Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort

Dec 20, 2013
Dr. Robert J. Brulle is a professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Credit: CASBS

A new study conducted by Drexel University's environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.

Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.

The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming," said Brulle. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Key findings include:

  • Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.
  • Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.
  • Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.
  • Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.

"The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," said Brulle. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."

This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the movement. Brulle will then compare the whole flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.

Explore further: Forging links between climate change scientists and policymakers

More information: Full paper: www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/n… imatic%20Change.ashx

Related Stories

The politics of climate change

Apr 29, 2013

U.S. residents who believe in the scientific consensus on global warming are more likely to support government action to curb emissions, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, according to a study led by a ...

Life-saving formula a step closer to human trials

Dec 20, 2013

A global innovation that has the potential to prevent women in developing countries from the fatal loss of blood after childbirth will move a step closer to human trials, following a $500,000 gift from Australia's ...

New HQ but little cash for UN climate fund

Dec 04, 2013

The UN's new Green Climate Fund (GCF)opened its headquarters in South Korea on Wednesday, facing the key challenge of funding its mission to support low carbon projects around the world.

Recommended for you

Red tide off northwest Florida could hit economy

10 minutes ago

It's like Florida's version of The Blob. Slow moving glops of toxic algae in the northeast Gulf of Mexico are killing sea turtles, sharks and fish, and threatening the waters and beaches that fuel the region's ...

Dutch unveil big plan to fight rising tides

10 hours ago

The Netherlands on Tuesday unveiled a multi-billion-euro, multi-decade plan to counter the biggest environmental threat to the low-lying European nation: surging seawater caused by global climate change.

Drought hits Brazil coffee harvest

13 hours ago

Coffee output in Brazil, the world's chief exporter, will slide this year after the worst drought in decades, agricultural agency Conab said Tuesday.

User comments : 654

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2013
Conspiracy!
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (33) Dec 20, 2013
Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced.

Can someone explain to me how this is NOT a perfect front for money laundering?

Untraceable money given to just anyone? And the IRS let's that exist?
Wow...just...wow.
jakack
2.8 / 5 (19) Dec 20, 2013
And the IRS let's that exist?


I wonder how many of these foundations have been specifically targeted for audit and/or bullied by the IRS.

It doesn't quite surprise me that there is a growing urgency and trend to untie your name/corporation from who and what you donate to. anon shall rise.
Maggnus
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 20, 2013
Haha cantdrive, that's a good one :)

I wonder how Watt's and company will spin this one.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (33) Dec 20, 2013
""The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," said Brulle."

So why are taxpayers being plundered to fund AGW with grants and loans to businesses like Solyndra, wind power companies, corn farmers, ADM, Elon Musk, ... with no input from the plundered?
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (28) Dec 20, 2013
Govt force beats out money any day.

"The Environmental Protection Agency silenced scientific advisers who expressed concerns over the agency's proposed carbon dioxide emissions limits for coal-fired power plants, House Republicans claim."
""However, when inconvenient facts are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible," the lawmakers continued. "The EPA cannot continue to rush ahead with costly regulations without allowing time for a real-world look at the science."

Read more: http://dailycalle...o3idab6v
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 20, 2013
"conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences."

How/who funded this study?

BTW, I was trying to find how Michael Mann's institute at Penn State is funded but could find no sources of his funding clearly posted on his site.
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
2.4 / 5 (34) Dec 20, 2013
Oh wow, now the warmists are really getting desperate. They are trying to prove that all of the government and university funding of AGW is dwarfed by the Koch Brothers and a handful of others.
In reality, AGW is supported by all the world governments and only a few poorly paid bloggers are trying to debunk their quest for total control of our lives.
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mosahlah
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2013
Who knew there was an insidious relationship between science - money - politics?
ScooterG
2.7 / 5 (24) Dec 20, 2013
When AGW became a for-profit industry, it became a target of other threatened industries.

It's a competitive world we live in. Why would anyone be surprised by this?

The real question is: is this guy and his research any more believable than any other AGW propaganda? I say no.
PhotonX
4 / 5 (24) Dec 20, 2013
Oh wow, now the warmists are really getting desperate. They are trying to prove that all of the government and university funding of AGW is dwarfed by the Koch Brothers and a handful of others.
In reality, AGW is supported by all the world governments and only a few poorly paid bloggers are trying to debunk their quest for total control of our lives.
Exactly. In other words, the entire world believes AGW is real, and only corporate interests with a financial stake in externalizing their costs of doing business are opposing it. Thanks for clarifying that.
Solon
4 / 5 (23) Dec 20, 2013
Whether AGW is real or not, the fact is that the carbon Barons are responsible for millions of early deaths and chronic illness on a global scale. Pollution is affecting us all right now, not some undetermined future date, and I suspect many of those same people or organisations funding anti-AGW efforts will also be found to be the ones spreading fear about the life-ending threats posed by nuclear power generation, one of the biggest threats to their "purveyors of filth" empires.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (20) Dec 20, 2013
"conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences."

How/who funded this study?.


Damn that google thing is smart. I'm really glad that nice Otto guy taught me about it. Here is all his funded projects since he first started doing research, er I mean plundering.

http://www.meteo....t/cv.php

Who is funding Mann's institute? Mann's CV doesn't list who paid for his research.
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2013
So Mann is funded by wealth plundered from taxpayers as I suggested along with other socialist groups.
Funding sources for "Agency, Democracy and Nature" by Brulle are The Wilderness Society that lobbies for the US govt to take land out of production, Earth Island Institute: All sorts of 'liberal' groups: http://www.unduei...ute.htm;
What a surprise Brulle authors this study and physorg promotes it.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 20, 2013
"Whether AGW is real or not, the fact is that the carbon Barons are responsible for millions of early deaths and chronic illness on a global scale."

So you claim that mankind was better off pre-oil and that burning wood for heat, using horses for transportation and oxen for plowing fields allowed mankind to survive longer than today.

As I said many times before AGW and carbon hatred is a Religion and not a science.
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 20, 2013
What a surprise!
When challenged the 'liberal' responds with insults.
Typical.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (25) Dec 20, 2013
No one should be surprised that 'liberals' are just following their rules for radicals:
"RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
http://www.bestof...radicals
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
2.4 / 5 (23) Dec 20, 2013
Zepehr before you post you had better get your facts straight. Energy companies pay more taxes to the governments than any other industry. They are a source of high paying jobs and their products are the foundation of our entire economic system.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2013
R2, you are so full of BS that I can't even imagine a container that large! Dark money is just that, anonymous amounts of wealth put into a cause to politically effect debate. It's typical of rightwing police state policies. The only purpose of the denial of AGW is to allow the continuation of pollution creators to operate.

If it wasn't for the dark-money fighting AGW in propaganda wars, I suspect that there would have been many laws past to control CO2. Dark money has won and has been effective, bur reality will eventually demonstrate the truth of AGW, as it already has time after time after time in scientific journals and here in commentary.

For example, this "Global November average temperature highest on record; Year-to-date global average temperature ties for fourth highest on record"

The worst part about dark money is that it can be used for anything. But beware, two can play at that game.
gregor1
3.4 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2013
So let me get this straight. The legitimacy of science is more about who funds it than the empirical data and the reproducibility of it's findings? Hmmmm
Zephir_fan
Dec 20, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2013
@MR166 say;
Energy companies pay more taxes to the governments than any other industry. They are a source of high paying jobs and their products are the foundation of our entire economic system.

Back that up with facts. I thought it was the tobacco industry. When you rape the environment and leave the Earth polluted, shouldn't you pay more tax? After all, it is usually we the people, that have to clean up the mess from these tax free industries.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 20, 2013
So let me get this straight. The legitimacy of science is more about who funds it than the empirical data and the reproducibility of it's findings? Hmmmm


Actually more like, who is more legitimate, science or industry. Hummmm. I think science is certainly the most legitimate and authoritive source of truth.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Dec 20, 2013
Enron and many other corporatist supported Kyoto to profit from 'carbon credits' (dark money?), natural gas, solar and wind subsidies, ....
Zippy has one thing correct, it is the consumer that pays all taxes. No corporation pays taxes.

What really annoys the 'liberals' is that now everyone can benefit from free speech. Before Citizens United, only 'liberal' groups could funnel 'dark money' into campaigns.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2013
it is the consumer that pays all taxes. No corporation pays taxes.

Yeah, you have got that one right R2. In fact, one of the reasons the US is in such a mess is that corporations don't pay taxes like they used to. There contribution to this entity has been smaller and smaller, while the little guys like you and me see bigger and bigger demands.

Regardless, corporations and dark money are like pea and carrots. And you know it.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2013
No corporation pays taxes, ever.
Their customers do.
Lino235
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2013
As with most global warming literature and scientific investigations, this, too, is wanting in factual backup.

I've looked at the article in pdf form. The chart above is taken from it. I looked at one specific foundation: the John Tempelton Foundation. I went to their website. I could find no place where the words "global warming" or "climate change" came up. Looking at their "funding priorities," GW skepticism is NOT one of them.

So, I tried to find out how we got a $20,000,000 figure for the JTF. Nothing there. Maybe in the supplemental information. Then, we see at the bottom of the abstract this little note: "Electronic supplementary material. The online version of this article contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users."

Authorized users?? No documentation to be found. But if you want it, you have to be "authorized". And just who does the "authorizing?"

So, again, with the global warming alarmists, they keep their data secret. Lovely!
Howhot
2.9 / 5 (14) Dec 20, 2013
No corporation pays taxes, ever.
Their customers do.

If I don't buy from a corporation, then how am I paying taxes? Oh now I get it, corporations don't pay tax, consumers do. Consumers make it up by paying sales tax, property tax ... blaw blaw blaw tax, but do corporations? Do the owners of the corporations?

No tax law is very unfair an skewed towards the rich.
MR166
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2013
Howhot if you want to name tax free industries you should start with GE and Apple. Then talk about the companies that Warren Buffet owns that owe billions to the US. While you are at it, mention all the companies in Puerto Rico that pay no taxes at all.
Howhot
3.1 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2013
So, again, with the global warming alarmists, they keep their data secret. Lovely!

Typical denier looser who just doesn't get it. Guy, this is not about you, this is about our pollution destroying the world as we know it.


Slick
3.4 / 5 (11) Dec 20, 2013
I believe data will show that the people doing this stuff are the same ones who are participants in the $30 trillion untaxed invisible to We the People that has been stolen from We the People. These are the people who engineered this takeover of our democracy. Drag them into the open.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (18) Dec 20, 2013
Hottie, if any business wants to stay in business if must earn more money than they spend to create the product or service you purchase.
Taxes are another expense any business must pay and must incorporate that into their prices. This is over and above sales taxes. So in reality, you pay sales taxes on the built in taxes the business pays.
The FAIR tax is designed to end double, triple, ... taxation.
Even 'liberal' states like NY understand business taxes are an expense. NY is running ads claiming new businesses that move to certain NY location won't have to pay state taxes for 10 years.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (23) Dec 20, 2013
the people doing this stuff

What stuff?
The corporatists are socialists and support the Feds printing of money.
The Koch brothers fund Cato and other groups that support and defend free markets, not state controlled fascist 'markets'.
And I'm sure the 'liberals' hate the idea that Koch Industries is a private corporation.
Protoplasmix
3 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2013
Quoted from the paper (Brulle):
The different counter-movement organizations are aided in their work by sympathetic media outlets and the Republican and Tea Parties.

And the man with half his brain tied behind his back, who asserts there are low-information voters while presumably using the same Internet as everyone else, has obviously misused and abused the alleged talents he says he borrowed from god. Poor ditto heads who rely on him for how to think—they would be known as the misinformation voters. Much needs to change.
Oh, and faux news reports and I decide: I've decided I don't like the way faux news reports. Especially when they spin it with no spin. Caution! You are about to enter the "Only 45 % of the U.S. public accurately reported the near unanimity of the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change" zone! (the part in quotes is also from the paper, citing a Pew Research Poll—October 2012)
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 20, 2013
"sympathetic media outlets"
What sympathetic media outlets?
All the 'liberal' press has been foursquare behind the AGWite campaign. Until, of course, some with a bit of integrity left couldn't keep printing the propaganda.
People stopped buying AGW BS.

'Liberals' are getting desperate. Another 'study' pushed by physorg wants Aussies to vote by rank ~20 candidates/parties instead of voting for one. If a majority of those parties are 'liberal' then maybe more 'liberals' will be elected instead of those evil anti-socialists.

Another sign of desperation is how the IRS is attacking anti-socialist groups.
qquax
3.7 / 5 (16) Dec 20, 2013
@ryggesogn2

To answer you question:

"So why are taxpayers being plundered to fund AGW with grants and loans to businesses like Solyndra, wind power companies, corn farmers, ADM, Elon Musk, ... with no input from the plundered?"

The input is called elections. Look it up.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2013
It had to be oil.
Like I said, it was always heat, not CO2, and what is the heat source.

And for the counter conspiracy: What has changed that suddenly this is allowed to be revealed?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 20, 2013
The input is called elections. Look it up.

Voters across the USA voted in a majority of Republicans in Congress, in state houses and in state legislatures.
Yet BHO and the 'liberals' act as if they received an overwhelming majority in 2012.
If you like your 'liberal' senator/congressman you can keep them. If not, NOV 2014 is less than a year away.
ab3a
2.5 / 5 (12) Dec 20, 2013
Yes, there are private sources of money for critical points of view regarding climate change. There is also an incredible level of funding from the Federal Government. And in many ways Government has an axe to grind too. The story about negative results or contradictory results on climate change isn't nearly as sexy or interesting as the sky-is-falling research.

Does that mean such research isn't real? No. Does the fact that the Koch brothers are funding sham research? Again, no. The problem is that scientists are human and they know who their benefactors are. They will err on the side of those who fund them. This has been shown in various critical books on impartiality in science.

So, in the end, I'm not sure this is a bad thing. The notion that government research is always impartial is no more or less true than private research being impartial. Let's deal with actual facts, and leave the funding issues on the floor, shall we?
barakn
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 21, 2013
The input is called elections. Look it up.

Voters across the USA voted in a majority of Republicans in Congress, in state houses and in state legislatures.

...because of gerrymandering and massive voter suppression.
MandoZink
3.7 / 5 (18) Dec 21, 2013
The problem is that scientists are human and they know who their benefactors are. They will err on the side of those who fund them.


How absolutely true! We all know that the physicists never found the Higgs boson. It was bought and paid for. And that NASA been Photoshopping those rovers on Mars to justify the budget. I'm not even sure any vaccine ever worked because the government is in on it.

I could just go on and on, but we all know what a sham the entire scientific community is!

Wow! Denial is so exhilarating! I should do this more often.

NOT.
MandoZink
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 21, 2013
The problem is that scientists are human and they know who their benefactors are. They will err on the side of those who fund them.


Sorry for the sarcasm. Apparently your point is that funding has completely ruined science. That must be why it is currently at a standstill. Nothing is being discovered and all evidence is bought and paid for. That explains why.....

Crap. I'm getting sarcastic again.
davidivad
3.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2013
we are the ones doing this.
omatwankr
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
If we can get rytrdedmoron2 banned a few more times I doubt he can count high enough to keep reusing his username....
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 21, 2013
I wonder how many of these foundations have been specifically targeted for audit and/or bullied by the IRS.

Erm: Auditing companies is the IRS' job. You know: to make sure people aren''t skipping on paying taxes.

And how exactly do they 'bully' people? Unless you think only 'dumb' people should pay for the nationwide services that you can then enjoy as a social parasite for free?
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2013
Energy companies pay more taxes to the governments than any other industry

You might want to check up on that statement. Some years these companies pay negative taxes (read: they actually leech subsidies out of your taxdollars on top of their monstrous profits)
http://www.mother...tax-rate

Yep...and our main deniers (Exxon) are right in that bunch. What a surprise, eh?
Koen
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2013
Nobody "denies" climate change! Is prof. Brulle foolishly chasing his own tail, or is he paid by a group with special financial interests?

There are many natural causes for climatic change, on many scales of time.
A "professor of sociology" is not exactly the expert on such a subject; climatic change is a subject of physics.

According to the best physics models and experiments (and not the Global Warming computer games that "fake physicists a.k.a. climatologists" use to play with) there is no proof for global warming of several degrees as a consequence of our CO2 production.

For the sake of objectivity, let prof. Brulle do similar research on the Global Warming lobby which confuses on purpose the CO2 warming hypothesis with "climatic change". I would like to know the financial motives/peoples that are behind this baloney lobby.

Real objective science, however, should be totally independent from politicians, such as prof. Brulle from Drex.
FainAvis
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2013
The average voter is as dull as ditchwater. The scary thing is that half of you are even duller than that.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (16) Dec 21, 2013
There are many natural causes for climatic change, on many scales of time.
A "professor of sociology" is not exactly the expert on such a subject;

And if you had read the article you would have noticed that this is a paper about who backs one particular side of the climate change debate - not about climate change itself.

(As a sidenote. There's not really a debate about climate change. There's scientific evidence on one side and big business/people who are too dumb to understand science organizing a shitstorm on the other. Big business to protect their cash cows and the dumb people to protect their frail egos from having to admit that they are, in fact, dumb.)
Paulw789
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 21, 2013
There is Zero chance that the amount in this study is correct. The actual amount is much less.

And then funding for pro-global warming activities was $359 Billion in 2012 alone.

That turns out to be 652 times higher in a single year than the (inflated) value in this study over 7 years.

7 times 652 is 4,500 times bigger. Pro-global warming funding is 4,500 times bigger.
Whydening Gyre
2.7 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
Call me an optimist, but.... the mere fact that we have 2 sides for discussion is healthy.
Both economically and intellectually...
ThomasQuinn
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
Call me an optimist, but.... the mere fact that we have 2 sides for discussion is healthy.
Both economically and intellectually...


Right, it'd be great if that also happened in issues comparable to this: gravity vs. 'electric universe', spherical earth vs. flat earth, sanity vs. hollow earth. Yeah, it's really great that half a billion is being pumped into fact-free propaganda...

Also, I find it very interesting that the climate negationists tend to throw the slur "socialist" around a lot - that's very striking considering the trusts that pay their cause also pay significant sums to the KKK and the National Socialist Party of America.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2013
monstrous profits

A few percent is 'monstrous'?
Auditing companies is the IRS' job.

Unless those companies are friends of Obama.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2013
AGWites can't persuade with science so they resort to force. Typical of socialists.
"So it's come to this.
+

Last year, a researcher presented a paper on climate change at the American Geophysical Union's meeting entitled "Is Earth F**ked?" which advocated "environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups." "
"environmental advocates are mulling desperate measures."
http://qz.com/154...36346,1/
dobermanmacleod
1.8 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2013
I hope my friends here take comfort in the fact that there is a simple and very very cheap way to immediately cool down the Earth: just add a little (more) sun dimming pollution to the air. If you don't like the results, just wait a little while and it will wash out.

Furthermore, such geoengineer will only be necessary in the short term, since this decade both LENR and hot fusion will enter the marketplace, resulting in clean energy too cheap to meter. With this energy we can remove the excess carbon from the air.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 21, 2013
About the only thing that is evident from this discussion is that one man's fact is another man's fiction.

When people cannot even agree that fossil fuels have been of enormous benefit to man providing him with housing, food, transportation, clothing, heat, cooling, and drugs at an affordable price there can be no reasonable discourse.

Our standard of living would plummet without these fuels.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2013
Dr. Robert J. Brulle is a professor of Sociology AND Environmental Science


This is not a coincidence. The control of human behavior via social engineering and redistribution of wealth, goes hand-in-hand with the political promotion of AGW-Alarmism.

It is an ulterior motive itself that 'liberal progressivism' and pseudo-socialism as promoted solutions are hitching a free ride on the back of AGW....

...it is one that is far LESS justified than the economic promotion of oil which courses through the veins of economies and only serves to meet existing demand....

The global use of oil continues to rise, not because of the "denialist" propaganda, but because oil consumption is a necessity in the present global economy for which there is no alternative at the required price point and capacity to sustain economic health.

......
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
The input is called elections. Look it up.

Voters across the USA voted in a majority of Republicans in Congress … If you like your 'liberal' senator/congressman you can keep them. If not, NOV 2014 is less than a year away.

The voters across the USA saw how the Republicans acted with a slim majority in the house: they acted like spoiled-rich-kid-brats who sought to deny what's basically just nationalized Romneycare over 40 times, and who did the best they could to shut down the entire legislative branch for as long as they could get away with it. And now from a scientific sociological perspective in the context of climate science they've been shown to be worse than a cancerous tumor with their lies, divisiveness and utter lack of moral/ethical compass for managing the wealth they've acquired at everyone's expense. Hopefully record voter turnout in 2014 will put the tumor into remission, for good.
Surly
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
@MR166: You're attacking a straw man. Everyone agrees that fossil fuels have been of enormous benefit. But we now have better sources of energy, with which we can and should gradually replace fossil fuels.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 21, 2013
There has never been an administration that was less open to compromise than this one. When the Democrats had the majority in both houses what did they say? You have to pass this bill to know what's in it. 90% of the jobs created since the ACA was passed were part time.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 21, 2013
Whenever liberals fail they claim victim-hood and excuse making. In this case, it is the status quo that has defeated them.

The notion that AGW-Alarmists need to rely on the oil industry to NOT promote the existing economic demand of their OWN industry, and to rely on the suspension of scientific skepticism, demonstrates how weak their position is.

But there are other reasons why it is not "funding of denialism" that accounts for their failures,....

"- Studies show that the world was warmer than it is today during the Roman Empire and when the Vikings were plundering Europe and North America. In fact, even in the 19th Century, there were discussions surrounding the fact that the Vikings could settle the northernmost reaches of Greenland and North America because there was less ice coverage."

...
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 21, 2013
"- During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records."

"- Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year's record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore's prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year's melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year."

---
larry70
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 21, 2013
This would cause me to laugh if it wasn't for so many dimwits who believe this... let's talk about the vast left wing conspiracy to control the climate change discussion and control everyone. The only difference is its not a conspiracy. Examples 1) Reddit admits they are conducting censorship. 2) Countless researchers who've been caught doctoring the data to support their global warming claims. 3) The EPA going all Nazi like on anyone they want. 3) Many ex-communists after the fall of the Soviet block went to the "Green" parties.

This isn't about the environment, this is about control. Some of the followers may be well meaning, but the leaders and functionaries can easily be put in the totalitarian, psychopath category.
Zephir_fan
Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
" Everyone agrees that fossil fuels have been of enormous benefit. But we now have better sources of energy, with which we can and should gradually replace fossil fuels."

EVERYONE------not true read some of the posts here-----millions killed!

Please name the better sources of energy. None of them are cost effective yet and wind has major ecological issues.

The coal industry has been destroyed and it has not been proven that shale gas can fill this energy gap. Last week there was a record draw down in Nat Gas supplies and if the Winter were to continue this way supplies will become critically low.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 21, 2013
"- Global cooling is on the way, according to an increasing number of scientists. German scientists have predicted that based on declining sunspot activity and natural climate oscillation the world will cool over the next century. Temperatures will eventually drop to levels corresponding with the "little ice age" of 1870."

"- The [UN] climate bureaucracy's latest global warming report was called "hilarious" by a leading scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Richard Lindzen said the UN's report "has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence" because they continue to proclaim with ever greater certainty that mankind is causing global warming, despite their models continually being wrong."..."Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean," Lindzen said. "However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans."
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
Erm: Auditing companies is the IRS' job. You know: to make sure people aren''t skipping on paying taxes.

