antarctic land ice is about to melt anytime soon, though it is true, the earth is in an interglacial period and there should be some slow rate of melting from natural causes.
And I am glad you agree that Argo Research shows that the oceans are cooling, although only slightly. This is contrary to your hoaxers who keep saying the oceans are heating up.
Argo did NOT say oceans are cooling. You just can't read a chart, can you?
FIGURE 1 Shows an INCREASE - that's when the chart goes UP from left to right. Get it? Oh, I guess deniers don't WANT to get it. Can't even read a chart!
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
Try this site out on your grand delusion about Antarctic ice: (But, can you keep an open mind? -- duh!)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Actually just look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/
You can express your impotent rage over there.
Man, my DOG can understand more than you deniers!
I think I see where you are confused.
Go to the site below.
Note that the first chart is FIGURE 2, not 1. This is the chart you show, which is completely wayyyy off base to your argument.
Move down the page. You'll see another chart named FIGURE 1.
THAT IS THE AVERAGE YEARLY OCEANIC HEAT CONTENT. See, it moves UP! Not down! Now do you get it? Are you capable of getting it?
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
THAT'S the chart you need to address. Not the bogus one you posted. BTW - Do you even know what "heat content" is, and why water is such a powerful moderator of weather? Is this within your "expertise"? Hint: Check out a high school chemistry book. It's full of fun facts - which you'd probably deny.
no it is you who is confused (yet again). On the argo website you refer to there is only one ocean temperature chart and the data starts in 1955. You do know that Argo floats were not introduced until 2001 or 2002? So the other data isnt from Argo. Thus your statement is once again false.
Here is the data.
Your text to link here...
Here is an article in the New York Times and describes how Willis, a NASA scientists, states that there oceans are not warming, using the Argo data.
Your text to link here...
So the oceans are not warming, yet your hoaxer alarmist theories say they should be. Your whole scheme is falling down around you and I can quite imagine how frustrating this must be for you. Its not over yet, not for a long shot. You have a big hard fall coming.