And how exactly do they 'bully' people?
Isnt that kyuuute? The Ausländer is teaching us Americans about how our country works.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for what it acknowledged was "inappropriate" targeting of conservative political groups during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

"IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said."
Kron
1.6 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
Global climate is changed by input energy from the Sun. The Sun controls the climate. All other processes (such as increase of atmospheric CO2) are short-lived phenomena. Should atmospheric CO2 levels ever rise high enough to create a noticeable change in temperature, the Earths weather will lower the atmospheric CO2 content by creating carbonic acid through rain fall, and the infrared heat will get dispersed into space. Chemical reactions liberate heat. H2O plus CO2 -> H2CO3 plus heat!
Dug
2.2 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
If you inserted "climate change alarmist" for "climate change deniers" and changed respective funding group's names as appropriate - the article would essentially read the same. Both extremes of the discussion receive funding from special interests groups motivated by what benefits them regardless of the seriousness of the topic.

Until we address the primary cause of anthropogenic climate change - the planet's unsustainable human population size and continued growth - with effective planning, it's really hard not to see climate change topically and primarily as a tool for funding special interests groups and the media that enables their efforts. Call me when someone can agree on a plan to get the planet back to 2 B humans and one that everyone agrees on, because that is the only thing that will end anthropogenic climate impacts.
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2013
The notion that AGW-Alarmists need to rely on the oil industry to NOT promote the existing economic demand of their OWN industry, and to rely on the suspension of scientific skepticism, demonstrates how weak their position is.

The 'scientific community' is not its OWN industry in the context of this article and includes many different specialties: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, paleontologists, astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, etc. And 'near unanimity' is not some unpopular bandwagon they all thought they'd hop on; it's referred to as a consensus.
Sigh
2.4 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2013
In reality, AGW is supported by all the world governments and only a few poorly paid bloggers are trying to debunk their quest for total control of our lives.

You got it exactly right. That's why the Chinese are in it. They are not trying to buy their population off with economic growth fueled by cheap coal, their only way to control the population is by the threat of global warming. Because they have no other methods. Well, none as effective. Same as in the West. Terrorism alert levels and Patriot Act are only for entertainment. It's threats to future generations that make people compliant.
Sigh
3.8 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
So why are taxpayers being plundered to fund AGW with grants and loans to businesses like Solyndra, wind power companies, corn farmers, ADM, Elon Musk, ... with no input from the plundered?

Leaving aside your loaded vocabulary, the reason is a common good, in this case information needed to make good decisions. And if you want input on each spending decision, propose a workable change to the constitution.

Regarding alternatives, twice you have told me that property rights would solve all environmental problems, and both times you abandoned the discussion when I pointed out that you would need a world government to enforce the same property right everywhere. Without that, you'd have polluters hiding out in legislations that don't enforce the same property rights.

I admit that in your libertarian paradise, accurate information on harm would be superfluous, because you don't want harm to be a necessary criterion for you to forbid others from doing what could affect your property.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2013
who did the best they could to shut down the entire legislative branch for as long as they could get away with it.


It was BHO that shut down the govt and it was BHO and the democrat Senate the refused any way but their way.
the primary cause of anthropogenic climate change

Which is...what?
But we now have better sources of energy,

Like nuclear.
Define 'better'. Wind and solar are not better for cost or reliability which is why the state grants them immunity from competition.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2013
the reason is a common good

What was good about companies like Solydra wasting the plundered wealth from the taxpayers?
Socialists have used 'common good' to justify all sorts of plunder.
The only effective 'common good' any govt can successfully achieve it to protect the property rights of everyone and let individuals decide in a free market what is good for them.
need a world government to enforce the same property right everywhere.

Why? There is no world govt now yet individual states enforce their property rights around the world every day.
ThomasQuinn
4 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2013
Erm: Auditing companies is the IRS' job. You know: to make sure people aren''t skipping on paying taxes.

And how exactly do they 'bully' people?
Isnt that kyuuute? The Ausländer is teaching us Americans about how our country works.


If you're going to try for a jab in a foreign language, you could at least google it to get it right. Ausländer is plural. Auslander is singular. Stupid jerk.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
"Obama: 'We're Not Going to Negotiate' Over Debt Ceiling"
http://www.breitb...-Ceiling
Sounds like a petulant, spoiled child, but this is typical of socialists.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
Plundered wealth funding 'climate change':
""The GAO report shows a total of $107 billion in hard expenditures, including about $31.5 billion on climate science. These sums includes expenditures under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus Bill). The GAO report also shows . an additional $16 billion for soft expenditures. The CRS report shows $8.9 billion and $8.3 billion in hard expenditures in 2011 and 2012, respectively, of which $2.4 billion went to climate science each year."
"The total for the 21-year period are: $185 billion, with $133 billion for hard expenditures, of which about $39 billion went to science, and about $52 billion for soft expenditures."
"historical records show that cooling phases tend to be more dangerous and destabilizing to vulnerable populations. Food shortages and civic turmoil have been linked to global cooling, not global warming,"
http://newsbuster...-take-lo
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
For those who believe the IRS is not politically motivated:
"ABC, CBS and NBC have so far refused to report the latest bombshell in the IRS scandal - a newly released list from the agency that showed it flagged political groups for "anti-Obama rhetoric." On September 18 the USA Today, in a front page story, reported the following: "Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about 'anti-Obama rhetoric,' inflammatory language and 'emotional' statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status."

Not only have ABC, CBS and NBC not reported this story they've flat out stopped covering the IRS scandal on their evening and morning shows.

Read more: http://newsbuster...o84RQrwz
Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
It was BHO that shut down the govt and it was BHO and the democrat Senate the refused any way but their way.

Sorry, it wasn't him stealing the floor of the senate pleading in vain for less of our of-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people government.
cls1
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2013
Peer reviewed research confirming last year's Guardian investigation that focused on Donors' Trust.
qquax
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
@ryggesogn2

"Voters across the USA voted in a majority of Republicans in Congress, in state houses and in state legislatures."

And while you look up the meaning of 'elections' also check out the term 'gerrymandering'.
Dug
2.3 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
Protoplasmix - "it's referred to as a consensus."

"Scientific consensus" of climate change is far too vague to be meaningful in translating into meaningful or actionable information. While we may all agree that humans impact the climate, exactly how (mechanisms wise, their size and their proportions), how much, the use of data where the measurements are smaller than the error factor ranges of that data, the acceptance of rather dubious proxy and computer project models as "data" rather than actual hard data within defined error limits - is very far from a meaningful consensus - and why the debate continues rather than outright denial - at least in my case.
Zephir_fan
Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cls1
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
@Dug, don't make the mistake of adopting Rush Limbaugh's notion of the scientific consensus on manmade climate change (AGW). . On the Limbaugh Planet, scientists decide which theories are panning out by consensus, the way the Quakers and the Clamshell Alliance do. Here on Earth, they decide by competing, getting ahead by "busting" each others' mistakes. The consensus we observe, that you hear about in news about the IPCC, we observe when a piece of science is old enough that nobody's finding mistakes in it any more.
Zephir_fan
Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2013
If you're going to try for a jab in a foreign language, you could at least google it to get it right. Ausländer is plural. Auslander is singular. Stupid jerk.

"Aus·län·der, Aus·län·de·rin der Mensch, der aus dem Ausland"

You are an Idiot.

"Idi·ot der (umg. abwert.) Schimpfwort Bin ich denn nur noch von Idioten umgeben?, Welcher Idiot hat denn die Daten gelöscht?"
cls1
4 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2013
"countermovement" is the wrong word. Denying the major findings of climate science is a public relations project. That's what we should call it. It's a PR operation. The PR firms that take the laundered money have "institute" in their names, but they're still basically ad agencies.
goracle
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2013
If we can get rytrdedmoron2 banned a few more times I doubt he can count high enough to keep reusing his username....

Perhaps then he'd get somebody paid by the state to do the counting for him.
grondilu
3 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
This is a political article, not a scientific one.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2013
About the only thing that is evident from this discussion is that one man's fact is another man's fiction.

When people cannot even agree that fossil fuels have been of enormous benefit to man providing him with housing, food, transportation, clothing, heat, cooling, and drugs at an affordable price there can be no reasonable discourse.

Our standard of living would plummet without these fuels.


So the two things are mutually exclusive then MR?

Just because fossil has brought benefit doesn't mean it doesn't also harm in the long-term.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
The notion that AGW-Alarmists need to rely on the oil industry to NOT promote the existing economic demand of their OWN industry, and to rely on the suspension of scientific skepticism, demonstrates how weak their position is.

The 'scientific community' is not its OWN industry in the context of this article and includes many different specialties: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, paleontologists, astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, etc. And 'near unanimity' is not some unpopular bandwagon they all thought they'd hop on; it's referred to as a consensus.


You must have misread my post.
Stop
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
People who spend their time screeching about liberals make it easier for me to completely disregard anything they state. They are part of the political side which believes in creationism and a young Earth. I'm really glad reddit dumped them from the debate.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
"- During the second week in December, the U.S. saw more than 2000 record low temperatures and record snowfalls, according to the National Weather Service and HamWeather records center. There were 606 record low temperatures, 1,234 low maximum temperatures and 285 record snowfalls across the country. In the meantime there were only 98 high temperature records and 141 high minimum temperature records."

"- Satellite data shows that the polar bears have at least one reason to be happy this year – Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent over last year's record low coverage. Contrary to Al Gore's prediction that there would be no polar ice cap by this year, sea ice coverage spanned nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year's melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic last year."


That would be weather then.
You know - like the hot US summer in 2012 or the anomalously high Arctic sea-ice melt of 2012. Which made 3 anomalous melt seasons well beyond 2sd's of the mean.
Zephir_fan
Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
Protoplasmix - "it's referred to as a consensus."

"Scientific consensus" of climate change is far too vague to be meaningful in translating into meaningful or actionable information. While we may all agree that humans impact the climate, exactly how (mechanisms wise, their size and their proportions), how much, the use of data where the measurements are smaller than the error factor ranges of that data, the acceptance of rather dubious proxy and computer project models as "data" rather than actual hard data within defined error limits - is very far from a meaningful consensus - and why the debate continues rather than outright denial - at least in my case.


"is very far from a meaningful consensus"

That may be your view but in a sane world "3%" do not trump the consensus of "97%" - sorry.
Try reading IPCC AR5 and take off your blinkers.
The World's experts are in agreement but you're not - shame innit.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
This is a political article, not a scientific one.


It's a scientific article on a sociological phenomenon.

Perhaps, indeed, borne out of political ideology.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
"Just because fossil has brought benefit doesn't mean it doesn't also harm in the long-term."

You can calculate a cost/benefit ratio for everything that man does, including so called "Green Energy". At this point in time fossil energy still wins. If you don't mind killing a few hundred million people then today's green energy is a viable answer.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (13) Dec 21, 2013
And while you look up the meaning of 'elections' also check out the term 'gerrymandering'.

Republicans won in districts gerymandered by democrats.
AL had a Republican majority in their legislature in 2010 for the first time in over 100 years.
'Liberals' are expert at gerymandering and voter fraud and they still lose.
Sorry, it wasn't him stealing the floor of the senate

Cruz couldn't furlough air traffic controllers and close the public WWII monument in DC. Only BHO could order any govt furloughs.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
"There are numerous examples of privately owned parks that also protect the environment and create jobs. "
"some sources indicate that closing the parks was a purely political move on the part of the administration to turn public pressure on Republicans. Woes of the shutdown affecting parks and tourism is an argument for more privatization, not more government oversight."
http://www.realcl...730.html
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
"Scientific consensus" of climate change is far too vague to be meaningful in translating into meaningful or actionable information.

If you measure the total CO2 emissions that naturally occur on the entire planet from volcanism over the course of an entire year, it takes humanity only 2.7 days to pump the same amount into the atmosphere. As for taking actions to remediate that, the reason for a delay isn't disagreement over natural vs. anthropogenic emissions. The delay in taking action is due to certain entities who continue to mislead the public and betray the public trust. Entities identified by the above research include Koch Industries and ExxonMobil among others, aided and abetted by sympathetic media outlets, and the Republicans and Tea Party. Hopefully there will be neither disagreement nor delay among the voters in 2014.
---
@Noumenon – yes, in haste I did, although it doesn't seem to change the veracity of what either of us said.
richard_dress
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
With all that money the Koch Brothers were able to buy a 17 year climate cooling period. That's really cool. Another liberal arts prof earning his pay.
Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
Cruz couldn't furlough air traffic controllers and close the public WWII monument in DC

I don't think he could furlough his way out of a wet paper bag. But he sure brought things to a stand-still, and an awful lot of people had to report to work without getting paid for a while. An awful lot of people will remember that in 2014, count on it.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
he sure brought things to a stand-still,

How? He just gave a speech. He is one minority senator.
an awful lot of people had to report to work without getting paid

NO, they did not report to work. Any govt employee on furlough was prohibited by law from doing any work.
They were paid for their extra two week vacation.
CO2 emissions that naturally occur on the entire planet from volcanism

Volcanoes are not the only natural sources of CO2.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
An awful lot of people will remember that in 2014, count on it.


Millions will remember "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

"Liberal columnist Dana Milbank called President Obama's Obamacare promise being dubbed the "Lie of the Year" by Politifact a "very low point" in his administration Sunday on State of the Union.

"This is a low point," Milbank said. "We don't know if it's the lowest, but it is a very low point in the Obama administration. It doesn't help to have neutral groups calling you the Liar of the Year.""
http://freebeacon...-lowest/
PacRim Jim
2.1 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2013
Odd that phys.org holds only American Republicans responsible for the world's ills, real or contrived.
Political ideology now trumps the scientific method, unfortunately.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2013
The paranoia of the AGW Alarmist Cult has hit a new level.
Now that they are running out of lies, they must go after those who would expose their "science" for the fabrications they are.
What next? Burn the heretics?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
What next? Burn the heretics?

Close.

" Professor Richard Parncutt, Musicologist at Graz University in Austria.

Parncutt has issued -- and later retracted after it the public outcry -- a manifesto calling for the execution of prominent "Climate Change Deniers". What is interesting is that Parncutt hates the death penalty and supports Amnesty International's efforts to end it."
"
the first instinct of those on the Progressive Left is to murder their enemies."

Read more: http://www.americ...oA4DGLqB
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Zephir_fan
Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
"Following two world wars and in the midst of a cold war, CS Lewis wrote that "The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to choice or chance...The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good..."
" politicians must increasingly rely on the knowledge and advice of scientists, until, in the end, the politicians become "merely the scientists' puppets."
"Thus, we get the motto of the technocrats: "only science can save us now." Whether it is global warming, stem-cell research, the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality, or even gun control or economic policies, the technocrats have the answers. After all, as Lewis also noted, "If we are to be mothered, mother must know best."

Read more: http://www.americ...oADZ2F7T
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
"many of our politicians are surrendering themselves to scientism. Scientism is not science. It is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority."
"Scientism can also be classified as a religion. It is a religion with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on."
"Scientism ridicules faith and religion and tells us that "God is dead." Scientism tells us that the "debate is over," so shut up and get in line."

{Sounds like so many who post here}

http://www.americ...ism.html
Zephir_fan
Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
"And, of course, scientism leads us to technocracy. "I dread government in the name of science," said Lewis. "That is how tyrannies come in.""

"We can see the results: that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth; that marriage is whatever we want it to be; that confiscating the wealth of some to give to others is "fair;" that guns are evil; and so on. Of course, we then get laws and official government policy based on such conclusions."
"Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like "Julia"). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the "Welfare State" based significantly on the lies of scientism."
http://www.americ...ism.html
Protoplasmix
3.9 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2013
Millions will remember "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

Yet another perfect example of a social movement field frame, and a counter-movement frame, with likely many of the same actors as in the climate change frames. Anyone who doesn't recognize that after reading Brulle's paper—will never be a first-class sociologist. As for the insurance industry in the counter-movement resisting the social reform, who decided not to play ball in a manner most disrespectful to the office of the president: they really didn't make a liar out of the president. It certainly isn't like the president lied to the world about WMDs, like the previous Republican administrations.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
Why don't you check these peoples out


The 'liberal' socialists you seem to like don't seem to have the answers and it's no surprise, Central planners have NEVER had the answers even though the 'liberals' believed it so.

A few days ago 'liberal' Barbara Walters publicly admitted BHO was not the messiah.
In 2007, Rush Limbaugh pointed out BHO was running a messianic campaign.
"RUSH ARCHIVE: Obama is running almost a messianic campaign. He's the Messiah. He has been brought forth in the midst of the partisan rancor, and with the power of his appealing charismatic personality, is going to heal the wounds of a broken nation. With what, nobody cares, because The Oprah doesn't care. It just matters that he's charismatic."
http://www.rushli..._messiah
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
From Mother Jones, FEB, 2008:
"Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise. "
http://www.mother...-complex
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
From 2010, David Limbaugh:

"Have you noticed among the Obama-supporting elite a desperate agony upon realizing that he is not quite the messiah he made himself out to be and as which they willingly embraced him?"
Many leftists are disgusted with Obama for supposedly betraying the cause on a number of issues, which tells us how irredeemably liberal they are. But their sense of betrayal runs deeper than ideology.

It's not just their belief that he's abandoned them on numerous policy issues. It's also their belated discovery that he's not superman."
http://www.creato...ons.html

Reinforces the addage, if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
Zephir_fan
Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
VENDItardE
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2013
this is truly a great time to be alive. just think....within 10 years this warmist/alarmist bullsh*t will be over and done with as the planet continues to cool and we will never have to see your moronic posts again....at least using the same names as all you cowards will change them so that you can deny you were ever this stupid.
Zephir_fan
Dec 21, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ab3a
1.7 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
The problem is that scientists are human and they know who their benefactors are. They will err on the side of those who fund them.


How absolutely true! We all know that the physicists never found the Higgs boson. It was bought and paid for. And that NASA been Photoshopping those rovers on Mars to justify the budget. I'm not even sure any vaccine ever worked because the government is in on it.

I could just go on and on, but we all know what a sham the entire scientific community is!

Wow! Denial is so exhilarating! I should do this more often.

NOT.


http://www.amazon...51008779

Read it. Then get back to me. This is but one of many such books on the subject.

I'm not contending that science is excessively fraudulent. However, there are fads of belief that flow through community which are often quite wrong. See Polywater, Piltdown man, et al.

Just remember that decades ago we were worried about global cooling...
Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
Read it. Then get back to me. This is but one of many such books on the subject.

Link provided was to "The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science" by Horace Freeland Judson, author of "The Eighth Day of Creation". Two questions: 1) Are you new here? and 2) Did you bump your head? Judson adds his own spun yarn to creationism and you say there are many such books on fraudulent science. No doubt.
Kron
2 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2013
qquax
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2013
@ryggesogn2

'We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the "Welfare State" based significantly on the lies of scientism.'

Consistency is not your strong suite, as you earlier tried to make the point that Republicans were elected left and right, even in districts gerrymandered by Democrats.

Then again, the fact that you feel the need to turn science into 'scientism', so that you then can argue against that straw man, is all one needs to know about you.

Looking forward to your next twenty post of verbatim tea party talking points.
Controse
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2013
It is so disappointing to see a blog devoted to science use a word like "denier" to describe those who question the science behind "climate change." I am sure your editors are aware it is a politically loaded word since it became famous in describing those, in the face of overwhelming evidence, who questioned Hitlers Holocaust of murder. The evidence supporting man-made global warming is anything but overwhelming. Please keep politics out of your headlines and thus enhance your credibility as a science reporter.
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2013
This article seems to me to be about change. Science is about change. New information replaces old - as we advance our understanding of the universe. Many resist change - it may threaten their world view, or their hold on power (look hard at the church). But change is inevitable - and the flat earthers fade into history. Often big money funds the resistance to change (again look at the church) - but thankfully - the tide of change cannot be stopped. I think you can tell who is on the wrong side of history - by how loud they scream. Perhaps counting the number of comments by individual posters would be a proxy for how loud they are screaming.
Kron
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2013
Here's a few of Cook's 97 percenters:
http://wattsupwit...ed-them/
Seems like someone is cooking the books.
Protoplasmix
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2013
@ab3a – not to demean Judson's work or choice of titles, but citing his insights in other areas and applying them vaguely here with no specific reference to fraud or errors in scientific methodology in either the sociology or climate science is hardly helpful. Sorry about the two questions, been a long day.
Hiya_Sophia
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2013
ryggesogn2, Great job on not directly insulting the person that insults you over and over again. It seems there is a blatant error in this article, well, quite a few. I haven't been on this site in a while, I hope the bias is not always this common.
MadSat
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2013
Rather fascinating to watch the climate change deniers sink further into insanity. Take the senators from Alaska for example, who recently made speeches about "there is no climate change in the Arctic" and a few days later proposed more funding for the US Navy to patrol in the Arctic due to the vast increase in open water and longer time for open water to persist. Really? The human mind is not structured to hold such conflicting ideas, either they are knowingly lying or they think they are building bridges to nowhere and don't care. And such is the case with a number of the posters here, else they'd be fighting against building new Navy bases in the far North.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2013
With all that money the Koch Brothers were able to buy a 17 year climate cooling period. That's really cool. Another liberal arts prof earning his pay.


It obviously passed your "scientific" mind and your critical thinking thereof - that the climate system comprises air AND Ocean - which just happens to hold >90% of the heat. If you care to come up from your rabbit-hole and investigate the real world - you will find that is where the the heat has gone during the "hiatus". Try looking up the ENSO/PDO cycle. AND no it is not 17 years since 2005 (the hottest year on GISS data base). I make that 8 years.
EnricM
4.1 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2013

In reality, AGW is supported by all the world governments and only a few poorly paid bloggers are trying to debunk their quest for total control of our lives.


Tell me where to call for a "poorly" funding I am a bit tired of having to work 9-5 and I would prefer to be a poorly funded blogger... or if it's possible I would like to become a well funded one.

Here a demonstration of my habilities:

"AGW is a scam set up by the Gobal Secret Government of Climate Scientist against the poor American taxpayer in conspiracy with the IPCC (Illuminaty Pokemon Collector Club) and SPECTRA"

Looks cool eh? I can fill a blog with stuff like this and if so wished I can add references to UFO and the Hollow Earth: http://www.care2....3/756859

Please contact me at lunch, about 12:00-12:30 GMT+2, Thanks. I'm looking forward to a fruitful collaboration
jackjump
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2013
If the unlimited funding and power (e.g. as in using the IRS to suppress perceived enemies of the state or in using the EPA regulatory power to support friends of the state like planet saving environmentalists) of the federal government cannot suppress that which the 'deniers' espouse maybe there's more at work here than just funding. Hey, maybe it has something to do with the undisputed fact that there has been no global warming for the last seventeen years (give or take a couple of years depending on whose numbers you're using) while all that time CO2 in the atmosphere has continued to increase at an undiminished rate. That casts doubt on the warming enthusiast's hypothesis that catastrophic warming will result from that rate of CO2 increase. Propaganda is a powerful thing but it doesn't trump reality as long as there is someone around to point it out. Maybe that's why the 'deniers' have been so successful and AGW is now a zombie.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2013
With all that money the Koch Brothers were able to buy a 17 year climate cooling period. That's really cool. Another liberal arts prof earning his pay.


It obviously passed your "scientific" mind and your critical thinking thereof - that the climate system comprises air AND Ocean - which just happens to hold >90% of the heat. If you care to come up from your rabbit-hole and investigate the real world - you will find that is where the the heat has gone during the "hiatus". Try looking up the ENSO/PDO cycle. AND no it is not 17 years since 2005 (the hottest year on GISS data base). I make that 8 years.


Runrig ocean heating at those depths is just another theory since no increase in temperatures has been measured there. To call it a theory is being kind, in reality, it is just another lame excuse for the abject failure of the climate models.
Zephir_fan
Dec 22, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ForFreeMinds
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2013
Bruelle shows his bias, by not also showing us the money spent to further the AGW hypothesis. And not showing the difference as to how the money is obtained (i.e. the AGW proponents get their money via government force, while AGW deniers get their money by selling energy to customers).

Bruelle gets his income via government plunder, like the rest of the AGW industry. Thus, he attacks the AGW denier messengers. And it's for a simple reason: AGW computer models don't reflect reality. In other words, the AGW arguments have fallen apart. I'd say this year could have used some global warming, and we'd be better off for it. And I state this contrary to the chicken little BS those living off the plunder allege. I'll also state, that warmer temps would likely be a good thing considering how well man prospered during the medieval warm period.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2013

Runrig ocean heating at those depths is just another theory since no increase in temperatures has been measured there. To call it a theory is being kind, in reality, it is just another lame excuse for the abject failure of the climate models.


Like I said MR, you need to come up from the rabbit-hole - I've frankly got fed up of posting the science for you diehards - it's not difficult to understand for those of us that can and are not blinded by the "socialist conspiracy to take my tax pounds" bollocks.

Like i said, go study the -ve PDO/ENSO cycle and see what effect that has on globe temps and the reasons it does. The ARGO float data proves your "just another theory wrong" - so I suggest you go look at that too. You do realise that a 0.06C rise in sea temp equates to 60C for the atmosphere? Oh, and the models are fine thanks - as they are unable to predict ENSO. AND No it don't matter as the Solar In vs IR out is what matters - it's just not balanced. Because of GHG's.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2013
Bruelle gets his income via government plunder, like the rest of the AGW industry. Thus, he attacks the AGW denier messengers. And it's for a simple reason: AGW computer models don't reflect reality. In other words, the AGW arguments have fallen apart. I'd say this year could have used some global warming, and we'd be better off for it. And I state this contrary to the chicken little BS those living off the plunder allege. I'll also state, that warmer temps would likely be a good thing considering how well man prospered during the medieval warm period.


Look at my below post for rebuttal of the models and do as I suggested - educate yourself and not look at it through the prism of ideological bias. ANd yes - surprise - the world and oceans do not warm or cool synchronously.
I'd also suggest that in the MWP they had rather less than we do to worry about re societal infrastructure. Oh - also they were scientifically illiterate.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2013
http://climatephy...s-false/


Now I've seen plenty of bollocks in my time endeavoring to counter the aforementioned written/said by AGW deniers - and that site surely is a prize winner.

All the well worn and completely mythical, scientifically devoid on show for the devoted to cheer, and that no amount of countering gets past the the entrance to a certain rodents burrow.

Look - I didn't mind this behaviour from smoking deniers as that was personal choice but I live on this bloody planet as well as you. Now go and tell your doctor he's got your cancer diagnosis wrong *supposing you had*, cause you've read a Blog Googling "Republicans against against Medicine".
I truely wouldn't care then either.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2013
Bruelle shows his bias, by not also showing us the money spent to further the AGW hypothesis. And not showing the difference as to how the money is obtained (i.e. the AGW proponents get their money via government force, while AGW deniers get their money by selling energy to customers).
--ForFreeMinds

If you had even bothered to read the whole article you would have seen this:
This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.

I think you owe everyone an apology, along the lines of, "I'm a blundering idiot who spouted off without reading the article, terribly sorry."
Kron
1.8 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2013
davidivad
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2013
this article signifies a small win for the green people. it shows that some of the major investors in the smear campaign against going green have had to shift to alternative routes. the only thing missing in this article is how the researchers define climate change denying organizations. this would have prevented a lot of fuss about bias. i look forward to the study of the remaining party which compliments this study.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2013
Funny...you say something about climate change and suddenly the guy starts reactivating his voting-bots to go through one's posting history to downvote everything.

Yep: that's the sign of someone who has already lost the debate.

It's over. The deniers lose.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2013
It is funny how our COMPUTER SIMULATED MODELS thoroughly debunk anyone who's findings oppose the IPCC consensus.
Kron
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 22, 2013
I guess REAL world data is trumped by simulations. The Earth is just confused at the moment, it'll catch up to reality any day now. Our models are infallible.
Kron
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2013
I wonder what would happen to the Climate Change Industry should AGW (sorry, that would be Anthropogenic Climate Change) be shown to pose no threat whatsoever?
Kron
2 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2013
Sigh
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2013
What was good about companies like Solydra wasting the plundered wealth from the taxpayers?

I was thinking about research, hence the reference to information needed for good decisions.
need a world government to enforce the same property right everywhere.

Why? There is no world govt now yet individual states enforce their property rights around the world every day.

Because your solution to pollution is:
The part of the law that needs to change is proof of damage. If someone violates your property, damage or not, you have a right to have the violation ended or be compensated.

That only works if no company can evade your claims by violating your property from a jurisdiction that refuses to accept your definition of property rights. And it would pay for some countries to do that, like it now pays for some to be tax havens.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2013
It is funny how our COMPUTER SIMULATED MODELS thoroughly debunk anyone who's findings oppose the IPCC consensus.


Err no. The AGW premise hangs on the observations. The models (having simulated the past climate - and only reproduced modern day warming via increasing GHG's) merely project into the future for our (ultimately one hopes) good. Filtered, obviously, by our ELECTED officials.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2013
I wonder what would happen to the Climate Change Industry should AGW (sorry, that would be Anthropogenic Climate Change) be shown to pose no threat whatsoever?


Look, if *one" accepts the projected rise in temperature - then the rest follows from that. What is difficult about understanding the effects of a disproportionately warming Pole? (Arctic - as the Antarctic is a very special place and will respond much much later to warming) - re melt and feedback due decrease in albedo. Rain-pattern shift and down the line vast expense to hold back the sea, considering the disproportionate population at the coast. Of course you/I are unlikely to see such things - but I happen to be the sort that would like to leave the this planet in the shape it was in as I arrived. (impossible now as we've locked in much more warming). You?
Kron
1.5 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2013
I happen to be the sort that would like to leave the this planet in the shape it was in as I arrived. You?

I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life.

Unfortunately, Anthropogenic practices have no serious or lasting effects on the Global Climate.
Kron
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 22, 2013
The AGW premise hangs on the observations. The models (having simulated the past climate - and only reproduced modern day warming via increasing GHG's

Total BS. The models absolutely fail to reproduce current climate conditions. The whole AGW theory is an absolute failure.
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2013
The Universes MO is change. It does so with heat (among other things). IT's just us humans that don't want to accept that change...
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 22, 2013
The AGW premise hangs on the observations. The models (having simulated the past climate - and only reproduced modern day warming via increasing GHG's

Total BS. The models absolutely fail to reproduce current climate conditions. The whole AGW theory is an absolute failure.


Look I didn't expect you agree - you're just not getting away with your bollocks while I can deny it.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2013
I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life.

In that case if you put critical thinking to work you would realise that modern human civilisation, along with the whole of the World's ecosystems have arrived at current conditions as a balance point that mankind can/is buggering up.
Therefore it is in our interests and the planet's to stop buggering it up (in all that entails).
To say "a warmer world is more conducive to life" is, my friend, so scientifically stupid as to beggar belief.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2013
The Universes MO is change. It does so with heat (among other things). IT's just us humans that don't want to accept that change...


Very true of course ... just one problem - it usually does not happen on human time-scales.
And the change is being caused by humans - therefore we can control it.
Whydening Gyre
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2013
Therefore it is in our interests and the planet's to stop buggering it up (in all that entails).
To say "a warmer world is more conducive to life" is, my friend, so scientifically stupid as to beggar belief.

Didn't you mean "bugger" belief?
several
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 22, 2013
It's so funny to see the pseudo-scientists on this page try to shut down discussion..angrily. They're "pseudo" because they're not really interested in finding the outcome. A good portion are actually ignorant to the fact that the central planners of the world are using the climate scare to gain control over large corporations. In effect, scientists (the dumb ones) are now ignorant shills for the fascists and socialists of the world. The smart ones are getting grants and "hiding the decline".
Jimee
2.2 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2013
The monied don't care what conditions the poor live in. They want everyone on the planet, except themselves, to live on $3 a day so they can remain in control. No hate, just unbridled greed and sociopathic, cold, ego maniacs at the helm. Let them eat cake!
brandogrp
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2013
Why on earth would anyone argue with a person who counters the arguments of an award-winning, credentialed scientist holding at least 5 degrees in his field, (this pretty well defines "Authority" in my book), by citing the nonsense published in that utterly worthless rag, a.k.a. The Daily Caller, the only publication less accurate and / or credible than The Daily Mail? *edit* OK, maybe the North Korean State news service is worse but, that's debatable.
mememine69
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2013
News Editors;
YOU keep telling readers climate change WILL be crisis despite science only agreeing on nothing beyond "could be".
Explain.
Not once has science ever said or agreed it WILL be or is "inevitable" and not one IPCC warning isn't swimming in "maybes" as in; "Help my house could be on fire maybe?"
ichisan
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2013
And who is funding the Global warming alarmists? How much money do they get? I bet they get a lot more money than the so-called deniers.
ichisan
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 23, 2013
Answer: The government funds the warmists. This is precisely why we don't trust them and why we believe they are lying.
markx
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
Great news!

But... hey! ... where exactly is all that money going?

To pay bloggers? Dang, there must be a helluva lot of 'em.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2013
They've censored/banned the Ira [zephir_fan] about 10 times over there, and they still can't keep me out.

If you think it's funny to see the noumenon's head burst into flames here when he gets downvoted here, you should see some of those Rush and Glenn followers over there when I come around. They even cut off their karma voting feature to try to get me to go away. -zephir_fan


So here you admit to troll rating yet another site to an extent that they have to turn off their comment rating system?

It's curious that as soon as you started posting your moronic comments here, the open, toot, etc, troll-rating-bots stop their 1-campaign.

Are you a paraplegic that has nothing better to do, a fat 11 year old girl with no friends, or just some know-nothing loser who watches to much Jerry-Springer?
eric_in_chicago
1.7 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
...because Noumenon only dates fat, 11 year old girls with no friends who know noting and watch jerry all day! problem is, they won't have him!!!

BTW i was never fat but definately more sensitive to the feelings of pre-teens than you!!! why do you have to disparage chubby 11 year olds? you are an ass...
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2013
Why do you have to disparage chubby 11 year olds? you are an ass...


You mean like this,...

...because Noumenon only dates fat, 11 year old girls with no friends who know noting and watch jerry all day! problem is, they won't have him!!!


Shame on you!

............

If you like to know what I am responding to, try reading some of zephir_fan's posts,... obviously a troll who is rude and disruptive to other commentors. Or are you zephir_fan but forgot to put on your wig?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2013
Why on earth would anyone argue with a person who counters the arguments of an award-winning, credentialed scientist holding at least 5 degrees in his field,


Why would anyone argue with even one of the award winning, credentialed scientists with many degrees who do not support AGW?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2013
"Last month, electric car start-up Fisker Automobile became the latest government-backed green energy company to file for bankruptcy. The carmaker was the recipient of a half-billion dollar loan from Washington, for which taxpayers are now on the hook."
http://www.forbes...to-stay/
"While the terminology may have changed, one thing has stayed the same: most environmental policies advocated by environmentalists make things more expensive in a way that is regressive. That is, environmentalism is especially hard on the poor."
"why environmentalists, who are supposedly experts, continually push policy options that raise prices for everyone and are often especially injurious economically for poor people."
{Answer: political power is more important}
http://www.realcl...805.html
ThomasQuinn
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
this is truly a great time to be alive. just think....within 10 years this warmist/alarmist bullsh*t will be over and done with as the planet continues to cool and we will never have to see your moronic posts again....at least using the same names as all you cowards will change them so that you can deny you were ever this stupid.


Have you already got a name in mind for when your lot are proven to be the extremist nutjobs you clearly are?
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2013
Kron is plainly ignorant with
I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life..
Different equilibria at different temperature. Along with your warmer climate you will have more CO2 - some food plants shift equilibria to produce more cyanide as a byproduct. The relationship of CO2 to plant growth of carbohydrates or proteins is non-linear. Plants fight back against consumption by evolving protections, one of those is the production of cyanide.

If you can adapt to that in one lifetime then thats for you and your *immediate* family, not for the rest of the human race.

Put the CO2 back to the turn of the mid 1940's or so as a starting point with a suitable buffer...

ThomasQuinn
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
Why on earth would anyone argue with a person who counters the arguments of an award-winning, credentialed scientist holding at least 5 degrees in his field,


Why would anyone argue with even one of the award winning, credentialed scientists with many degrees who do not support AGW?


Because there are hardly any that fit that description? The simple fact that your lot has to resort to claims of an enormous conspiracy to suppress 'the truth' proves that your lot don't have any creditable scientists to back up your asinine views.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2013
"Plants fight back against consumption by evolving protections, one of those is the production of cyanide."

Mike you are really a master at fear mongering!!
ThomasQuinn
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
"Plants fight back against consumption by evolving protections, one of those is the production of cyanide."

Mike you are really a master at fear mongering!!


But you don't deny that plants produce increased amounts of cyanide in the presence of high quantities of CO2, I hope? Or are you willing to lie to back up your, politically motivated and a-scientific, views on global warming?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2013
Because there are hardly any that fit that description?

In real science, it only requires one scientist and there are more than one who challenge AGWite dogma.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
"Finally, we have an editorial published in Science on February 10 from Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Science, that begins to articulate the trust issue: "This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole. What needs to be done? Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.""
"No one really believes that the "science is settled" or that "the debate is over." Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements."
http://curry.eas....ust.html

http://www.eas.ga..._A_Curry
Zephir_fan
Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
MR166 respond to my quote
"Plants fight back against consumption by evolving protections, one of those is the production of cyanide."
with
Mike you are really a master at fear mongering!!
I do aim to please by addressing potential miscreant complacency.

The situation is complex though it is safer for all concerned to not give food plants too much of a good thing (CO2) - otherwise they too will get paranoid (just like rednecks who get an untimely bonus) & try to hang onto their carbohydrate & protein (dosh) reserves they have worked so hard for when it all belongs to us, we are the guys that know too well how to give em shit, for their own good too !

Eg:-
http://australian...-plants/

Cyanogens, Cassava, Clover, many food plants are only conditionally safe & that condition isnt necessarily consistent with a static, we must be on watch, lest they get too self important !

http://en.wikiped...Cyanogen
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2013
"Even if you believe that CO2 is the dominant control knob on climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, how is it a 'fact' to state that this must be dealt with by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (rather than by adaption, carbon sequestration or geoengineering)? And there is a missing element in this argument that warming is 'bad', which is a value judgment and has nothing to do with science."
http://judithcurr...re-14128
Zephir_fan
Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sigh
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
In real science, it only requires one scientist and there are more than one who challenge AGWite dogma.

What exactly takes only one scientist? Are you saying that if one scientist disagrees with all others, then all others are proven wrong?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
In real science, it only requires one scientist and there are more than one who challenge AGWite dogma.

What exactly takes only one scientist? Are you saying that if one scientist disagrees with all others, then all others are proven wrong?

Not just disagrees, but has data to back it up.

"Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist of the beginning of the 20th century, as the father of the theory that he called at that time "the continental drift". His book "The Origin of Continents and Oceans", published in 1915, is considered as the beginning of modern plate tectonics, even if the theory was only widely accepted in a refined version in the 1960s."
http://www.eartho...s-theory

"The medical elite thought they knew what caused ulcers and stomach cancer. But they were wrong—and did not want to hear the answer that was right."
http://discoverma...y#.Urhnh
Howhot
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
First, let start with a problem. Exponential growth

http://www.youtub...8KFcMJeo

Just as in the same way a test tube is filled, similar arguments can be made about the consumption of fossil fuels and by-products of burning it for energy. So basically this is plan that will cause large portions of the human population to dye off. So why are these 1 or two privileged people with uber wealth allowed to be the only ones to dictate the direction than mankind takes to alter it course. And why do it in secret? Fear of the lower class I would suspect.

We have a society that has over many generations come to appreciate the logic construction of thought in science. Using mathematical structures its possible to predict future events just as exponential growth can be predicted. Similarly the truth of AGW is predictable. Why use secret dark money to suppress the truth? Why deny the truth that is AGW? As a man of science, that is a mystery to me.

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
Are you saying that if one scientist disagrees with all others, then all others are proven wrong?

"When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago)."
"For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society."
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. "
http://wattsupwit...society/
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
Similarly the truth of AGW is predictable.

Like the predictions of Marxism, AGW predictions have failed.
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
Why deny the truth that is AGW? As a man of science, that is a mystery to me.


Because the people on the other side of the debate think we can get out of a technological problem on the scale of how we power our entire civilization with a POLICY.

Change your mantra for carbon taxes and pie in the sky renewables and see how quickly the other side quits denying the obvious.

You're both wrong and you're both right. In short the deniers can't quit denying the obvious if it means we all collectively walk back into the jungle and the AGWites, while they are on solid logical and scientific ground about the state of the environment are off the rails about how to actually solve the problem.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
That is, environmentalism is especially hard on the poor

Everything is especially hard on the poor. From outsourced jobs and multiple part-time, minimum-wage zero-benefit jobs, to obtaining basics like food, shelter and healthcare. Republicans could never walk ten steps in the raggedy shoes of the poor, much less a mile—those Republicans who do experience what it's like to be poor don't work to end poverty, by and large; they work to make themselves rich at the expense of everyone they do business with, thus fostering and perpetuating poverty instead of eradicating it. They learned nothing. And today as a result of their less than conscientious efforts, the rich are ever richer while the number of poor keeps right on growing. What a surprise.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
Why deny the truth that is AGW?

What is the truth?
Correlation proves causation?
Computer models accurately predict emergence?
Republicans could never walk ten steps in the raggedy shoes of the poor, much less a mile

Most republicans today started out being poor and worked their way out of poverty in spite of govt regulations hindering their efforts.
It is 'liberal' who benefits most from keeping people in poverty and dependent upon the state. Just like many scientists who are dependent upon the state.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
@protoplasmics,

"..... the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - B. Obama

The underlying mechanisms that make this work in a natural way are what conservative republicans support,... liberty, free choice, and the natural egoistic behavior of individuals,....

Everytime in history that left wingers attempted to force artifical equality upon the masses via a "planned society and economy", it resulted in cataclysmic failure.
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
Similarly the truth of AGW is predictable.

Like the predictions of Marxism, AGW predictions have failed.

Like the predictions of the AGW gravity has been found to be an fact. In your version R2, you compare apples to oranges; Marxism is a society's choice of governance, while AGW is an observation with the causes explained by facts, observations and rigorous testing. You sometimes say really stupid things R2.
Zephir_fan
Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
@protoplasmics,

"..... the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history" - B. Obama

The underlying mechanisms that make this work in a natural way are what conservative republicans support,... liberty, free choice, and the natural egoistic behavior of individuals,....
. 1 out of 3 characteristics is certainly true of the conservatards (to paraphrase a friend); SUPPORT OF EGOTISTIC BEHAVIOR! How else are we to explain the crazy tea party million man marchers (that when counted was a few hundred hahaha).

Yeah the last thing we need is to have a country run by crazy self delusional mean people who's best job experience is as a used car salesman deciding the faith of a million kids because food stamps are undeserved ill-gained hand-outs. Liberals at least have compassion for fellow man and understand government is to serve that fellow man.


ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
Liberals at least have compassion for fellow man

"The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property. "
"it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction. "
"if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic — you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself? "
http://bastiat.or...ION_G054
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 23, 2013
AGW is an observation with the causes explained by facts,

And those facts are...AGWites created a computer model that when they tweak the knobs, voila, 'proves' human produced CO2 causes 'climate change'.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
Liberals at least have compassion for fellow man


"One can have compassion for workers who lose their jobs when a plant closes. They can be seen. One cannot have compassion for unknown persons in other industries who do not receive job offers when a compassionate government subsidizes an unprofitable plant. "
http://www.random...327.html

"in The Chronicle of Philanthropy showing that the cities and states that give the most to charitable causes are overwhelmingly religious, conservative and southern. "The nation's generosity divide is vast," reports the Chronicle, as households in states like Utah and Mississippi give over 7 percent of their income to charity while the average household in Massachusetts and three other New England states gives under 3 percent."
http://www.patheo...rvative/

Shootist
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2013
AGW is an observation with the causes


yet to be explained within the Standard Error of Measure.

"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain." - Freeman Dyson
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
@ Hothot,

If you want to use the "tea party" people as a battering ram against conservatives in general, realize that I could do the same with the the 'occupy wall street' dimwits who in the end had no actual point whatsoever.

I don't know of any conservatives that wish to get rid of food stamps for those in need.

.certainly true of the [conservatives] [..] ; SUPPORT OF EGOTISTIC BEHAVIOR!


It is not something conservatives invented,.. it is human nature irrespective of whatever political form of gov exists, and irrespective what liberals think "should be" peoples behavior. It is simply a recognition that it is better to work With such natural forces and motivations, than Counter to them. No one, as individuals, acts according to the "common good". They act according to their own best interests, egoism. Liberals misunderstand and make it about 'moral judgement', when it is about intrinsic nature, and thus is only immoral to suppress it.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
"The problem with liberals is that they feel the need to demonstrate their supposed greatness to everyone. Part of it stems, most likely, from "liberal guilt": that haunting, persistent feeling among liberals that everything wrong with the world is their fault. No worries though, they aim to make the world a better place - with your money, of course. "
"liberals' solution to helping the poor - government - is nothing more than unjust initiated force. As contrasted with voluntary charity, the left believes in using the State to forcibly extract money from one segment of society and give it to another. They can dress it up all they want, but in the end, it's just a gun in your face demanding tribute. And what's compassionate about that?"
http://www.examin...mpassion
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
" Having built the credibility of their political movement on the grounds of compassion and empathy, their actions and policy proposals are reflective of just the opposite."
"The left accuses the right of lacking compassion by playing politics with the health services of poor people. This while their grand leader threatens to cut off the health funding for Indiana's poor people over politics! "
"If you ever wanted to know what the left's compassion really looked like, watch them continue lying about that as struggling Americans scrape up change to put a single gallon of gas in their car."

Read more: http://www.americ...oKMqC1fv
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
rockwolf1000
3.5 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
Kron is plainly ignorant with
I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life..



No. He's just exceptionally stupid.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
"real science is based on questioning of data and conclusions, not on consensus.

This is a clear sign of panic.

Read more: http://www.americ...oKNq3KF6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
Kron is plainly ignorant with
I happen to be the sort that wants to make the world a better place. A warmer climate is more conducive to life..



No. He's just exceptionally stupid.


Well warmer climate is not always detrimental to terrestrial life.

http://en.wikiped...mum#Life

It would probably be horrendously hard on human civilization though....
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
'Liberal' compassion:
"The New York Times has finally conceded what critics of Obamacare have been claiming--the so-called "Affordable Care Act" devastates the country's middle class families who "are caught in the uncomfortable middle: not poor enough for help, but not rich enough to be indifferent to cost.""
http://www.breitb...le-Class
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
Liberals at least have compassion for fellow man and understand government is to serve that fellow man.


By such misuse of gov, it is easy to have compassion with other peoples money. Unfortunately, its easy to cause unintended consequences using only do-gooder mentality.

In fact it is so easy, most young people when they become politically aware, start out as liberals. Because it's "obvious" to be a liberal after all... ya help people in need, "we" should do this,.. "we" should stop that,... rich people are evil and they're not fair,... these thoughts make me a good person,.. mommy i wet myself,.. etc.

Once people grow intellectually mature and understand reality and the mechanisms that are responsible for the greatest economy in human history and the greatest increase in standards of living across the board, they become conservatives. They understand the harder and less obvious way is the more robust and lasting way.
Zephir_fan
Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
Remember, the greatest "Liberals" of them all, the Socialists have been directly responsible for over 100 Million deaths in their purges.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
Once people grow intellectually mature and understand reality and the mechanisms that are responsible for the greatest economy in human history and the greatest increase in standards of living across the board, they become conservatives.
Uh, you do know that the labor movement (unions) had a lot to do with that, right?

And it's the subversion of unions, by moving factories overseas, which began the long decline which currently engulfs most of the former industrial states, right?

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
It is not something conservatives invented [egoism]


They might not have invented it, but they sure did perfect it.


Again, it's not about moral judgement. Egoism is an a-priori natural mechanism that motivates every animal on the planet.

You should be glad of this because the poor employ no one, and the government can not survive on taxes from the poor.

Through a kind of anthropic principal we know that the liberal could not have been around during human evolution, because they would have artificially regulated and coerced it, to agree with their naïve notion of "fairness", and thus destroyed the very mechanism that created them.

'Similarly' the modern "progressive liberal" could not have existed except for egoism in a capitalistic, profit motive society.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
Once people grow intellectually mature and understand reality and the mechanisms that are responsible for the greatest economy in human history and the greatest increase in standards of living across the board, they become conservatives.
Uh, you do know that the labor movement (unions) had a lot to do with that, right?

And it's the subversion of unions, by moving factories overseas, which began the long decline which currently engulfs most of the former industrial states, right?


If you want to know who "subverted" the unions it is YOU and the hundreds of millions of people just like you that chose to buy a product that costs less!

THAT,,,,,is human nature and no legislation can change it.

If you desire to keep jobs in your country you had better make sure that any laws enacted REDUCE the cost to the manufactures.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
chose to buy a product that costs less

Because unions were able to use the force of the state to raise costs.
Where workers have a choice to join or not join a union, even foreign auto companies are producing autos in the USA.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2013
Once people grow intellectually mature and understand reality and the mechanisms that are responsible for the greatest economy in human history and the greatest increase in standards of living across the board, they become conservatives.
Uh, you do know that the labor movement (unions) had a lot to do with that, right?

And it's the subversion of unions, by moving factories overseas, which began the long decline which currently engulfs most of the former industrial states, right?



We're transitioning into a global economy. Unions are a parasite upon corporations, and are outdated artifacts of lawless thuggery. The damage done to the American public school system by teachers unions is immeasurable.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
chose to buy a product that costs less

Because unions were able to use the force of the state to raise costs.
Where workers have a choice to join or not join a union, even foreign auto companies are producing autos in the USA.


Didn't GM go bankrupt in part because of unions (and they should have been allowed to collapse)? Toyota's cost per car was $1,500 less than GM purely on account of labour cost.
Zephir_fan
Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
The problem with conservatives and the whole of the right is that they almost always are hypocrites; example who said, "Deficits don't matter." while racking up a trilions in spending. VP Dick Cheney. The shameless conservative, republican, teaparty, libertarian, GOP or what ever the righwing is calling themselves today should really just rename themselves what they are, the hypocrite party.

Now, before all on the right side of political spectrum gets a scrunchy, whenever a republican promises you a tax cut, if you make $100k or less, your better hold onto your wallet because you will be getting the bill. That has happened since Regan, under every stinking republican administration I've seen. What about a flat tax? Well, we taxes have become less and less regressive to the point where the top bracket of the 0.001% pays percentage wise the same as a person make $200k. It doesn't help the country at all and makes it worst for everyone one on the bottom.
ubavontuba
2.8 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
If you want to know who "subverted" the unions it is YOU and the hundreds of millions of people just like you that chose to buy a product that costs less!

THAT,,,,,is human nature and no legislation can change it.

If you desire to keep jobs in your country you had better make sure that any laws enacted REDUCE the cost to the manufactures.
It wasn't about the cost of the products, it was about increasing corporate bonuses.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
The top 10 percent of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010. A flat tax would be ideal.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
If capitalism, or it's general principles are so bad then how do we explain;

The USSR vs. the USA
Eastern Europe vs Western Europe
North Korea vs South Korea
Communist Maoist China vs Modern China

Do we really need to continue to have this debate?

Yes capitalism works, yes it has problems, yes it needs a governmental framework (rule of law, and private property rights) in which to operate.

Are there shades of grey which we can debate? Of course, but to even suggest the "rich" (whoever they are) are a threat to the "poor" (whoever they are) by virtue of their successes is as simplistic as saying the guy who made a mint off of the internal combustion engine impoverished everyone who uses one today. It's blind class warfare at it's most immature and simplistic and isn't worthy of anyone on this board IMO.
Zephir_fan
Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
Because there are hardly any that fit that description?

In real science, it only requires one scientist and there are more than one who challenge AGWite dogma.


You see Ryggy, you omit one vital consideration. And that is the vagaries of human nature. Put together enough people and a small proportion is bound to be contrarian, merely because of psychological make-up. No amount of logic will alter their opinion and, worse, when challenged they double-down and go further into the rabbit-hole. Look at you. And if you want to include scientists. Dr (intelligent design) Spencer. Curry. Watts.

That is why science requires a consensus and NOT unanimity.
The presence of knowledgeable deniers (whatever their version entails) does not prove your case. Just the expected human range of responses to a politicised subject.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
I wonder how much the frictional comments and hot air on this article alone have raised the global temps...
MR166
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
"That is why science requires a consensus and NOT unanimity."

A consensus is meaningless. After all a consensus of scientists believed that the earth was flat. It is Verifiable truth that is the foundation of science and not computer simulations that are rewritten at will.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013

Not just disagrees, but has data to back it up.

"Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist of the beginning of the 20th century, as the father of the theory that he called at that time "the continental drift". His book "The Origin of Continents and Oceans", published in 1915, is considered as the beginning of modern plate tectonics, even if the theory was only widely accepted in a refined version in the 1960s."
http://www.eartho...s-theory


You cite exceptions and not the rule. Also there was much more to discover back then. No one is likely to make such breakthroughs on their own now.

But that's your mind-set isn't it? Throw out the baby with the bathwater.
It's always wrong because it's been wrong once/is not smack on the curve. Or because we don't have unanimous agreement.
The world works on probabilities (literally via QM) and it's mitigated by human nature.
Both those things are spectacularly absent in your logic.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
"That is why science requires a consensus and NOT unanimity."

A consensus is meaningless. After all a consensus of scientists believed that the earth was flat. It is Verifiable truth that is the foundation of science and not computer simulations that are rewritten at will.


Look MR, how can it be meaningless?
Are you saying democracy is meaningless?
Because that's done via consensus, at the ballot box (alternative N Korea eg).
It's the ONLY way to do things, or we'd NEVER get anywhere awaiting for agreement ( it'll never come in a politicised subject). Take out the politics and it would be unanimous, I contend.
The Earth was said to be flat/the Sun revolved around it because there was NO science then. Belief was dictated by other things. By not being able to see the curvature of the earth from any perspective other than on land and in Galileo's case by religion.
We've moved on a tad since then.
Well most of us anyway.
Modernmystic
3.5 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
runrig,

I sympathize with your position, but argument from authority or majority (argumentum ad populum) is a logical fallacy. We don't need a consensus of scientists to know that more CO2 in the atmosphere means it's going to be warmer...we only need physics. If anyone can demonstrate that CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperatures let them step forth....otherwise no further argument is needed.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2013
That is why science requires a consensus

More like an echo chamber.
One significant critique of Mann's hokey stick was/is the incestuous peer review process.
AGWites are quick to assert all their evidence is 'peer' reviewed. Who are the 'peers'?

But that's your mind-set isn't it?

My mindset is to always question the motivation of any 'scientist' who claims the science is settled.
Einstein's theories must not be settled since every opportunity to observe Mercury during an eclipse is taken. Why should they waste their time and money as relativity is settled, no?

What is the consensus on the origin of gravity?
"gravity is one of the mysteries to be solved in order to get a complete understanding of how the Universe works.

So, what is gravity and where does it come from?

To be honest, we're not entirely sure.

Read more: http://www.univer...oL27jJIv
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
"That is why science requires a consensus and NOT unanimity."

A consensus is meaningless. After all a consensus of scientists believed that the earth was flat. It is Verifiable truth that is the foundation of science and not computer simulations that are rewritten at will.


Its just that kind of lazy stupidity that characterizes the bulk of denialists.

No, there was never a consensus of scientists who believed the Earth was flat; there were many non-scientists who looked around them and said "Hey you scientists, how can you say the land I see around me is not flat?" Just like today; "Hey you scientists, look outside, it's snowing, so how can you say the Earth is warming?" Almost exactly the same argument. And just as wrong.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
"Are you saying democracy is meaningless?" Democrasy is not really an ideal form of government or science for that matter. That is why the US is a Republic where hopfully learned individuals represent the people.

As an example, if the majority of people voted to re-introduce slavery would that be OK? Majority rules is not always a good thing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
If anyone can demonstrate that CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperatures let them step forth..

The question is the magnitude of any effect.
H2O is the most significant GHG, but its very inconvenient to measure. CO2 is easy to measure, and it is conveniently tied to burning fossil fuels which really excites the watermelons.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2013
runrig,

I sympathize with your position, but argument from authority or majority (argumentum ad populum) is a logical fallacy. We don't need a consensus of scientists to know that more CO2 in the atmosphere means it's going to be warmer...we only need physics. If anyone can demonstrate that CO2 has no effect on atmospheric temperatures let them step forth....otherwise no further argument is needed.


Um, no MM. If the argument was "the consensus says it is so, therefore is must be so" then you would have the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. The argument runrig uses is perfectly acceptable; that is to say, the majority of scientists have reached a consensus that the evidence supporting the premise that humans are causing unnatural global warming is strong. It is not a fallacy to accept the opinions of experts as part of your argument, it is a fallacy to contend that your argument is right only because of the opinions of experts.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
Are there shades of grey which we can debate?

Yes, healthcare and climate science are grey in the minds of the public, but that's not the fault of scientists—as outlined in the research of the article, Republicans and cohorts are responsible for the greyness. And we're all sick-up-to-here of the way that Republicans obstruct— erm, debate.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2013
It is not a fallacy to accept the opinions of experts as part of your argument, it is a fallacy to contend that your argument is right only because of the opinions of experts.


I'd agree if that were just part of his argument instead OF his argument. You can't use the opinions of experts as your sole basis for conclusion. One has to know why the experts agree otherwise the argument is logically fallacious. What makes an expert an expert?

Are there shades of grey which we can debate?

Yes, healthcare and climate science are grey in the minds of the public, but that's not the fault of scientists—as outlined in the research of the article, Republicans and cohorts are responsible for the greyness. And we're all sick-up-to-here of the way that Republicans obstruct— erm, debate.


I was talking about economics here, not climate science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2013
healthcare and climate science are grey in the minds of the public, but that's not the fault of scientists—as outlined in the research of the article, Republicans and cohorts are responsible for the greyness


The greyness is caused by the value judgments imposed by scientists and politicians.

Climate has been warming for thousands of years, (glaciers covered much of the Northern Hemisphere 12000 years ago) what is so important now about continued warming?

Healthcare is not gray, it is quite binary. What creates the greyness are political policies that impact insurance industries and medical care. All of which increase the costs of care.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
That is why science requires a consensus and NOT unanimity.


The notion of 'consensus' is not an operational principal underlying the scientific method. It has zero place in science. Historically there have been many scientific consensus that proved later to be plain wrong,... the phlogiston theory, the aether, caloric, that the transferred energy of light is proportional to the intensity, and just prior to the quantum mechanical revolution in science there was a consensus that physics itself was nearly complete in it's core understanding.

The term 'consensus' is generally only used if the science itself is weak and not supported rigorously by successful predictions. No one bothers to say that 'there is a consensus that E = mc^2", or that the earth orbits the sun.
Zephir_fan
Dec 23, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
Eugenics was once consensus 'science'.
"A bunch of scientists and medical-types in American and in nations around the world decided by scientific consensus that Black people were inferior because their heads were smaller and their lips stuck out! Jews! Jews were considered by German scientists--yes, scientists--to be rats walking on two legs. Sterilized them! That was the noble plan put together by a noble scientific consensus. But hell, why sterilize Jews, let's just build a camp!

Beware! Every thought, idea, belief, and religious belief is constantly being attributed to human biology--Genetics. Now, when will the Cult of Scientific Consensus decide to come for thee? Think about that and be afraid."
http://www.americ...y_t.html
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
"John Christy, a prominent climate change researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who is skeptical of catastrophic claims, asserted that because of "the tight interdependency between funding, reviewers, popularity. ... We [skeptical researchers] are being 'black‑listed,' as best I can tell, by our colleagues.""
"The December 17, 1979 issue of Newsweek reported that the Department of Energy was boosting research spending on fusion energy reactors based on a scientific consensus that the break-even point—that a fusion reactor would produce more energy than it consumes—could be passed within five years. "
"the credibility of scientific research is not ultimately determined by how many researchers agree with it or how often it is cited by like-minded colleagues, but whether or not it conforms to reality."
http://reason.com...to-agree
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
AGW is an observation with the causes


yet to be explained within the Standard Error of Measure.

"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain." - Freeman Dyson


Then how can he be so sure that the Polar Bears will be fine?

"One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
Freeman Dyson

Do you know more than Freeman Dyson?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
From 1995:
" Despite the absence of a significant scientific basis for most predictions, the
public has been led to believe that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the issue is a matter of immediate urgency requiring massive control of energy usage. The first part of this paper will briefly describe this situation. The thought that scientists would allow such an abuse of science is difficult for most laymen to believe. However, I suggest that what is happening may, in fact, be the normal behavior to be expected from the interaction of science, advocacy groups, and politics. A study of an earlier example of such an interaction, the interaction of genetics, eugenics and immigration law during the early part of this century, reveals almost analogous behavior."
http://eaps.mit.e...nics.pdf
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
"... majority opinion, no matter how important it may be for democratic government, should in no way be used as a criterion for scientific acceptability" - [Roger Penrose, 2004]
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
"For present purposes, there are obvious analogies between fears of environmental degradation and fears of genetic degradation, the environmental movement and the eugenics movement, and environmental legislation and immigration legislation"
"Powerful advocacy groups claiming to represent both science and the public in the name of morality and superior wisdom.
Simplistic depictions of the underlying science so as to facilitate widespread 'understanding.'
'Events', real or contrived, interpreted in such a manner as to promote a sense of urgency in the public at large.
Scientists flattered by public attention and deferent to 'political will' and popular assessment of virtue.
Significant numbers of scientists eager to produce the science demanded by the 'public"."
http://eaps.mit.e...nics.pdf

MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2013
"Significant numbers of scientists eager to produce the science demanded by the 'public". "

In the 70s I had a friend that sent their son to Cornell University. The son said that if he did not keep his dorm room locked "everything would be gone including the refrigerator"!

Right then and there I knew that the US was sinking into a moral hell hole. No wonder that "Science" is corrupted and selling out to the highest bidder ( Freedom devouring governments ).
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
This is a great video by Bill Nye (the science guy) on global warming. It sums up this debate in about 4 and a half minutes.

http://www.youtub...w8Cyfoq8
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
Howhot made a good find
This is a great video by Bill Nye (the science guy) on global warming...
http://www.youtub...w8Cyfoq8
Full marks from me.

It is a simple experiment yes but, indicative. Models can do the same thing to a fair degree with or without punnyness :-)

Obviously there is extreme bias from climate change denialists & obvious money & political will to ignore and sidestep basic logic.

Add CO2 from the burning of 230,000 L of petrol a second ! into the atmosphere then look for *any* data to claim there is *no* change or even cooling.

Where are denialists such simpletons who pretend to be unintelligent, is it their stock in trade.

Sherlock Holmes' method of investigation appears to prove denialists are either bad thinkers and/or driven like automatons to follow political bias to muddy the waters & try to destroy the very discipline (Science) that has given us safe food, medical advances, electronics, etc etc

Shame on them, do hair dressing instead !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013

"Simplistic depictions of the underlying science so as to facilitate widespread 'understanding.'"
As Lindzen, a real scientist, notes above.

But AGWites assert that complex climate models and years and years of work in CLIMATE science are required to be qualified to have any opinion on AGW.
Maggnus
3.6 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
The notion of 'consensus' is not an operational principal underlying the scientific method. It has zero place in science. Historically there have been many scientific consensus that proved later to be plain wrong,... the phlogiston theory, the aether, caloric, that the transferred energy of light is proportional to the intensity, and just prior to the quantum mechanical revolution in science there was a consensus that physics itself was nearly complete in it's core understanding.

The term 'consensus' is generally only used if the science itself is weak and not supported rigorously by successful predictions. No one bothers to say that 'there is a consensus that E = mc^2", or that the earth orbits the sun.
This is complete crap! Utterly and completely wrong. What, you just make stuff up and then put it out there like it has any meaning?

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
Eugenics was once consensus 'science'.


Bull
Fricken
Crap!

You're normally just stupid. Now you're insultingly stupid. You don't have a clue.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2013
Truth hurts, Maggie?
Noumenon
3 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
The notion of 'consensus' is not an operational principal underlying the scientific method. It has zero place in science. Historically there have been many scientific consensus that proved later to be plain wrong,... the phlogiston theory, the aether, caloric, that the transferred energy of light is proportional to the intensity, and just prior to the quantum mechanical revolution in science there was a consensus that physics itself was nearly complete in it's core understanding.

The term 'consensus' is generally only used if the science itself is weak and not supported rigorously by successful predictions. No one bothers to say that 'there is a consensus that E = mc^2", or that the earth orbits the sun.
This is complete crap! Utterly and completely wrong. What, you just make stuff up and then put it out there like it has any meaning?



Just saying its wrong is not an argument. Try again.
Maggnus
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2013
Just saying its wrong is not an argument. Try again.


Who's arguing. You're an idiot, and one should never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience. (George Carlin )
Protoplasmix
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2013
In the 70s I had a friend that sent their son to Cornell University. The son said that if he did not keep his dorm room locked "everything would be gone including the refrigerator"!

Ah, yes, back in the days when the Republicans did pioneering work that would one day be the job of the NSA.
Estevan57
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
Maggnus - Originally Mark Twain, I believe.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2013
Estevan57 - I think Twain's was different - "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

That is why I rarely give answer to rygg.
ScooterG
2 / 5 (8) Dec 24, 2013

You see Ryggy, you omit one vital consideration. And that is the vagaries of human nature. Put together enough people and a small proportion is bound to be contrarian, merely because of psychological make-up. No amount of logic will alter their opinion and, worse, when challenged they double-down and go further into the rabbit-hole. Look at you. And if you want to include scientists. Dr (intelligent design) Spencer. Curry. Watts.

That is why science requires a consensus and NOT unanimity.
The presence of knowledgeable deniers (whatever their version entails) does not prove your case. Just the expected human range of responses to a politicised subject.


"Concensus" is of paramount importance to the AGW industry. Without it, doubt creeps in, funding stops, and AGW is DRT.

AGW researchers, as well as those secretive and mysterious "peers", know this all too well.

There is huge monetary incentive to maintain "consensus", which is why there's "never a discouraging word".
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2013
Concensus" is of paramount importance to the AGW industry. Without it, doubt creeps in, funding stops, and AGW is DRT.

AGW researchers, as well as those secretive and mysterious "peers", know this all too well.

There is huge monetary incentive to maintain "consensus", which is why there's "never a discouraging word".
Good ole Scooter, once again outlining the conspiracy he says isn't a conspiracy because he doesn't use the word "conspiracy" while describing his view of the conspiracy.
ScooterG
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2013
And there's Maggnus:

on the one hand trying to convince us that AGW researchers are the highest of intellectuals - while on the other hand implying these same individuals are too stupid to figure out (on their own) who butters their bread.

And worse, expecting all of us to believe these people (AGW et al) are somehow immune to the entire downside of human nature.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2013
Ah Scooter, your misunderstandings are hilarious.

I could not care less what you believe, and I am trying to convince you of nothing. You're a conspiracist and a denialist. You have already made up your mind. You know more than all the scientists doing all the studies, and you're convinced some "power" is behind it.

You're a fool.
ScooterG
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 24, 2013
Ah Magnus - Your defense of the indefensable is hilarious.

Just stick to name-calling, it's what you do best.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2013
You're a fool.
Fools follow where they are lead and believe in things like "consensus science." These appear to be AGWite traits.

AGW critics, on the other hand, figure it out for themselves. By definition, they are critical thinkers.

Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2013
AGW critics, on the other hand, figure it out for themselves. By definition, they are critical thinkers.

It doesn't matter how critical a thinker you are if you only have one oar in the water, or half your brain tied behind your back as the case may be.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 24, 2013
Here, summed up in 2 minutes and 30 seconds, is rebuttal to all of the deniers phoney talking points. Yeap, Uba, your included. R2 should really listen closely if he wants a half-way descent economy for his future.

http://www.youtub...ZnpWbJdw
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
AGW critics, on the other hand, figure it out for themselves. By definition, they are critical thinkers.

It doesn't matter how critical a thinker you are if you only have one oar in the water, or half your brain tied behind your back as the case may be.
I guess you should know.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
Here, summed up in 2 minutes and 30 seconds, is rebuttal to all of the deniers phoney talking points. Yeap, Uba, your included. R2 should really listen closely if he wants a half-way descent economy for his future.

http://www.youtub...ZnpWbJdw
No substance, just 100% pure propaganda. Like I said above...

Fools follow where they are lead and believe in things like "consensus science." These appear to be AGWite traits.

AGW critics, on the other hand, figure it out for themselves. By definition, they are critical thinkers.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
Just saying its wrong is not an argument. Try again.


Who's arguing. You're an idiot, and one should never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience. (George Carlin )


And yet you're perfectly willing to spend the time degenerating into name calling. An indication that you have no argument.

"... majority opinion, no matter how important it may be for democratic government, should in no way be used as a criterion for scientific acceptability" - [Roger Penrose, 2004]
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013

"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain." - Freeman Dyson


"One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
Freeman Dyson

Do you know more than Freeman Dyson?


Why do you think those two statements are incompatible? Many "deniers" feel the same way;... that while not rejecting the basic climate science, nevertheless reject the unfounded alarmism, exaggerated claims of precision, and the political hijacking of the far left.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2013
What exactly takes only one scientist? Are you saying that if one scientist disagrees with all others, then all others are proven wrong?

Not just disagrees, but has data to back it up.

The data are quite important. You examples, though, have no relevance to whether the Earth is warming and whether humans significantly contribute. Wegener's idea was plate tectonics, Marshall's that bacteria cause ulcers. The closest you come to relevance is your link to Hal Lewis' resignation letter, which is about politics within the APS. He seems convinced that human activity doesn't cause warming, but the letter contains no data or even reference to data.

This reminds of the link to Hayek you once gave me to prove that academics are biased. I read the whole thing. You linked to an opinion piece. You should not mistake an opinion for fact just because the opinion happens to agree with yours.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
The closest you come to relevance is your link to Hal Lewis' resignation letter,

Which is one of many who challenge the AGW 'consensus' faith.
ou should not mistake an opinion for fact

ALL future dire disaster predictions by AGWites are opinions.

Predictions made by Mises and Hyak on human actions and economy have been validated. AGWites can't make the same claims.
Hayek's piece about why 'intellectuals' are socialists has been demonstrated to be spot on.
One data point is the author of this 'study'.
Zephir_fan
Dec 24, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
"Steyer, liberals have a billionaire on their side. Like the Kochs, he is building a vast political network and seizing opportunities provided by loose campaign finance rules to insert himself into elections nationwide. In direct contrast to them, he has made opposition to fossil fuels and the campaign against global warming the center of his activism.

The former financier is an unlikely green icon. Steyer built his fortune with a San Francisco-based hedge fund of the sort that drove protesters to occupy Wall Street.

http://www.latime...oPEs5IFT
It is interesting that the billionaire that depends upon corporatism (aka fascism/socialism), Steyer (Soros, too) support 'liberal', anti-free markets.
While the Koch's, who are MIT graduates in chemical engineering, earned their wealth creating products people wanted to buy and employed thousands creating that wealth. The Koch's support pro-free market politics.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
"Billionaire hedge fund banker Tom Steyer is pushing for an oil extraction tax that will probably help his thinly veiled political ambitions. But he obviously has no idea what's happening on Main Street and how such a proposal will damage California's already poor and fragile business climate.

How else can you explain his call for higher taxes that would be devastating to small businesses and the average Californian?"
http://www.mercur...urce=rss

Steyer's hedge fund:

"Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C.® is a global institutional asset management firm founded in 1986. Farallon manages equity capital for institutions, including college endowments, charitable foundations and pension plans, and for high net worth individuals. We employ approximately 160 employees."
http://www.farall...bout-us/
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
"Koch companies have a presence in nearly 60 countries and employ about 60,000 people. They have invested about $60 billion in acquisitions and other capital expenditures since 2003 to make life better around the world by efficiently converting resources into products and services that people depend on every day."
"Koch companies are involved in refining, chemicals and biofuels; forest and consumer products; fertilizers; polymers and fibers; process and pollution control equipment and technologies; commodity trading and services; minerals; ranching; glass; and investments. "
"Contributing to the company's continued growth is the shareholders' long-time policy of reinvesting 90 percent of earnings. "
http://www.kochin...od4mkApw
'Liberals' whine about the decline of manufacturing and jobs in the US yet demonize companies like Koch Ind that create those jobs and praise hedge fund socialists that do not create wealth or jobs.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2013
Rygg it is useless to argue with the Progressives on this board about economics. If you propose a perpetual motion machine to them they, like any sane person, will tell you how stupid you are.

Yet, they are the true believers when it comes to Financial Perpetual Motion. The government can take from the producers and give to non-producers, create wasteful and restrictive regulations, and funnel vast sums of money to political cronies without consequence. All they need to do is print more money when they run out.
If things start to fall apart it is because the government did not tax the "Rich" enough or did not print enough.
Zephir_fan
Dec 24, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2013
From the OpenSecrets blog, "As it turns out, Koch Industries' corporate PAC is a big supporter of many of the 20 "dissident" Republican House members who have been identified as the biggest thorns in the side of the Republican leadership on the shutdown and the debt ceiling." See http://www.opense...nts.html

I'd suggest they ask for their money back. Although to them it's probably considered chump change well spent. Are there no laws in place to prevent subversion of the government? Demeaning scientific research and nearly the whole scientific community is bad enough, but interfering with the operation of the government to the extent of shutting it down, I would have guessed, is criminal.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2013
Ah, this is Financial Perpetual Motion at it's finest!!!

The Tea Party and a few Republicans are "Subversive" because they want the government to stop spending your children's money. Zimbabwe here we come.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2013
The Tea Party and a few Republicans are "Subversive" because they want the government to stop spending your children's money

What good does it do to have a representative form of government, a democracy, if the representatives can be paid to spout the agenda of the highest paying constituent? How is that not monetary subversion of the spirit and intent of a democratic form of government? It should not be a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy, because the consequences of that are evident from the article, and have nothing to do with your children's money, and everything to do with betraying the public trust.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2013
"What good does it do to have a representative form of government, a democracy, if the representatives can be paid to spout the agenda of the highest paying constituent?"

Proto you are a brilliant ignoramus. I say that with the utmost respect for the brilliance of the first part of your post.

But to think that political influence and crony capitalism is limited to the right is pure ignorance. The real problem is that a chosen few control BOTH sides of the argument and control the outcome.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
Are there no laws in place to prevent subversion of the government?

Yes there, and they should have been enforced decades ago when the socialists began taking over the USA.
interfering with the operation of the government to the extent of shutting it down

How horrible if the people discover they can survive without the govt! But most of the govt was NOT shut down and parts that were were on the orders the Dear Leader, BHO.
if the representatives can be paid to spout the agenda of the highest paying constituent?

That is what the democratic party has been doing for the past 6 years, shoveling money to their supporters in the form of green subsidies and ...
Ever hear of Terry Mcauliffe? He is the poster boy for democrats greed. How long will he remain gov of VA before he is indicted?
"Slate Says Terry McAuliffe is Beginning a 'Reign of Sleaze'"
http://townhall.c...n1754223
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2013
Sometimes injustice loses:
"For the second time in the last few years, a high-profile corruption prosecution against a Republican member of Congress has collapsed."

In Thursday's ruling, the judges wrote "we reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal.""
"DeLay joins the late Ted Stevens as two members of Congress recently prosecuted for corruption to be later vindicated in appeals to original convictions. William Jefferson, who was prosecuted in the same time frame, lost all of his appeals and will be in prison for at least the next ten years. "
http://hotair.com...its-him/

"Ex-Rep. Jefferson (D-La.) gets 13 years in freezer cash case"
http://www.washin...266.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2013
Here is one, of many, examples of how BHO is subverting the govt:
""There used to be three steps to making a law: the Senate passed it, the House passed it, the president signed it," Will said on Fox News' "Special Report." "Now we have a fourth, which is bureaucrats, presidents, press spokesmen just amend the law at whim. This is government by executive will and it is anti-constitutional if not technically yet unconstitutional."

Read more: http://dailycalle...oQYPe6gl
This is how dictators rule in banana republics.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2013
"the shutdown provides the country with a perfect moment to ask why a federal government whose spending habits are an insult to drunken sailors everywhere is paying above-market compensation to hundreds of thousands of "non-essential" workers."
"According to Government Executive magazine's incomplete tally, 90 percent or more of the staff at the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Securities and Exchange Committee, and the Departments of Treasury and Housing and Urban Development are considered "non-essential."
" 95 percent of Department of Education employees were deemed "non-essential"

Read more: Shutdown Highlights Basic Fact: Most of Government is 'Non-Essential' | TIME.com http://ideas.time...oQaiHufS
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2013
Proto prefers a dictator?
"Brooks is right that gridlock is stifling desperately needed policy innovation and reform, but is wrong about the cause and solution for it."
"The problem is too much power and authority is centralized in the federal government. The solution is to look to the states, which are already a hotbed of policy innovation and reform. What America's politics needs is a federal government that tends to those issues uniquely suited to the federal government and delegates all other authority to the states, shattering gridlock and ushering in a political process that more rapidly advances sound public policy."
"Under such a system, Texas conservatives and California liberals can stop fighting over federal policy like Obamacare. California can implement a state-based version of Obamacare or even single-payer healthcare, and Texas can push for free market reform. Gridlock solved."
http://dailycalle...onarchy/
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2013
Proto you are a brilliant ignoramus. I say that with the utmost respect for the brilliance of the first part of your post.

But to think that political influence and crony capitalism is limited to the right is pure ignorance.

I said nothing to suggest it is. And I don't think it is. Does that make me plain brilliant sans ignoramus?

After reading Brulle's paper I have been a bit harsh on the Republicans and one-sided. I really should say something nice about them… um…
uh… okay:
Observation of the Republicans and consequences of their behavior may provide insight into the demise of the flint-peddling, club-bearing, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
Yep, Proto prefers a totalitarian socialist state.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
Going on 300 posts - is this a record ?

Mmmm, that can't be because we come down to the nub of denialism.... Politics.

No surely not. This is science forum isn't it?

How simple the world must be if all decisions are filtered through that prism.
Just throw out all considerations except those that affect your wallet.
The sacred "tax dollar".
Bless.
And god (or whoever your invisible friend may/may not be) save us from the selfish.
Surely the most antisocial trait in human nature.
BTW: that's social NOT socialist. There is a difference.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
Nub of denialis?
The AGWites chose the political path to implement their agenda
This is science forum isn't it?

Yet when push comes to shove, may who profess 'science' show their statist/socialist side.
Money, as a measure of wealth, must always be decision for every individual who earns wealth or who wants to earn wealth. Govt does care about money because they can always print more money and plunder more wealth (until all is plundered).
AGWites chose to throw out all considerations but the political and had they chosen a 'middle way', using free markets and innovation to adapt and become more efficient, it would result in a win-win for the people, but not the 'watermelon' (environmental socialist).
Self-interest is not anti-social or selfish.
What is selfish is supporting or coercing a govt that has no regard for the individual's right to determine what is in his self interest.
The state is not society, but the socialist needs it to be.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
"The bipartisan political establishment believes that the state, and not the private community, can solve problems that people face. This is a flat out falsehood, because only rational productive citizens have the biggest incentive to efficiently solve their own problems, whereas the state has incentive to advance itself."
"Society is held together by basic moral values and a respect of private property rights where people work together to solve their own problems in a productive manner. What happens when the state is involved?

The state has no incentive to be productive, so it isn't, and now we have a bipartisan $17 trillion debt because the politicians have become better at halting market forces. So the politicians who favor statist expansion will use their speeches to highlight the importance of working together, but really that is a value of society. The state is forceful while society is cooperative."
http://www.turnin...y-state/
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
Yep, Proto prefers a totalitarian socialist state

You spelled "scientific" wrong. It needs to be scientific and resources-based. A monetary economy is fine for trading trinkets, but where there are lives in the balance we should employ the most sensible, intelligent methodology possible for making our decisions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2013
we should employ the most sensible, intelligent methodology possible for making our decisions.

Who is 'we'?
What is 'sensible'? Who defines 'sensible'?
No centrally planned system can ever have enough data to make any intelligent decision. The USSR proved this and BHO's Obamacare is proving this.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
"Copernicus commenced a study composed for the Prussian and Polish governments around 1525, On the Minting of Money, with these words:

ALTHOUGH THERE ARE COUNTLESS MALADIES that are forever causing the decline of kingdoms, princedoms, and republics, the following four (in my judgment) are the most serious: civil discord, a high death rate, sterility of the soil, and the debasement of coinage. The first three are so obvious that everybody recognizes the damage they cause; but the fourth one, which has to do with money, is noticed by only a few very thoughtful people, since it does not operate all at once and at a single blow, but gradually overthrows governments, and in a hidden, insidious way."
"Newton's gold standard was designed along Copernican principles of close correlation toward nominal and intrinsic value. It served the world very well for almost 200 years."
http://www.forbes...-the-soc
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
Is this what Proto has in mind?
"As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. "
http://www.forbes...rnments/
Proto claims the destruction of money is a good thing.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2013
Who is 'we'?

Humanity is 'we,' considering 'we' are one species on one planet. Rygg, your thinking is as inside-the-box as I've ever seen. It's applicable to times past, like the ones you cited. Face forward, Rygg, face the future.
No centrally planned system can ever have enough data to make any intelligent decision

I would say NASA performed in exemplary fashion getting humans to the moon and back.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
Humanity is 'we,

Again, who decides? 50%+1? A majority can kill of the minority, if that what the 'science' says?

Do you know why NASA succeeded so well with Apollo and have failed so miserably with manned space flight after Apollo?
Feynman documented NASA's failure quite succinctly here:
http://science.ks...ix-F.txt
It's success is documented here:
http://jhupbooks....Script=y
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2013
Werner Von Braun said what made Apollo fly was money. Something Proto wants to eliminate.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Dec 25, 2013
in regard to the article:

Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding.

Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources

Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable


Why hide where your finding is coming from?
If ExxonMobile and Koch visibly supported them in the past, WHY be surreptitious now?

IMHO- if they are hiding, then they either realise what they are doing is wrong, and are attempting to shield themselves, or they are attempting to mitigate the negative fallout from supporting a position that is tenuous, or illegitimate...

Enjoy the holidays yall...PEACE
Howhot
5 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2013
Captain Stumpy; I have to agree with you and your deductions. One of the most interesting sites I've stumbled upon blows the lid off of many dark money ventures, and many implicate the Koch's indirectly. For example;
http://www.source...ith_That
Follow that link to the Heartland Institute and you find Koch money. I know the republican like to be spoon-fed BS daily but do they realize what puppets they are to a handful of people with all of the money, where they are just a layer of scum on the floor in comparison to the political weight these plutocrats have?
That doesn't have to happen in a free democracy like ours.

Season's greetings, and PEACE to everyone.


Howhot
5 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2013
@Captain Stumpy, you should check out the skeptic's website Watt's up.

http://www.source...ith_That

If you follow the money, it leads to the Heartland Institute, and from there the dark Koch money. When billionaires hide their funding to avoid the public's backlash, they have to be aware that their actions effect mankind negatively. What are they hiding?

Seasons Greeting all. Peace.
Sigh
5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
The closest you come to relevance is your link to Hal Lewis' resignation letter,

Which is one of many who challenge the AGW 'consensus' faith.

I noticed, but you miss the point. You presented that letter as evidence, and it contains no data or reference to data. Do you understand the problem?
Predictions made by Mises and Hyak on human actions and economy have been validated.

Irrelevant to the fact that Hayek offered no data, he presented only an opinion.
Hayek's piece about why 'intellectuals' are socialists has been demonstrated to be spot on.
One data point is the author of this 'study'.

Even if your opinion regarding the author's bias qualified as a data point, that would not change the fact that you presented as evidence of bias an opinion piece that contained no data. Unsubstantiated opinion doesn't turn into evidence if it is supported by data collected decades later. The data may be evidence, but not the original opinion piece.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
Do you understand the problem?

I guess you don't. In physics NOTHING is incontrovertible.
Irrelevant to the fact that Hayek offered no data,

Yes, he modeled the behavior of 'intellectuals' working for the state.

This opinion piece IS a data point, another 'intellectual' following the model predicted by Hayek. There are tens of thousands of such data points in academia and govt today.
Sigh
5 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2013
In physics NOTHING is incontrovertible.

I quite agree, but you missed the point again. You acknowledged that the mere disagreement of one scientist doesn't prove others wrong, that there must be data. But what you offer as evidence for your conclusions lacks data. And you can't see the problem. Again.
Irrelevant to the fact that Hayek offered no data

Yes, he modeled the behavior of 'intellectuals' working for the state.

Says the man who argues that predictions of warming based on models are mere opinion. Anyway, there was nothing in there that I recognised as a model.

By the way, were the predictions of Peter Higgs mere opinion? Or does the fact that his predictions were based on an empirically well supported theory make a difference?

This opinion piece IS a data point

The opinion piece was Hayek's. And all the data in your interpretation of the physorg item is that YOU see bias in Brulle's work.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
I quite agree, but you missed the point again. You acknowledged that the mere disagreement of one scientist doesn't prove others wrong,

It is not just one scientist or APS member that does not agree with the APS assertion of incontrovertibly. The very fact that a minority of APS must insert 'incontrovertible' into a statement on one issue suggests quite the opposite and reeks of politics.
Hayek's model:
http://library.mi...lism.pdf
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
ryggesogn2:

Do you understand that you are, or at the very least are considered by the vast majority of people to be, an extremist in your views? Do you understand that you are in no sense 'neutral' or 'disinterested'? Are you aware that you are promoting politics and using paper-thin claims of science as nothing more than a shield?

I would be very interested to know whether you actually believe you are being scientific, or whether you are fully aware that you are a propagandist fanatic.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
Do you understand that you are in no sense 'neutral' or 'disinterested'?

I do. I support liberty and prosperity for individuals.
But there are so many here who believe they are neutral and disinterested, but are very quick to support and defend socialism even though socialism has been demonstrated to fail to improve the liberty and prosperity of individuals, and by extension, society as a whole.
I would be very interested to know whether you actually believe you are being scientific,

I just was. I make observations, postulate a theory, collect data and report results.
Those who claim to be scientific can't, or won't, apply the the same methodology to their support for state tyranny. I can only conclude they are ignorant of what they do, or they are are so arrogant they believe they know what is best to save humanity. I tend to see much of the latter.
Sigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2013
I quite agree, but you missed the point again. You acknowledged that the mere disagreement of one scientist doesn't prove others wrong,

It is not just one scientist or APS member that does not agree with the APS assertion of incontrovertibly.

And yet again you either miss the point or deliberately changed the subject. That when you quoted me you omitted the point about data, suggest deliberation.

My point is that you acknowledged the importance of data, but that what you offer as evidence to support your conclusions lacks data. You avoid discussing that point. Do you fail to understand its importance? Do you fail to understand the point? Or are you deliberately trying to divert the discussion, which would be intellectually dishonest?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2013
Werner Von Braun said what made Apollo fly was money. Something Proto wants to eliminate.

As much as I admire and respect the abilities of Von Braun, what made Apollo fly was ingenuity, innovation, dedication, perseverance and pioneering spirit. Decisions were based on science for the most part—not politics. Give a person like Von Braun a blank check, and he could probably even make your crap fly, Rygg. But we can't give everyone a blank check, can we Rygg? The bean counters' heads would meltdown. Because bean counting sure isn't rocket science, is it Rygg? You say I'd like to eliminate money, but my words are still there for everyone to read and see how full of it you are, Rygg. I would like to eliminate the monetary influence upon how we govern ourselves. Campaign finance reform is nothing new or radical, Rygg. You presumably read Brulle's paper, too, and yet you seem to have no problem with the way money corrupts both politics and science. What ails you, Rygg?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2013
312 posts -Wow! That's a lot.
I see we've all come to agree on one thing. To disagree.
Guess you might call that - consensus...

Merry Christmas, y'all.
goracle
5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
AGW is an observation with the causes


yet to be explained within the Standard Error of Measure.

"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain." - Freeman Dyson

What's not uncertain is that on every climate article you target, you will appeal to authority with an old cherry-picked quote from someone that isn't an authority.
davidivad
4 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2013
proto;

we do govern ourselves. the problem is that money is the ultimate motivator. in america, your life is in your hands. what happens? some people are more successful than others and thus have more power. trust me when i say this is the best way to do things. you do not want unsuccessful people running the government. it would end up looking like the comment section of a phys org article.
goracle
4 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
The http://money.cnn....h-taxes/ of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010. A flat tax would be ideal.

And a semi-conscious chimp could spot the flaw with that: there are a lot of taxes besides federal income tax, which you fail to -- or chose not to -- include.
Whydening Gyre
1.5 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2013
So... has anyone done a study on the funders of PROMOTION of climate change?
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2013
The http://money.cnn....h-taxes/ of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010. A flat tax would be ideal.

And a semi-conscious chimp could spot the flaw with that: there are a lot of taxes besides federal income tax, which you fail to -- or chose not to -- include.


...disregarding for a moment the common-sense fact that a flat-rate tax benefits those with higher incomes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2013
" SPIEGEL: Do you seriously believe that all 2,000 scientists involved in the IPCC are deluded or staying true to the official line?

Vahrenholt: It's not like that. However, I am critical of the role played by the handful of lead authors who take on the final editing of the report. They claim that they are using 18,000 publications evaluated by their peers. But 5,000 of them are so-called gray literature, which are not peer-reviewed sources. These mistakes come out in the end, just like the absurd claim that there will no longer be any glaciers in the Himalayas in 30 years. Such exaggerations don't surprise me. Of the 34 supposedly independent members who write the synthesis report for politicians, almost a third are associated with environmental organizations like Greenpeace or the WWF. Strange, isn't it?"
http://www.spiege...4-2.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2013
the problem is that money is the ultimate motivator.

More importantly money is the only way of measuring value allowing all involved to be motivated to make decisions.
Socialists believe the size of the resource pie is fixed which would necessitate efficient allocation of those resources. The default response is top down, central planning to 'save humanity' suggesting the value of the individual is insignificant compared to the species.
Because wealth can be created, the resource pie is not fixed and when money is used as a measure of value, individuals from the bottom up make millions of value decisions, using this value data, to create what they determine to be in their self-interest.
Central planners, as acknowledged by the Soviets, can't effectively respond to rapidly changing aspects of an emergent system, which is a human economy, and quickly fail.
What does Proto propose to measure to provide negative/positive feedback in an economy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2013
Decisions were based on science for the most part—not politics.

The whole Apollo program was motivated by politics. It was a civilian ballistic missile program along with the propaganda of putting Americans on the moon.
what made Apollo fly was ingenuity, innovation, dedication, perseverance and pioneering spirit.

What made it fly was not central planning but very strong and well disciplined systems engineering process with support from leadership. Take away the engineering leadership and management, ingenuity, innovation, dedication, perseverance and spirit are wasted as it was with Skylab and the Shuttle program.
money corrupts both politics and science.

It also requires someone willing to be corrupted. Money is just the grease.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2013

I do. I support liberty and prosperity for individuals.
But there are so many here who believe they are neutral and disinterested, but are very quick to support and defend socialism even though socialism has been demonstrated to fail to improve the liberty and prosperity of individuals, and by extension, society as a whole.


Mr Ryggy
You are by far and away the most rabid extremist of political opinion on here. You wear it like a badge such that everything for you passes through that prism. In my view it is the extremists of this world ( of both/any extremity) that present a threat to humanity - because by definition an extremist will go extreme lengths to get what they want. There is no room for compromise.
Has it ever occurred to you that there are some "socialist" policies that have merit and can achieve things just as vice versa?
Society requires compromise my friend - and it seems you are incapable. You see only black/white. In reality the world is all greys.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
These mistakes come out in the end, just like the absurd claim that there will no longer be any glaciers in the Himalayas in 30 years. Such exaggerations don't surprise me.


Mistakes don't surprise me Ryggy - not every thing in life is a conspiracy or bias you know. Honest mistakes are made in all walks of life. But the extremist will only see the black or white option and not the infinity of greys.

"So the problem here is not that the IPCC's glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report."

http://www.realcl...nd-spin/

BTW: does this all burn you up inside and fester - leading to the vomiting of it on here?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2013
the importance of data

What kind of data are you looking for? What motivated a long time member of APS to resign or data that challenges the AGW faith? Vahrenholt touches on some of that data above.
Lewis represents data highlighting the flawed process of science that is AGW.
Data includes the challenges faced by McIntyre and McKittrick to obtain raw data from Nature (climateaudit.org), and there are many others.
And the challenges faced by AGWites begain immediately when Al Gore promoted it 1987. Lindzen describes this.
Even Enron's Ken Lay mentioned the controversy in a '92 letter to GHW Bush promoting the US natural gas industry.
The AGWites, instead of staying true to science, chose to become advocates and entered into the political mud pit.
Scientists like Ehrlich wholeheartedly support such action.
Political advocacy, aka value judgements, is what the APS did with 'incontrovertible'. APS is not the only society to advocate.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2013
an extremist will go extreme lengths to get what they want. There is no room for compromise.

LIke Paul Ehrlich or James Hansen?
"socialist" policies that have merit

Like what?
Society requires compromise my friend

Individuals must compromise in a civil society so all can pursue their 'happiness'. Optimum compromises are achieved when free individuals make free choices in a free market with the state limited to protecting life, liberty and property.
I suspect what you mean by 'compromise' is that the individual must succumb to state power to plunder and redistribute his wealth.
extremist will go extreme lengths to get what they want

And if what I want is liberty and prosperity for ALL, what is wrong with being extreme?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2013
Another data point for S:
"Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly "alarmist" about climate change. "
"(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion. "
"Finally, about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don't know it." "
http://www.state-...tremists
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2013
runny:
"Collectivism was immoral and a national threat; the goal, therefore, was victory—not complacency. The strategic importance of resisting bad ideas and totalitarian leaders at every opportunity was a lesson of the Cold War that Thatcher feared might be lost on future generations. In her book—Statecraft—she wrote that if influential people fail to understand "or have just forgotten, what we were up against in the Cold War and how we overcame it, they are not going to be capable of securing, let alone enlarging, the gains that liberty has made."
"The capacity to say "no" at the right time to the wrong ideas is still an indispensable aspect of principled leadership."
"In her words, "I have usually sought to avoid compromise, because it more often than not turns out to involve an abdication of principle.""
http://blog.herit...promise/
What principles will you compromise to avoid being extreme runrig?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2013

Mr Ryggy
You are by far and away the most rabid extremist of political opinion on here. You wear it like a badge such that everything for you passes through that prism.


Your rediculous over the top statement here is extremist. Ryggesogn2 is simply pointing out the basic mechanisms underlying the "the greatest force for economic progress in history". If aliens came to earth to study, disinterestedly and scientifically, how humans have attained their existing standard of living, they would draw the same conclusions,... the power is in allowing human instinctive egoism free reign to seek profit as individuals,... not to work counter to that nature by artificially and subjectivily forcing "equality" and "fairness" for political expediency.
kochevnik
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2013
Your rediculous over the top statement here is extremist. Ryggesogn2 is simply pointing out the basic mechanisms underlying the "the greatest force for economic progress in history". If aliens came to earth to study, disinterestedly and scientifically, how humans have attained their existing standard of living, they would draw the same conclusions,... the power is in allowing human instinctive egoism free reign to seek profit as individuals.
Or they may discover a billion rotting corpses, and learn that greed of ranchers made medical antibiotics useless against plague superbugs
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2013
The top 10% of taxpayers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes in 2010.

And a semi-conscious chimp could spot the flaw with that: there are a lot of taxes besides federal income tax, which you fail to -- or chose not to -- include.


You must have forgot to include your point here.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2013
greed of ranchers made medical antibiotics useless against plague superbugs

I don't know many ranchers who can create anti-biotics.
It couldn't have been scientists who did such a thing? Or govt agencies that promoted their use?
How about the human MDs who promoted anti-biotics for decades and only recently began noticing how Amish children who do farm work around animals have fewer health problems?
Guns, Germs and Steal is a fairly recent publication.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2013
greed of ranchers made medical antibiotics useless against plague superbugs
@Ryggie
How about the human MDs who promoted anti-biotics for decades and only recently began noticing how Amish children who do farm work around animals have fewer health problems?
Guns, Germs and Steal is a fairly recent publication.

Because Amish don't use antibiotics unnecessarily. Thank you for proving my point

Doctors don't promote antibiotics. Big pharmaceutical companies do
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2013
Money is just the grease.

Ah, that would explain why well over half the country is squeaking so badly. But it doesn't quite explain why someone with a lot of it would pay elected representatives to squeak so loudly. Your economic utopia is a charade, Rygg.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2013
@Howhot
thanks for the links.

IMHO - the climate is changing, regardless of what anyone thinks. so...

for the deniers of AGW- no matter WHAT you feel, it is still a good idea to FIX the waste. no matter HOW you see reality around you, by addressing the problems and forcing companies to curb their spewing of greenhouse gasses, we will be helping our planet, the ONLY one with chocolate, alcohol, and internet access...

so... this should NOT be an issue of what you believe, as no matter who believes what, it just makes SENSE not to crap on your dinner plate!

we will ALL have to pay for it, no matter WHAT choice is made...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Whydening Gyre writes:

So... has anyone done a study on the funders of PROMOTION of climate change?


the last paragraph of the article above states :

This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Whydening Gyre writes:
So... has anyone done a study on the funders of PROMOTION of climate change?

the last paragraph of the article above states :
This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.


Thanks for catching that, Cap'n. I guess I was in too much of a hurry to read the flurry of comments I knew would be forthcoming...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Whydening Gyre writes:
Thanks for catching that, Cap'n. I guess I was in too much of a hurry to read the flurry of comments I knew would be forthcoming...


you are welcome.
I couldn't remember either... had to go back and re-read it again...

we all get rushed sometimes.

PEACE
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
@Noumenon


"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain." - Freeman Dyson


"One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
Freeman Dyson

Do you know more than Freeman Dyson?


Why do you think those two statements are incompatible? Many "deniers" feel the same way;... that while not rejecting the basic climate science, nevertheless reject the unfounded alarmism, exaggerated claims of precision, and the political hijacking of the far left.


Selective quotes can be misleading, a point I'm trying to make to Shootist. For example you left out a line from my post so as to distort its meaning for your own ends.
FrankTrades
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Do any articles here ever consider multiple hypotheses for the causes of global warming?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
@Noumenon


"I am saying that all predictions concerning climate are highly uncertain." - Freeman Dyson


"One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
Freeman Dyson

Do you know more than Freeman Dyson?


Why do you think those two statements are incompatible? Many "deniers" feel the same way;... that while not rejecting the basic climate science, nevertheless reject the unfounded alarmism, exaggerated claims of precision, and the political hijacking of the far left.


Selective quotes can be misleading, a point I'm trying to make to Shootist. For example you left out a line from my post so as to distort its meaning for your own ends.


I left out a line so as to focus on what I wanted to respond to. It is misleading to presume to know what ones motivatiions are.
ThomasQuinn
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013

"socialist" policies that have merit

Like what?


Workplace safety regulations (forced through by socialists and social democrats, claimed to be 'unconstitutional' by conservatives), minimum wage, the 60-hour work week, later the 40-hour work week, etc. etc.

The thing is, you are so brainwashed that you don't even know what socialism means, as you prove amply by your ridiculous claims, like "Socialists believe the size of the resource pie is fixed", which is demonstrably untrue simply by looking at the economic policies of 20th century socialist governments, and even more deranged claims like your equation of socialism and fascism (they are, in fact, mortal enemies).

The best one so far, and the one that proves most decisively that you are either mentally ill or incredibly stupid, is your claim that the people behind hedge funds, the most capitalist groups around, are socialists.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Then how can he be so sure that the Polar Bears will be fine?


Because they've been around for a ¼ million years. It is up to science to hypothesize why that fact would change, not why that should continue to be case.
ThomasQuinn
4 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
Then how can he be so sure that the Polar Bears will be fine?


Because they've been around for a �Ľ million years. It is up to science to hypothesize why that fact would change, not why that should continue to be case.


Even you should realize that this is a pathetic non-argument. A claim, whether positive or negative, needs backing up with evidence. If you can't grasp that simple fact, you don't belong on a science forum.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
for the deniers of AGW- no matter WHAT you feel, it is still a good idea to FIX the waste. no matter HOW you see reality around you, by addressing the problems and forcing companies to curb their spewing of greenhouse gasses, we will be helping our planet, the ONLY one with chocolate, alcohol, and internet access...


You're exactly correct, carbon based energy is dirty, and efforts should be made to move to a cleaner and more technological energy source.

so... this should NOT be an issue of what you believe, as no matter who believes what, it just makes SENSE not to crap on your dinner plate!


Actually, it does matter. There are political forces that wish to use AGW as a means to implement their far leftist political agenda,... in particular, to regulate human behavior, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering for a 'planned' economy. This is what the battle is about. AGW has been politicized for this purpose, in the form of alarmism,...
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2013
And if what I want is liberty and prosperity for ALL, what is wrong with being extreme?


You just don't get it do you?

Perhaps it may pay for you to contemplate the meaning of compromise and what the lack of it has lead to on this planet.
I can name any number of conflicts, that a little common sense and coming together would have averted great misery.

You see, what gives you the right to decide that your definition of "liberty and prosperity for ALL" gets priority over mine?

No that wont scan with you either. Look my friend, my opinion is just as good as yours. Yet I don't ram it down your throat (ad nauseum on here).
Those that shout loudest don't get to win the argument - sorry - but unless you want to go live in China, N Korea etc. - democracy holds all men equal and anyone pushing an agenda away from the consensus, is, apart from being selfish (my opinion above others) - but often bloody dangerous as well.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Then how can he be so sure that the Polar Bears will be fine?


Because they've been around for a ¼ million years. It is up to science to hypothesize why that fact would change, not why that should continue to be case.


Even you should realize that this is a pathetic non-argument. A claim, whether positive or negative, needs backing up with evidence. If you can't grasp that simple fact, you don't belong on a science forum.


You suffer from reading comprehension. The original hypothesis is that polar bears are in danger, not that they will continue to survive as they had for ¼ million years. Unless it is a case where one could apply an reductio ad absurdum argument (not), it is the original hypothesis that requires evidence. They evidence that they would continue to exist is that they have existed for ¼ million years,.... what is the evidence that this will cease to be the case imminently, requires justification.
ThomasQuinn
4 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
Actually, it does matter. There are political forces that wish to use AGW as a means to implement their far leftist political agenda,... in particular, to regulate human behavior, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering for a 'planned' economy. This is what the battle is about. AGW has been politicized for this purpose, in the form of alarmism,...


If you think that a bunch of predominantly center-right politicians are trying to push an extreme-left agenda, you are so completely deranged that you require treatment in a mental health clinic. The stupidity of your claims is uncommonly bizarre.
ThomasQuinn
4 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
Then how can he be so sure that the Polar Bears will be fine?


Because they've been around for a �Ľ million years. It is up to science to hypothesize why that fact would change, not why that should continue to be case.


Even you should realize that this is a pathetic non-argument. A claim, whether positive or negative, needs backing up with evidence. If you can't grasp that simple fact, you don't belong on a science forum.


You suffer from reading comprehension. The hypothesis is that polar bears are in danger, not that they will continue to survive as they had for �Ľ million years. Unless it is a case where one could apply an reductio ad absurdum argument, it is the original hypothesis that requires evidence.


Which part of the usual process where anyone making a claim is to back it up with evidence do you fail to comprehend?
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Actually, it does matter. There are political forces that wish to use AGW as a means to implement their far leftist political agenda,... in particular, to regulate human behavior, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering for a 'planned' economy. This is what the battle is about. AGW has been politicized for this purpose, in the form of alarmism,...


If you think that a bunch of predominantly center-right politicians are trying to push an extreme-left agenda, you are so completely deranged that you require treatment in a mental health clinic. The stupidity of your claims is uncommonly bizarre.


And you are a completely clueless half-wit. See, I can use ad-hominem attacks also. I never said "center-right politicians" would do that.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
What principles will you compromise to avoid being extreme runrig?


Well the prime one is consideration for others and just plain common sense.

That is I know my opinion is just that, mine, and not held by all. So I go along with the Democratic principle. I invoke Churchill "Democracy is the worst way of Governing - apart from all the other ways we've tried".
So you take it warts and all.
Common sense comes into it in AGW by considering the probability of the consensus being wrong. I judge it remote, and further, logic also dictates that non-polluting energy in an increasingly overpopulated world is not just desirable but essential.
Also in the common-sense argument comes respect for authority, in that the trained are by the balance of probability vastly more likely to have the answer than someone who has a bias to one side of the argument.
So my principles are consideration, common sense (based on probabilities) and (also by that) acceptance that knowledge will have the answer
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
Your rediculous over the top statement here is extremist. Ryggesogn2 is simply pointing out the basic mechanisms underlying the "the greatest force for economic progress in history". If aliens came to earth to study, disinterestedly and scientifically, how humans have attained their existing standard of living, they would draw the same conclusions,... the power is in allowing human instinctive egoism free reign to seek profit as individuals,... not to work counter to that nature by artificially and subjectivily forcing "equality" and "fairness" for political expediency.


My point is he shouldn't be "simply pointing out the basic mechanisms underlying "the greatest force for economic progress in history"". There is more to progress than economics. There's social harmony for one, + clean environment.
This is a science forum and political arguments can never be won.
"Simply" reflects your/his opinion. Not mine.
Criticise the science not the nature of the society that produces it.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
"socialist" policies that have merit

Like what?


Red-rag to a bull.

Did you not notice the quotes?
Like policies that are arrived at via democratic principles that need a societal response. An organised, directed one (re AGW - IMO).

You see, extremism - you reflexively leap to the other extreme and assume I meant the opposite of your ideology.
No my friend there is a middle, and only sensible ground, available.
SteveS
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013

Selective quotes can be misleading, a point I'm trying to make to Shootist. For example you left out a line from my post so as to distort its meaning for your own ends.



I left out a line so as to focus on what I wanted to respond to. It is misleading to presume to know what ones motivatiions are.


You left out the contradictory statement in order to make the post nonsensical so as to construct a pitiful straw man argument to knock down. If you believe that to be reasonable I will respond in kind.

I agree to your response above where you said: -

"I left out a line so as to....mislead..."
ThomasQuinn
4 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
Actually, it does matter. There are political forces that wish to use AGW as a means to implement their far leftist political agenda,... in particular, to regulate human behavior, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering for a 'planned' economy. This is what the battle is about. AGW has been politicized for this purpose, in the form of alarmism,...


If you think that a bunch of predominantly center-right politicians are trying to push an extreme-left agenda, you are so completely deranged that you require treatment in a mental health clinic. The stupidity of your claims is uncommonly bizarre.


And you are a completely clueless half-wit. See, I can use ad-hominem attacks also. I never said "center-right politicians" would do that.


Right. So the thoroughly marginal leftist political groups accounting for no more than about 5% - 10% in any parliament are running the show. That's a considerably more sane claim to make, I'm sure...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
policies that are arrived at via democratic principles

Even if they violate the Constitutional rights of individuals?
Criticise the science not the nature of the society that produces it.

The nature of the state reflects the quality of the science, since the state pays for most of it. Ever hear of Lysenko?
There is more to progress than economics. There's social harmony for one, + clean environment.

Without a free economy and a free society you can't have 'social harmony' or a clean environment.
AGWites jumped into the political swimming pool decades ago advocating all sorts of govt controls over economies, but they don't want to talk about that socialist tyranny.
That's the price scientists have to pay if they want to use the results of science to impose their values upon others.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
You see, what gives you the right to decide that your definition of "liberty and prosperity for ALL" gets priority over mine?


Because the definition I use is the most objective definition stated in over 200 years.
emocracy holds all men equal and anyone pushing an agenda away from the consensus, is, apart from being selfish


Runny is happy to live with a 50%+1 'consensus' that would enslave him or any other scapgoat of the day? That is what democracy is, mob rule. Whim of the people, guillotines in the street.
Runny prattles about 'common sense' but refuses to define that.
I have offered a definition documented in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Bastiat's The Law. And there are many other sources which is the state is subservient to the individual and individual rights are inherent and unalienable.
But this constrains the state, which runny and so many others here chafe at and call 'extreme'.
Socialist say it's extreme to protect the rights of all.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
runny, since you believe consensus must rule the day, then you must support this consensus.
"A Harris Interactive poll conducted for the American Petroleum Institute shows that 67 percent of registered voters support more offshore drilling for oil and 77 percent support more domestic production, period"
http://www.breitb...rill-Now
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Here is a free market example enabling efficiency:
"Companies called Lyft, Uber and Sidecar offer a phone app that allows people who need a ride somewhere to connect to a driver nearby who'd like to make a few extra bucks. It's like creating an instant taxi business -- which is why it makes existing taxi businesses nervous."
"Ride-share companies, perhaps sensing that it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission, offered rides without first seeking approval from every regulator. Now they have millions of customers.

Politicians often fear regulating things that are widely liked.

Government is as crude and annoying as a speed bump, but individuals looking for better ways to do things keep cruising ahead. Sooner or later, if we restrain the regulators, the market might even produce flying sleighs."
http://www.foxnew...-future/
Modernmystic
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2013
I can't think of better evidence than this thread to present.

If you want immediate action on CO2 emissions then drop your politics. We all know the science, we all know that coal, oil, and gas power plants really need to go. We don't all agree that taxes, regulation, and a facelift on 13th century technology is going to power a modern industrial economy...mainly because THAT'S where the real denial in this argument is. You complain that people deny the science before their eyes, you're right. Now examine your own motivations, beliefs, and your own denial.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2013
Ryg -
You argue for the right to a free and prosperous existence for yourself. Do you want that for your family, friends and neighbors, as well?
If so - YOU are a socialist by definition.
If not - (insert your own description here)

I'm just sayin...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
We all know the science

I don't buy the 'science' on the significance of C02 in the atm.
Even NOAA states that H2O vapor is most significant.
The reason I don't buy the CO2 hype is the data is dependent upon relatively poor quality satellite data and limited GCMs that can't account for H2O and the dozens of unknown climate variables.
The other reason I don't buy CO2 as the villian is that its only significant IR absorption is ~15 microns.
Until CLARREO is on orbit for several years, no one can really have quality data regarding the radiance of the earth.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
You see, what gives you the right to decide that your definition of "liberty and prosperity for ALL" gets priority over mine?
@Ryggie Because the definition I use is the most objective definition stated in over 200 years.
Objectivity is bullshiyte. It was invented by a publisher in the 1930s to sell more newspapers. Using the word completely discredits you. Everything has context
Here is a free market example enabling efficiency
"Taxis have been strictly regulated to ensure that the industry's companies and contractor-drivers pay revenue into the city for the infrastructure they use: roads, signals, bridges, signs, sidewalks, etc. In San Francisco taxis generate over ten million dollars each year in revenue for the city to spend on maintaining transport infrastructure. The funds also pay for the costs of regulating the industry through the Taxi Commission. Regulators attempt to shape the industry in important ways to make it more accessible and equal"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
You argue for the right to a free and prosperous existence for yourself. Do you want that for your family, friends and neighbors, as well?


What does ALL mean to you?

Socialism is state control of private property meaning the state can use force to take your labor, your wealth and redistribute or keep it.
I argue that EVERY individual has the inherent right to life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) and the only function of state to PROTECT these rights.
Let me know what you don't understand.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2013
@Ryggie Socialism is state control of private property meaning the state can use force to take your labor, your wealth and redistribute or keep it
You change your definition of socialism every post because you are a LIEbetarian

" San Francisco's taxi fleet is 85 percent hybrid or CNG fueled, reducing the fleet's carbon emissions and improving the health of city residents. This environmental standard is only possible because the industry is regulated, and ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft undermine this effort. Taxis are also required not to discriminate among passengers, and to serve all parts of the city, among other things that might not be maximally profitable. It's this public transportation infrastructure, a big part of which is comprised of taxis, that is being disrupted by the ridesharing companies who have inserted themselves as for-profit brokers in the transportation commons."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
AGWites don't want to get into politics yet they cheer the publication of this 'study' of the lobbying money opposed to their faith.
The only way to stop such lobbying is to limit the power of the state to protecting property rights for all.
If the Regulatory state has no power to force the coal industry out of business or it can't sell oil drilling leases, to name just two of the thousands of ways the state controls private property, there would be no incentive for anyone to bribe the politicians.
Of course, then AGW advocates and other socialists would have to use persuasion, instead of coercion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
I use von Mises definition of socialism as described in his book, Socialism.
It is, in essence, state control of property.
This environmental standard is only possible because the industry is regulated,

This is state control of property.
big part of which is comprised of taxis, that is being disrupted by the ridesharing companies

Taxis are an example of state regulated monopoly. Who benefits? Not customers who need a ride.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2013
@Ryggie If the Regulatory state has no power to force the coal industry out of business or it can't sell oil drilling leases, to name just two of the thousands of ways the state controls private property, there would be no incentive for anyone to bribe the politicians.
So government should be barred from regulating the toxic dinosaur industries because any limitation on their activity introduces opportunities for bribery. Why not eliminate the dino industries instead? PROBLEM SOLVED!
Taxis are an example of state regulated monopoly. Who benefits? Not customers who need a ride.
What about minorities who need a ride? Handicapped people?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Socialism is state control of private property meaning the state can use force to take your labor, your wealth and redistribute or keep it.

Funny, I just looked up the definition of socialism and that wasn't in there...
I argue that EVERY individual has the inherent right to life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) and the only function of state to PROTECT these rights.


If the state has to impinge upon YOUR rights to protect the rights of someone else - that's ok then, right?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
ryggesogn2 blurted with disdain
But AGWites assert that complex climate models and years and years of work in CLIMATE science are required to be qualified to have any opinion on AGW.
NO you lie, shame.

Scientists such as myself with multiple university qualifications demand a certain amount of (basic &) minimum intelligence to appreciate "Combinatorial Complexity" *&* that appearance & especially at a local level, is abysmally pathetic of anything indicative of a global scale.

Mathematics is the key, such as integration *&* conjunction with understanding of probability & statistics with ever-present appreciation of material properties, especially those of CO2 which no-one so far in the last 6 months ago has actually ever argued against !

So when people see the CO2 levels rising, as documented on this site so often quoted by AGW denialists:- http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Then all the simplistic denialists *must* accept them - yes/no ? - or other rationalisation please?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
FrankTrades asked & seems sincere
Do any articles here ever consider multiple hypotheses for the causes of global warming?
To get published in journals, pre-requisites generally need to be passed.

Trained in climate science are well versed in thermodynamics, so have already examined a large number of other possible causes of global warming especially so in comparison with H2O & CO2.

Fortunately, world atmosphere has a great way to quickly & easily get rid of any excess H2O beyond the drifting equilibrium by rain, snow, hail, condensation - often in seas.

Given the approx & most unsettling estimate world burns some 230,000 Litres of petrol/second, you can see tremendous amount of CO2 & H2O is produced above natural levels.

H2O does come out relatively quickly & logically as more snow in colder regions, the issue with the snow is - what is the temperature ? Likely higher than 30 years ago.

But, CO2 doesnt have quick means to exit the atmosphere, hence issue of global warming !
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
I don't buy the 'science' on the significance of C02 in the atm.


That is certainly your prerogative.

I happen to know that CO2 traps infrared heat, this is an objective fact. Hence I know that more CO2 in the atmosphere will mean a warmer atmosphere, that's a pretty solid conclusion based on facts. I know that CO2 levels are rising, this is an objective fact. I've heard no BETTER explanation than the activities of humankind to account for this.

I also happen to know we aren't going to regulate coal, oil, and gas plants out of existence. I know this because past behavior of humans is an excellent predictor of future behavior. I also know that people who accept the above facts are using them to push a political agenda. This agenda (their actual priority) seems to come before actually "saving the planet" (their stated priority). I also know that this isn't likely to change until we start changing the conversation and speaking plainly about our respective motivations.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
[...]There are political forces that wish to use AGW as a means to implement their far leftist political agenda,... [...] AGW has been politicized for this purpose, in the form of alarmism,...


If you think that a bunch of predominantly center-right politicians are trying to push an extreme-left agenda, you are so completely deranged [...ad hominems]..


And you are a completely clueless half-wit. See, I can use ad-hominem attacks also. I never said "center-right politicians" would do that.


Right. So the thoroughly marginal leftist political groups accounting for no more than about 5% - 10% in any parliament are running the show.....


Perhaps you are not from USA/Canada and so our idea of leftist / center-right is not calibrated. In any case, the failure of the Kyoto treaty was that it desired to implement historical "climate justice", ....only a leftist could have conjured such a notion. The UN is all about redistribution of wealth.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
If the state has to impinge upon YOUR rights to protect the rights of someone else - that's ok then, right?

As I understand him, yes. His solution to environmental problems is:
1) If you own land, it's your property from the centre of the Earth to the edge of space, and
2) You can stop or be compensated for anything that affects your property in any way, and you don't have to prove damage. The way diffusion works, he can contest anything.

When I asked him, he conceded that this would be more restrictive than the heaviest regulation ever devised, but he seemed happy with that. There would be less liberty, but the state wouldn't take the initiative, it would only enforce all the restriction to liberty that derive from property rights. He doesn't say how the level of compensation is determined and who would decide whether you can forbid an activity or whether you will receive compensation.

I think the scheme is full of contradictions, but he doesn't want to resolve them for me
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Socialism is state control of private property meaning the state can use force to take your labor, your wealth and redistribute or keep it.
I argue that EVERY individual has the inherent right to life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) and the only function of state to PROTECT these rights.
Let me know what you don't understand.

If there's something I don't understand, you're pretty far down the list of people I'd ask. Tell us about eminent domain, Mr. Property Rights. And tell us how it feels to wake up in a country that fits your definition of socialism. Granted, eminent domain is less popular than campaign finance reform. But it's there nonetheless.
______________________
"Well, you see, Aborigines don't own the land. They belong to it. It's like their mother. See those rocks? Been standing there for 600 million years. Still be there when you and I are gone. So arguing over who owns them is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on." – Mick Dundee
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2013
"Well, you see, Aborigines don't own the land. They belong to it. It's like their mother. See those rocks? Been standing there for 600 million years. Still be there when you and I are gone. So arguing over who owns them is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on."


How sage. Pray tell how are people who are going to have differing values create a framework on how to both use the same piece of land for different things? How do you "belong" to something that doesn't hold values, has no concept of value, or a concept of what a concept is? Why do you think neolithic people lived in a virtual state of constant warfare? Concepts and devices like culture, values, and yes PROPERTY dramatically reduced human violence.

I believe we'll shortly be in an economic system which doesn't really require those concepts (with nanotechnology and mature automation), but we most certainly are not there yet. For the moment we have violence or property...take your pick.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013

Selective quotes can be misleading, a point I'm trying to make to Shootist. For example you left out a line from my post so as to distort its meaning for your own ends.



I left out a line so as to focus on what I wanted to respond to. It is misleading to presume to know what ones motivatiions are.


You left out the contradictory statement in order to make the post nonsensical so as to construct a pitiful straw man argument to knock down. [....]


I was not following you and shootist line of discussion. I responded to what I quoted. If you agree that the two Dyson quotes are not necessarily incompatible, then there is no argument and I had misread your intentions, to which I apologize.

However, making presumptions wrt ulterior motives on my part is worse then clipping irrelevant quotes, and can be construed as being misleading itself.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2013
the importance of data

What kind of data are you looking for?

I was thinking of measurements of relevant physical variables. You know, temperatures, concentrations of gases, energy in and energy out, that sort of thing. The kind of data you would analyse in a scientific paper on climate. Not one guy's opinions about what motivates others.

Lewis represents data highlighting the flawed process of science that is AGW.
Data includes the challenges faced by McIntyre and McKittrick to obtain raw data from Nature (climateaudit.org)

That could be data in a paper on the sociology of science. It's not data on the climate.

If I disagree with other researchers, I can't prove them wrong by saying "I suspect these people of being motivated by something I disagree with". I have to offer a critique of their data collection, analysis, or reasoning, or I have to provide a new data set and demonstrate why this should change conclusions. Can you see the difference?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
I happen to know that CO2 traps infrared heat,

How?
Tell us about eminent domain,

What about it? It requires that the state must compensate private property owners for any property they take for public use. If properly applied, then the state must compensate land owners for limits the Regulatory State imposes to protect some endangered species or ....

I just looked up the definition of socialism and that wasn't in there...

I provided my sources: Socialism, von Mises; The Law, Bastiat; The Road to Serfdom, Hayek.

I find the narrow definition of socialism is used by other socialist factions so they can justify the plunder of wealth. 'Progressives'/'liberals' call such socialist economies 'mixed' as a cover to justify their control of private property.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
I was thinking of measurements of relevant physical variables. You know, temperatures, concentrations of gases, energy in and energy out, that sort of thing. The kind of data you would analyse in a scientific paper.

That is available as well.
Of course the AGWites like to use the 'peer' review process and stifle any heresy.
One journal editor was fired for daring to publish a paper critical of the faith.
Quite a scam!
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2013
How?


The same way your car window is. It's transparent to solar radiation emitted by the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the interior of your car. That's why your car is a hell of a lot hotter than the ambient environment on a sunny day. It's the exact same science. CO2 is transparent to solar radiation but not to infrared radiation that's absorbed by the Earth and radiated. We can't roll the windows down though.

Now how hot it's getting, or how bad that would be are highly debatable. The basic science really isn't though. It's like arguing about the existence of electrons when using a light switch....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
NO you lie, shame.

Mikey, Wegman, a professional statistician, was very critical of Mann's hokey stick data analysis, but Wegman was summarily dismissed and attacked by AGWites because he wasn't a 'climate scientist'.
Same critiques are applied to McIntyre at climateaudit.org.
Other critiques, like Lindzen, a climate scientist, is summarily dismissed with the assertion he is funded by oil companies. Then there is Judith Curry at GATech and Christy and Spencer at UAH.
What about minorities who need a ride?

Amusing. A Russian worried about taxis. Because of Russian police corruption, a market for auto cameras have provided all sorts of great entertainment on u-tube.
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
I use von Mises definition of socialism as described in his book, Socialism.
It is, in essence, state control of property.


1) You are going by the definition created by a man who was a diametrical opponent to socialism and who was writing a book meant to discredit said political ideology, i.e. a polemical work, not an encyclopaedic or analytical work.
2) Even Von Mises understood socialism better than you do, because (unless you are going by a really lousy translation) he does not say "state control of property" is a / the fundamental aspect of socialism, but "state control of THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION". That is an extreme difference. Equating those two concepts is like saying that the existence of a professional army and the private ownership of guns are mutually exclusive.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
@runrig, I tend to see numbers, maths and science in everything, including politics. Can't help it. It might be genetic and/or the result of any of several traumatic brain injuries. I'll get better with time—thanks in advance for patience and understanding if some of my posts may seem off-topic for a science forum. Mostly, thank you (and thanks to many others) for taking the time to share your insight and expertise.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
CO2 is transparent to solar radiation but not to infrared radiation that's absorbed by the Earth and radiated. We can't roll the windows down though.

There are many windows to radiate energy into space.
CO2 has many absorption and transmission bands in the IR. One is at 4.3 microns, but not much energy is radiated at 4.3 microns for a blackbody at 300K.
Another is around 15 microns.
A BB at 193K (-80degC) peaks at 15 microns.
Looking at the atm transmission on the IR wall chart (http://www.raythe...art.pdf) There are all sorts of IR windows to radiate energy to space in the earth's nominal temperature range. The only significant absorption ~9-10 microns is with water vapor and ozone.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
he does not say "state control of property" is a / the fundamental aspect of socialism, but "state control of THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION". That is an extreme difference.

You didn't read the book.
"It is the aim of Socialism to transfer the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to the State"
"If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State."
http://mises.org/...ch2.aspx
Modernmystic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
CO2 is transparent to solar radiation but not to infrared radiation that's absorbed by the Earth and radiated. We can't roll the windows down though.

There are many windows to radiate energy into space.
CO2 has many absorption and transmission bands in the IR. One is at 4.3 microns, but not much energy is radiated at 4.3 microns for a blackbody at 300K.
Another is around 15 microns.
A BB at 193K (-80degC) peaks at 15 microns.
Looking at the atm transmission on the IR wall chart (http://www.raythe...art.pdf) There are all sorts of IR windows to radiate energy to space in the earth's nominal temperature range. The only significant absorption ~9-10 microns is with water vapor and ozone.


So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that CO2 does indeed trap IR heat...

Which is what I said...wasn't it?

Why do you think Venus is as hot as it is Ryg?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Runny is happy to live with a 50%+1 'consensus' that would enslave him or any other scapgoat of the day? That is what democracy is, mob rule. Whim of the people, guillotines in the street.
Runny prattles about 'common sense' but refuses to define that.
….snip….
But this constrains the state, which runny and so many others here chafe at and call 'extreme'.
Socialist say it's extreme to protect the rights of all.


Like I/Churchill said, Democracy is the best of the worst.
What do you propose - a Fascist uprising?
Common sense – for me, as I said, is by the balance of probabilities.

I have a problem with your libertarian/Republicanism my friend – just as you seem to do with Democracy. Lets agree to differ eh?

My field of knowledge is Met/Climate. I come on here to deny ignorance of that. When that ignorance springs from political ideology then that's beyond my ken – literally, I can't comprehend that way of thinking.
You are extreme, as you behave as one, by posts on here.
Sigh
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
I was thinking of measurements of relevant physical variables. You know, temperatures, concentrations of gases, energy in and energy out, that sort of thing.

That is available as well.

But it's not what you offered me as evidence. I want to know whether you can tell the difference between data relevant to the climate and someone's opinions about other people's motivations.

One example I know of a legitimate critique of data collection is the claim that US surface temperature records were contaminated by heat island effects. A scientist who believed there was contamination ran the follow-up study, the study was funded by sceptics, and the conclusion was that the data had not been contaminated.

Another example was the claim about how quickly Himalayan glaciers melted. The critique of that conclusion was valid. Jumping from there to believing this was evidence of the whole process being flawed was not valid. Do you see the difference?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2013
There are many windows to radiate energy into space.
CO2 has many absorption and transmission bands in the IR. One is at 4.3 microns, but not much energy is radiated at 4.3 microns for a blackbody at 300K.
Another is around 15 microns.
A BB at 193K (-80degC) peaks at 15 microns.
Looking at the atm transmission on the IR wall chart (http://www.raythe...art.pdf) There are all sorts of IR windows to radiate energy to space in the earth's nominal temperature range. The only significant absorption ~9-10 microns is with water vapor and ozone.


Yes, of course, the scientists must have missed that Ryggy – post them that chart and I'm sure they'll supplicate themselves before your omniscience.

I could post a list of links to papers as long as my arm showing that CO2 causes a back-radiating effect in the Earth's atmosphere (to the degree we're experiencing) – but what's the point you've made your mind up.
And I think neutrals have the message.
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
he does not say "state control of property" is a / the fundamental aspect of socialism, but "state control of THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION". That is an extreme difference.

You didn't read the book.
"It is the aim of Socialism to transfer the means of production from private ownership to the ownership of organized society, to the State"
"If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State."
http://mises.org/...ch2.aspx


You have just proven me right, as the quotes you provide (which you've taken out of context, too!) talk explicitly of the MEANS OF PRODUCTION, literally what I wrote, and not private property in general. You've proven yourself wrong.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
What do you propose - a Fascist uprising?

Fascism is the present system is the US and in many other parts of the world.
CO2 does indeed trap IR heat...

CO2 absorbs photons at specific wavelengths but they must re-radiate that energy at other wavelengths.
There are only 2 or 3 significant sources of heat on the earth: sun, geo-thermal, nuclear (which may be a subset of geo-thermal).
As the temperature of a bb increased, the peak of the curve shifts to shorter wavelengths. There is a limit to the number of photos absorbed by CO2 at 15 microns. As the curves shifts to the left, more heat radiates into space.
The only way the temperature can increase is if the heat from the sources increase.
If CO2 is such a great store of heat, then we should artificially increase the CO2 in buildings in winter to burn less fuel.
But CO2 in closed buildings is likely >500ppm from the workers respiration.
ThomasQuinn
4.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013


Like I/Churchill said, Democracy is the best of the worst.
What do you propose - a Fascist uprising?
Common sense – for me, as I said, is by the balance of probabilities.

I have a problem with your libertarian/Republicanism my friend – just as you seem to do with Democracy. Lets agree to differ eh?

My field of knowledge is Met/Climate. I come on here to deny ignorance of that. When that ignorance springs from political ideology then that's beyond my ken – literally, I can't comprehend that way of thinking.
You are extreme, as you behave as one, by posts on her


Not a great fan of universal suffrage myself, for the simple reason that the vast majority of the electorate is unwilling to bother to inform themselves sufficiently to make a reasoned choice, but I still infinitely prefer that system over ryg's hysterical red scare terror-state.

Still, it's sad that so many will rather believe in an outrageous conspiracy than accept that some basics of life and society are changing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
e MEANS OF PRODUCTION

What are 'means of production' but your property and the property of those investors who create businesses?
'means of production' also include your labor, your intellect and your wealth.
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
What do you propose - a Fascist uprising?

Fascism is the present system is the US and in many other parts of the world.


That's funny. Just a little while ago you said it was ruled by socialists. Which one's it going to be? Fascism and socialism are entirely opposed, so you really are going to have to choose.

I'll give you a little pointer that might surprise you: a hysterical antagonism to socialism, economic conservatism and a deeply held distrust of scientists and intellectuals are traits shared by pretty much all fascist movements.
ThomasQuinn
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
e MEANS OF PRODUCTION

What are 'means of production' but your property and the property of those investors who create businesses?
'means of production' also include your labor, your intellect and your wealth.


As usual, it's not as you make it out to be.

Mark Evans: "In economics and sociology, the means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production; that is, the "means of production" includes capital assets used to produce wealth, such as machinery, tools and factories, including both infrastructural capital and natural capital. This includes the "factors of production" described in classical economics ***minus financial capital and minus human capital***. They include two broad categories of objects: instruments of labour (tools, factories, infrastructure, etc.) and subjects of labor (natural resources and raw materials)"

Did you see that? MINUS FINANCIAL CAPITAL AND MINUS HUMAN CAPITAL. Do you understand what that means?
Modernmystic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
CO2 absorbs photons at specific wavelengths but they must re-radiate that energy at other wavelengths.


They can also impart absorbed energy kinetically, ie heat. There is no saturation limit there, we know of no upper limit on temperature, and even if we did we know it's at least in the billions of degrees. Academic for this discussion's purposes....
savroD
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Protoplasmix
4.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Money is just the grease.

Indeed, and the viscosity of grease is greater than that of molasses in the winter time. Got any brilliant Republican trickle-down theories, Rygg? Silly me, the article mentions trickling on the elected representatives. But that's more of a lateral trickle than a trickle-down, isn't it Rygg? Money overall trickles up, as evidenced by the still-increasing, overwhelming majority of it in the hands of a very small minority, and bail-out after bail-out of their unsustainable mess. The bail-outs are taxpayer money trickling up. Do you really understand the gravity of the situation, Rygg? I'm in shock (and awe) of all that created wealth. I think the term 'dark money' is a charitable description—'bribe' is more accurate. And you think money makes the world go 'round, don't you Rygg?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
I just looked up the definition of socialism and that wasn't in there...

I provided my sources: Socialism, von Mises; The Law, Bastiat; The Road to Serfdom, Hayek.


Inasmuch as those sources are not defined as "dictionary" (specifically accepted sources of word definitions used by, well, everybody..), I (and others, probably) choose not to view your definition sources as valid. I choose, rather, to view them as opinion pieces written by authors with an agenda.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
I just looked up the definition of socialism and that wasn't in there...

I provided my sources: Socialism, von Mises; The Law, Bastiat; The Road to Serfdom, Hayek.


Inasmuch as those sources are not defined as "dictionary" (specifically accepted sources of word definitions used by, well, everybody..), I (and others, probably) choose not to view your definition sources as valid. I choose, rather, to view them as opinion pieces written by authors with an agenda.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
And with that - this thread has become boring. I think it's time to sit back and wait for Mr. Brulles sequel -

Part Two - The Empire Strikes Back

PS - apologies for the previous double entry...
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Economics and politics are all about freedom and freedom is all about choice. Choice fortunately (or some would say unfortunately) comes with consequences. Socialism in essence is an attempt to insulate individuals from the consequences of their choices to varying degrees. It does this in two ways, wealth redistribution, and regulation of economic activity.

Capitalism as it is widely understood an attempt to insulate corporations from the consequences of their choices to varying degrees. It does this by limiting regulation of economic activity and shifting the tax burden of the governmental framework and infrastructure on the middle class.

I don't define capitalism that way, but I'm outvoted. I think both systems are flawed but I'd rather have disgusting displays of largesse and people constantly at the heels of corporate activity than bread lines and stifling governmental oversight.

I'm looking forward to the day when individuals own their own means of production :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Noumenon writes:
Actually, it does matter. There are political forces that wish to use AGW as a means to implement their far leftist political agenda,... blah, blah...AGW has been politicized for this purpose, in the form of alarmism,


this makes me think this:
you cannot agree with AGW because it has been used by a political party that you disagree with.

Is this correct?

so... is it that you DONT have issue with the science? Therefore you agree with the SCIENCE, but you disagree on the principles based upon your political beliefs?

I would like to know more before I answer more, please. TIA
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
For those who assert CO2 is significantly warming the planet, I propose and experiment. (Please let me know if this has been done.)
If CO2 is well mixed the CO2 over Antarctica should be the same as over Maui. In order to isolate CO2 from H2O, a dry atmosphere is needed and there is likely no drier atmosphere than that over Antarctica.
If the increasing CO2 over the globe causes more heat to be trapped, then the historical temperatures over dry Antarctica should correlate nicely with that increase. It should also correlate well over other deserts.
If this data exists, I would expect the AGWites and IPCC would have this in the first page of every IPCC report.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
I choose, rather, to view them as opinion pieces written by authors with an agenda.

You can chose to do so as that is your agenda.
The agenda of socialists for decades has been to hide behind words.
The first significant hijacking of language occured when socialists chose to call themselves 'progressives' resulting in the 'progressive' income tax, the creation of the Federal Reserve and the resulting Great Depression.
FDR couldn't call himself a 'progressive' running against the 'progressive' Hoover so they chose to redefine the therm 'liberal'.
Socialist 'liberal' FDR imposed social security among many other socialist/fascist programs and 'liberals' of all parties have continued to impose socialist policies with the whopper being Omabacare.
Socialism is as socialism does, state control of the economy, of private property and the lives and health of individuals.
Those like WG who want to used a limited definition likely do so because they support some aspect of govt control.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Stump, if AGW science were so sound there would have been no need for scientists to jump into the pigpen of politics, no need for an IPCC and there would be no need to coerce scientists to promote the AGW agenda.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Why do you think Venus is as hot as it is Ryg?

It receives twice as much energy from the sun as the earth.

Fascism and socialism are entirely opposed,

They are the same. Mussolini, the creator of Fascism, said so. It is socialism applied at the national level which is why it was so easy for Europeans to switch over to Fascism as they were already socialists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
bail-out after bail-out of their unsustainable mess. The bail-outs are taxpayer money trickling up

"Washington Examiner reporter Byron York told Fox News on Thursday that a bailout of health insurance companies "absolutely will happen" under Obamacare, claiming a government lifeline is actually "built into the law."
"There's something called "risk corridors," which basically ensure that if an insurance company ends up paying a lot more in benefits than it takes in in premiums, then the federal government will bail it out — it will make it good.

Read more: http://dailycalle...ocz9pJ67

Bailouts are a symptom of the failure of fascism/socialism.
The Regulatory State controls the financial industry, the medical industry, the auto industry, and one way to bribe companies to comply with the Regulatory/socialist State is to socialize the risk.
orti
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Heehee. A seven day posting so far. I guess we all know phys.org's agenda -- and the desperation of their cause.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Fascism and socialism are entirely opposed,
@Ryggie They are the same. Mussolini, the creator of Fascism, said so. It is socialism applied at the national level which is why it was so easy for Europeans to switch over to Fascism as they were already socialists.
More misquotes from the resident LIEbetarian.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
this makes me think this:
you cannot agree with AGW because it has been used by a political party that you disagree with.

Is this correct?


No.

so... is it that you DONT have issue with the science?


I try to be careful in using the terminology 'AGW - alarmism' or 'cataclysmic AGW', since I have no reason for doubting that dumping tons of co2 into the atmosphere would have an effect.

Therefore you agree with the SCIENCE, but you disagree on the principles based upon your political beliefs?


What principles are you referring to here? It's not a matter of my particular political beliefs. WRT AGW, I tend to post not on what I think 'should be' the case, but rather what is in fact the case..

The reality is that global economies require oil to sustain themselves at present which is why oil use is increasing not slowing down, despite the hype, and the reality is that individuals are not going to decrease their life styles on account of an unverified hypothesis.
Zephir_fan
Dec 26, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
,... The Evil Big Oil corporations are not forcing the masses to use their product, nor are the masses using their product because of a "denialism campaign" orchestrated by The Evil Big Oil corporations.

Big Oil is simply responding to demand. The masses are simply looking out for their individual best interests. And it is not only "denialists" who continue to drive gas cars and refuse to reduce their life styles on account of the threat of climate change. The "denialists" are behaving no different than the AGW'ists wrt energy use, for the most part,... i.e. not going to extra expense of buying electric vehicles, reducing consumption of energy , etc.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.


"Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" cites overwhelming evidence of the fascists' consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left's embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s. "
"What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat. "
"The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends."
http://townhall.c...age/full

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini.

" Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome]. "
"After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. "
http://www.fordha...cism.asp
Socialism is as socialism does, state coercion.
Why are socialists so upset that fascism is just another variant of socialism? Corporatism is also a subset of socialism.
Whether the state is composed of a mob, a dictator, a committee, if that state controls property and the economy, it is effectively the same: anti-individual, anti-free market.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
"Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society's economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the "national interest"—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. "
"Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically."
"Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance {Federal Reserve}, and agriculture. "
"fascists' anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people's allegiance. "
http://www.econli...ism.html
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
The Regulatory State controls the financial industry, the medical industry, the auto industry, and one way to bribe companies to comply with the Regulatory/socialist State is to socialize the risk.

I think my friend @R2 brings up an interesting point of view. The reaction of regulatory controls is to moderate the behavior of industry so that they provide BENEFIT to society. Views as to what benefits society differ.

There are many aspects to a centralized government (socialism) that do provide benefit to society and help in the development of prosperous growth (the GDP). Income inequality is lowered, class separation is lowered, and prosperity for the society is increased. Capitalism which is a form of ECONOMY, breads greed, which unfortunately can disrupt all of these goals of a good society with corruption, bribery and crime. Regulation and law really are the only methods of controlling mankind's aspirations to dominate his/her environment. CO2 needs regulation.
RobPaulG
2 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
I am much more concerned about people COMMITTING THE FRAUD, than those trying to expose it. Governments, the UN, Al Gore, Hansen and Mann are CRIMINALS for what they are attempting to perpetrate.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Al Gore, Hansen and Mann are CRIMINALS ...
What BS! All the people that say these 3 are lying about mankind's desperate situation with Anthropogenic Global Warming are total kooks. Truth doesn't lie.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
The reaction of regulatory controls is to moderate the behavior of industry so that they provide BENEFIT to society.

If you beieve this I have NYC bridge for sale.
The 'progressives' began the regulatory state in collusion with the top 5 meat packers to increase the cost of doing business for their competitors. And the tradition continues today.

Capitalism which is a form of ECONOMY, breads greed,

Greed existed before capitalism. Capitalism channels the self-interest of individuals for mutual benefit. The baker doesn't bake bread because of altruism. He does so because people will pay him to do so. They pay him to bake bread because he can do so more efficiently than his butcher customer so the butcher has the time to be an productive butcher for his customers who...
Free market capitalism enables free people to specialize in products and services others will buy. That's not greed it's win-win for everyone.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
ryggesogn2 writes:

Stump, if AGW science were so sound there would have been no need for scientists to jump into the pigpen of politics, no need for an IPCC and there would be no need to coerce scientists to promote the AGW agenda.


Whereas I am firmly of the belief that politicians are all corrupt, and I agree that scientists should not have to be in the pig-pen of politics...
there is also the fact that without public interest, public money, political backing and the dissemination of knowledge, there would be nothing but big oil/ big money interests represented.
some scientists may be in bed with politics to get people moving towards a future that will include our race?

Double edged sword. I have absolutely no idea's for a solution for that problem. Sorry.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Regulation and law really are the only methods of controlling mankind's aspirations to dominate his/her environment. CO2 needs regulation.


Physics, nature's law does a fine job of limiting man's ability to dominate his environment.
If AGWites believe in CO2 regulation, why won't they set an example by holding their breath?
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
So here is an article about the multi-billionaire Koch's who are trying to corrupt the democratic system of the USA with large amounts of secret hidden money pushing political points of view that benefit their interests. R2 and paul says; "that's good"

It's a pretty selfish attitude to ignore the environment, make your wealth from it by destroying it, and screw the people along the way with low wages and low quality of life.
@savroD summed @R2's government in one video "Somalia" ;
https://www.youtu...-Efi1Xys

To be a free nation like the USA, there needs to be a level of reason, and compromise based on compassion.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2013
I have absolutely no idea's for a solution for that problem.

I do, but Stumpy can't figure it out because he can't give up his faith in a govt that must control people.
Big oil and big money could not buy any influence from a govt that had no influence to sell.
A govt with only the power to protect everyone's property doesn't have the power to plunder.
As Bastiat noted over 150 years ago, the few can plunder the many, the many can plunder the few, or no one can plunder anyone.
Stump and other socialists don't want to give up on the power to plunder. If they did, they couldn't use the state power to make the world 'better' as they define better.
There are really only two choices, liberty or tyranny. There are many flavors of tyranny: soft, hard, socialism, communism, fascism, corporatism, ....
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
Hottie, have you heard of this?

http://ki.mit.edu/

Hottie has no problem with Soros or other socialist billionaires spending millions to 'corrupt' the democratic system?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Noumenon writes:
The reality is that global economies require oil to sustain themselves at present which is why oil use is increasing not slowing down, despite the hype, and the reality is that individuals are not going to decrease their life styles on account of an unverified hypothesis.


@Noumenon
thanks for the answers.
About the above quote. You are absolutely 100% correct about oil use and people changing.

but I have to disagree with you on the unverified hypothesis.
please elaborate what part of the science you disagree with. What part of the hypothesis in particular. This may help me comprehend more. TIA

we can plainly see that CO2 emissions will increase the temp by the experiment that I proposed. And as for having a "global" experiment... we are in one and we cannot afford to fail, or to create conditions that we cannot survive. No matter what, CO2 is a greenhouse gas; we know it. I cant see you challenging that... or are you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
This should make a 'liberal's' head explode:
"But the welfare state may also give big employers an advantage over small employers. Big employers achieve a scale large enough to host a number of employee benefit programs from education assistance and retirement plans to advice and assistance with welfare programs that small employers cannot afford. "
http://economix.b...r=1&
The welfare state benefits big corporations. But 'liberals' say they are opposed to big corporations and but support a welfare state....
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2013
Hottie, have you heard of this?

http://ki.mit.edu/

Hottie has no problem with Soros or other socialist billionaires spending millions to 'corrupt' the democratic system?

Actually @R2, I have no problem with the Soros's or other "socialist" billionaires because they at least support causes that benefit mankind as apposed to an oil-man's pocket. It appears to me that the conservatives tend to put people in the welfare state with their anti-job bills they so love.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2013
@Noumenon
I tend to post not on what I think 'should be' the case, but rather what is in fact the case..


I am trying to understand what it is about the science that you disagree with. Elaborate on the science that you disagree with, and lets move on from there.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
@Ryggesogn2

normally, i ignore emasculated little punks, but i will make an exception in your case.
First of all, I do NOT like gov't. Hate it. I have seen what it is first hand as a soldier. I am not the naive child with his head stuck in a fantasy world...
And I am not a socialist. I am not an "anything" political. Hate that too. There is so use for it where I live, so it is irrelevant to me and my lifestyle.
attack me all you want, but... Dont assume you know anything about me, because you dont.

I am here to try to understand. And to LEARN.
If you are resorting to attacking me because I am asking questions, perhaps that means that you are talking out your buttocks? Perhaps it means you are paranoid? Perhaps it means you are just another Troll? or an attention whore? Feel threatened? Ignorant?

at least, when i DONT know something, i can admit it.
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2013
@R2 say
The welfare state benefits big corporations. ...
R2 you are so full of shit. Big corporations want big money for their products. It does not benefit anyone to have a "welfare state". Liberals are not for it, nor are you guys.

Your accusations that liberalism wants a welfare state are false and as phony as most Republicans. You know if a majority of right wingers in the house can only pass 58 bills, it sound to me like the majority party of the house is corrupt and have been influenced by dark-money to be the POS's they are.

The question @R2 does you head explode when everyone disagrees with you? And they are right!
kochevnik
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
@R2 say
The welfare state benefits big corporations. ...
R2 you are so full of shit. Big corporations want big money for their products. It does not benefit anyone to have a "welfare state". Liberals are not for it, nor are you guys.
Ryggie supports the corporate welfare state. He wants all government accountants fired, so the corporations can externalize all costs of their operations with impunity onto the environment and the citizens. Ryggie calls that "freedom" and thinks "King of the hill" is the ultimate expression of liberty. He thinks Somalia is paradise
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
"Back in the 1920s, however, when fascism was a new political development, it was widely -- and correctly -- regarded as being on the political left. Jonah Goldberg's great book


And more BS by ryg. First, Jonah Goldberg is a right-wing fanatic, so trying to show that fascism wasn't part of his ideological buddy-group is number one on his agenda. Second, the simple fact that fascists fought against socialists (nearly all resistance to the nazi's during the first two years of the war, for instance, came from the left) and received most support from large industrialists and classical conservatives proves that they weren't part of the left. Thirdly, Goldberg and other revisionist liars like him make it out that authoritarian and left wing are the same. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of modern history knows this is far from true. Finally, most fascists joined the Christian Democratic movements after WWII: right wing movements. Neo-nazi groups support conservatives nowadays.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
but I have to disagree with you on the unverified hypothesis.
please elaborate what part of the science you disagree with. What part of the hypothesis in particular. This may help me comprehend more. TIA


Unverified hypothesis wrt "AGW alarmism" as I'm careful to word it, or sometimes I say "cataclysmic AGW" to differentiate the political hype from the basic science ... so claims of imminent doom that supposedly require immediate government / UN control, is scientifically baseless, and so is propaganda driven from the political side,... to which it is that I comment on.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2013
434 posts as I type in this thread.

And 113 from a certain ryygesogn2.

runrig
5 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
CO2 absorbs photons at specific wavelengths but they must re-radiate that energy at other wavelengths.
There are only 2 or 3 significant sources of heat on the earth: sun, geo-thermal, nuclear (which may be a subset of geo-thermal).
As the temperature of a bb increased, the peak of the curve shifts to shorter wavelengths. There is a limit to the number of photos absorbed by CO2 at 15 microns. As the curves shifts to the left, more heat radiates into space.
The only way the temperature can increase is if the heat from the sources increase.
If CO2 is such a great store of heat, then we should artificially increase the CO2 in buildings in winter to burn less fuel.
But CO2 in closed buildings is likely >500ppm from the workers respiration.


Like I said, right a paper - confound the world's scientists who know that ~150 years of experiment/theory/verification/observation is incontrovertible. A Nobel awaits my friend.
Until then that's just denialist hand-waving, and science free.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
.... as for having a "global" experiment... we are in one and we cannot afford to fail, or to create conditions that we cannot survive. No matter what, CO2 is a greenhouse gas; we know it. I cant see you challenging that... or are you?


No, the existing climate is categorically not an experiment.

Science must be based on future predictions, not just dial-turning and button-pressing to fit a model to past data, and so far climate science does not have a great track record, certainly not one that could justify the claim of imminent doom,... which is why in reality the 'collective genius of mankind', including those who believe the core science, continues to burn oil, for example, at increasing rates despite the alarmist propaganda existing for decades.

You can't just naively and artificially change the energy source that is the life blood of economies. It has to occur gradually with respect to natural market forces. There has to be a market for the alternative.
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (2) Dec 27, 2013
You can't just naively and artificially change the energy source that is the life blood of economies. It has to occur gradually with respect to natural market forces. There has to be a market for the alternative.


Translation: all aspects of climate change aside, you can't touch oil interests because rapidly changing the way we generate energy would lose them a lot of money.

So it *is* about oil money for you after all.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
,... there has to be some motive forces involved where there is natural demand for the alternative. If those forces are government mandated and thus artificial, like giving a man a bad transfusion, it will negatively effect economies,... and the only way to evolve off of dirty co2 based energy is if economies are strong.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2013
For those who assert CO2 is significantly warming the planet, I propose and experiment. (Please let me know if this has been done.)
If CO2 is well mixed the CO2 over Antarctica should be the same as over Maui. In order to isolate CO2 from H2O, a dry atmosphere is needed and there is likely no drier atmosphere than that over Antarctica.
If the increasing CO2 over the globe causes more heat to be trapped, then the historical temperatures over dry Antarctica should correlate nicely with that increase. It should also correlate well over other deserts.
If this data exists, I would expect the AGWites and IPCC would have this in the first page of every IPCC report.


You see - science free. That's not how the atmosphere works ryggy. It does not work as a set of individual members that all respond the same. The Earth's Climate system (Ocean >90% and air,10%) works by chaotic dispersion of heat fed it by the Sun before it's emitted to space.

cont
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
You can't just naively and artificially change the energy source that is the life blood of economies. It has to occur gradually with respect to natural market forces. There has to be a market for the alternative.


Translation: all aspects of climate change aside, you can't touch oil interests because rapidly changing the way we generate energy would lose them a lot of money.


It would collapse economies, if not in accord with natural market forces.

So it *is* about oil money for you after all.


No offense, but you're entirely ignorant of basic economics.

There is nothing intrinsically special about oil money. The Evil Big Oil Tycoons would just as much enjoy making their money off of monkey shit if that was a viable energy source in demand.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2013
cont

It's irrelevant what Antarctica is doing with it's Co2 content as it is just one part of a system that is storing the excess heat AS A SYSTEM that cant get away due back-radiating GHG's. This is a basic myth denier's fall back on, whether they actually believe it or not. Weather does NOT create climate… and therefore more weather. Why? Because it's not a closed system. Stuff comes in and the same amount of stuff should leave. But it's not quite. That "not quite" bit is left behind. It's like the fridge in the corner of your kitchen – it's cold but your oven isn't. But they're both in the kitchen.

Stick to politics - at least then your opinion is as good as any one elses.

Science isn't your strong point. And not arguable by you (evidentially).
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013

It would collapse economies, if not in accord with natural market forces.

So it *is* about oil money for you after all.


No offense, but you're entirely ignorant of basic economics.

There is nothing intrinsically special about oil money. The Evil Big Oil Tycoons would just as much enjoy making their money off of monkey shit if that was a viable energy source in demand.


You are BS-ing again. Your obsession with 'the market' is flooding out all common sense - those oil corps could easily use their revenue to get into other ways of producing energy, not "collapsing the economy" at all. If you REALLY believed in free markets, you would consider the collapse of polluting energy in favor of clean energy a natural market mechanism. You say I am ignorant of economics, but the ugly truth is that you are ignorant of all economic theories other than neo-conservative classical economy, which is what got us into the current crisis in the first place.
ThomasQuinn
5 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2013
,... there has to be some motive forces involved where there is natural demand for the alternative. If those forces are government mandated and thus artificial, like giving a man a bad transfusion, it will negatively effect economies,... and the only way to evolve off of dirty co2 based energy is if economies are strong.


This is utter crap. By your logic, the abolition of slavery was evil because it wasn't abolished by the slave owners themselves, but forced by the government (and a democratic majority of the people). You hate democracy, and you put plutocratic interest above the right of the people to govern and mandate. Progress has rarely come about without centralized decision making - it is no coincidence that the period of sustained economic growth that started around 1800 and continues to the present completely matches the rise of centralized government and the ascent of democracy. Plutocracy is opposed to change because change is a risk to stockpiled wealth.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
Noumenon: "It would collapse economies, if not in accord with natural market forces."

I understand the situation is highly complex - and I am unfairly simplifying - but wold you bear with me - and answer a question?

Given the known crisis in some cities in China with smog - if coal is the cheapest form of energy - would you advocate the Chinese government leave the situation alone - and let market forces take their course?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
.those oil corps could easily use their revenue to get into other ways of producing energy, not "collapsing the economy" at all.


If there is potential for profit in doing so why would they NOT do this? What difference does it make whether their money comes from oil or monkey shit?

If there is not potential for profit, why would they invest in unpromising alternatives, when their job is to maximize profit for their investors? Your naiveté is adorable.

The only reason Big Oil even exists, is on account of demand for their product, not because of irrelevant and dumb business decision making.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
TQ version of history is quite bizzarre.
The abolition if slavery was the result of vigorous campaigning by English Christians. When the British Parliment banned the slave trade they enforced that ban with their navy. The govt enforced the law, but that law was changed by grassroot Christian activists.
The US economic growth since 1800 was not the result of centralized govt but the result of DE-CENTRALISED govt. The limited federal govt allowed the states to prosper and enabled innovation.
Progress is destroyed by centralized decision makers because, as Hayek well describes, the decision maker doesn't have the data needed to make intelligent declensions and has been proven time again in business literature.
The plutocracy ('progressives') didn't gain power in the US until the late 1800s and their socialist polices have been destroying the US ever since.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
If you REALLY believed in free markets, you would consider the collapse of polluting energy in favor of clean energy a natural market mechanism.


What I mean by natural market mechanism above is one that works of its own volition on account of individual egoistic free decision making, not some politicized idealism of 'what should be'.

The masses are not going to extra expense to pursue 'clean energy', thus there is little collapse of dirty energy demand for them to respond to. Energy companies do research to search for viable alternatives and will invest heavily into them once the potential for profit justifies it.

It's not my "belief" in markets, it's my lack of denial that "the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in history", and the existent reality.

We will have to evolve off of oil through an alternative that beats it in cost and efficiency. Oil will NOT remain unused in the ground while a less efficient and more expensive source is being used.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
One reason Big Oil exists is the result of the 'progressive'.
The Regulatory State has continued to pile on regulation after punative regulation on the industry leading to merger after merger to keep profitable.
Rockefeller created and streamlined Standard Oil to maximize efficiency, minimize prices to consumers and maximize profits.
The 'progressives' destroyed that, but after several decades, in order to be viable, oil companies have had to merge to be able to afford 'progressive' regulations. And, of course, the fascist, Regulatory State has very tight control on 'big oil'.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
Given the known crisis in some cities in China with smog - if coal is the cheapest form of energy - would you advocate the Chinese government leave the situation alone - and let market forces take their course?


Only if the Chinese govt gave up its central planning role.
China does not represent free markets but central state planning.

That's not how the atmosphere works ryggy.

But if CO2 is so bad, you should be able to demonstrate this over any dry area to measure its true impact.
This is how science works, though. If CO2 is the culprit, then isolate the component and measure its affect. That is difficult in many areas but less so over deserts.
runny's excuse about complexity really shows the poor quality of the data and the sensors used to measure that data, which then feed low fidelity GCMs.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
You hate democracy, and you put plutocratic interest above the right of the people to govern and mandate.


All the power exists in the individual in their free choice and egoistic behavior in creating demand to be fulfilled.

Progress has rarely come about without centralized decision making - it is no coincidence that the period of sustained economic growth that started around 1800 and continues to the present completely matches the rise of centralized government and the ascent of democracy.


Rygg has already corrected you here. I will only add that a successful planned society and economy has never existed in the history of man.

Plutocracy is opposed to change because change is a risk to stockpiled wealth.


Makes no sense whatsoever. Change, managed risk, and innovation is key to finding new markets. Whatever has a potential for profit will be invested in. It's how wealth is created.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
Noumenon: "It would collapse economies, if not in accord with natural market forces."

I understand the situation is highly complex - and I am unfairly simplifying - but wold you bear with me - and answer a question?

Given the known crisis in some cities in China with smog - if coal is the cheapest form of energy - would you advocate the Chinese government leave the situation alone - and let market forces take their course?


Good question. I agree with rygg though. Conversely, since China IS a planned society, ... would you attribute people living amongst the high levels of smog, to the failure of central planning?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013

But if CO2 is so bad, you should be able to demonstrate this over any dry area to measure its true impact.
This is how science works, though. If CO2 is the culprit, then isolate the component and measure its affect. That is difficult in many areas but less so over deserts.
runny's excuse about complexity really shows the poor quality of the data and the sensors used to measure that data, which then feed low fidelity GCMs.


Look ryggy, why do you think that HASN'T been done!
And I've just said it doesn't need to be anywhere in particular because weather moves the affect round. We're talking of the average Global effect and air does move through regions, taking it's warmth (+a small CO2 effect) with it.
E.g.

"Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. "

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
cont

"Measurements of the downward radiative flux have been made for several
important greenhouse gases. At mid-latitudes in summer as compared to winter, our
measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200
W/m2. The water increase causes a reduction of the fluxes from the other greenhouse
gases. These measurements show that the greenhouse effect from trace gases in the
atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The
greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial
times. This compares favorably with a modeled prediction of 2.55 W/m2. Measurements such
as these can provide a means by which to verify the predictions made by global warming
models (Puckrin et al; 2004).."
https://ams.confe...7.htm‎
runrig
4.2 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013

Mikey, Wegman, a professional statistician, was very critical of Mann's hokey stick data analysis, but Wegman was summarily dismissed and attacked by AGWites because he wasn't a 'climate scientist'.
Same critiques are applied to McIntyre at climateaudit.org.
Other critiques, like Lindzen, a climate scientist, is summarily dismissed with the assertion he is funded by oil companies. Then there is Judith Curry at GATech and Christy and Spencer at UAH.


The MM paper was rejected by Nature - their criticisms were unfounded. I can provide papers that give you graphs as well if you like ryygy - but I don't need to because there are dozens of "hockey-sticks" out there produced by independent teams of climate scientists.

So you'll have to get McIntyre on them as well ... unless you want to resort to "it's all a conspiracy".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
And I've just said it doesn't need to be anywhere in particular

Yes, it does. CO2 needs to be isolated from water vapor.
why do you think that HASN'T been done!

It would be clear data to support CO2 affect on the atm so it should be on the first page of IPCC. Is it? You claim to be the expert runny.
The paper talks about DOWNWARD flux from H2O. No one doubts that water vapor holds heat quite well. Just compare daily highs and lows over dry deserts and tropical regions.
I want to know how much CO2 alone contributes.
BTW, the link doesn't work.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
The MM paper was rejected by Nature - their criticisms were unfounded

Not according to the US National Academy of Science after being forced by a US congressman to investigate.
BTW, it was Nature that refused, for a time, to follow their own rules and release data for others to analyze.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
"OK, so I was right. The Boyce paper was nonsense, the claimed trend was spurious, plankton biomass is holding somewhere near steady or even increasing, and a number of independent records show that the Boyce et al. paper is garbage built on bad assumptions.

I bring this up for three reasons. The first is to show the continuing shabby quality of peer-review at scientific magazines when the subject is even peripherally related to climate. Nature magazine blew it again, and unfortunately, these days that's no news at all. It's just more shonky science from the AGW crowd … and people claim the reason the public doesn't trust climate scientists is a "communications problem"? It's not. It's a garbage science problem, and all the communications theory in the world won't fix garbage science."
http://wattsupwit...s-again/
"Nature" sounds like a typical 'liberal' propaganda rag. Create a false story and, maybe, make a correction later.
Fool me once.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
"On the one hand, they pretty much concede that every criticism of MBH is correct. They disown MBH claims to statistical skill for individual decades and especially individual years."
"With respect to Osborn and Briffa, Science has refused to require the authors to disclose the measurement data for Yamal, Tornetrask, Taimyr and Alberta sites on the grounds that the earlier data was from Briffa (2000). Osborn and Briffa have refused to provide the earlier measurement data. Even the identity of the sites used in the Briffa density study remain undisclosed and the authors have refused several requests to identify the sites."
http://climateaud...-report/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
"my letter "was rejected on the grounds that PNAS does not publish corrections to articles more than three months old." In other words, any errors published in PNAS that have gone unchallenged for more than three months become part of the scientific canon as far as PNAS is concerned!"
http://climateaud...as-2006/
Cocoa
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
Noumenon "Good question. I agree with rygg though. Conversely, since China IS a planned society, ... would you attribute people living amongst the high levels of smog, to the failure of central planning?

Yes I would. Britain also suffered similar problems at the height of their coal era, and you can google pictures of U.S. cities back in the 60's that were dying - due to smog from cars. Regulations of pollutants has improved that situation dramatically.

You artfully avoid the question. The question relates to government having a role in the running of our world - especially when systems become destructive - ie. pollution. You seem to have an ideological view of free markets - without recognizing that there can be problems - and certainly without proposing any solution to these problems.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
@Cocoa,
But I did propose solutions above, or rather, maintained what the solution will actually turn out to be..... the market will be the arbiter of the next energy source. We will evolve off of oil once an alternative can compete.

BTW, i'm not actually purely idealogical, for example I don't have an issue necessarily with pollution standards regulation, auto efficiency regulations, etc ...as long as they're not ideologically driven, nor a means of coercion of behavior for gov planning of future energy.

The USA government can't even design a simple web site to maintain The Key legislation of the controlling democrats, with a near infinite sum of money and years to work on it. Nor can they even balance a budget. Why? Because in gov, there is no one 'behind the counter' making a profit under the pressure of competition with free choice replaced with force.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
And I've just said it doesn't need to be anywhere in particular.

"Yes, it does. CO2 needs to be isolated from water vapor".


Err – No. not entirely - because there is a mechanical effect which warms neighbouring molecules of air and …
To have it's greatest effect yes, but within a desert, say, it will be (air will be a v v tiny bit) warmer than otherwise due CO2 and will advect (be entrained into) moist systems via local winds to take that heat elsewhere. We don't find desert areas sig hotter than before – as you know H20 is the domninant GHG. And deserts are dry. You really must learn to see the Climate System as a whole (ie system) And not a sum of it's parts, my friend.

why do you think that HASN'T been done!
It would be clear data to support CO2 affect on the atm so it should be on the first page of IPCC. Is it? You claim to be the expert runny.

http://www.ipcc.c...2-2.html

cont
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
It's amazing how much people will spend to deny climate change. I never thought it would be over $1 billion dollars, but that is apparently what is being spent to stop people from acting to stop climate change. The article above is not the only one that has investigate the conservative think tank's funding of denier groups (there are probable a few astro-turf-ers here).
Here is a link to another article that investigates the paid denier groups.

http://thinkprogr...funding/

140 conservative foundations work to oppose action on climate change. From 2003 to 2010 these groups have spent $7 billion. An example, one group the American Enterprise Institute (conservative think tank), nearly 16% of all of it's funding goes to grants supporting climate change disinformation efforts. Dark money efforts like this are stifle scientific debate and proper political action to avoid climate change. It's typical deceit tactics.

runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
cont

The paper talks about DOWNWARD flux from H2O. No one doubts that water vapor holds heat quite .well. Just compare daily highs and lows over dry deserts and tropical regions.
I want to know how much CO2 alone contributes.
BTW, the link doesn't work.

See above link..
http://www.ipcc.c...2-2.html

Empirical evidence:

"Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997," J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature...5a0.html

"Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present," J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004). http://spiedigita.../1/164_1

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
cont

"Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006," Chen et al, (2007) http://www.eumets...es_v.pdf

"Radiative forcing – measured at Earth's surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect," R. Phillipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibr...abstract

This is the broken link…
"Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate," W.F.J. Evans, Jan 2006
https://ams.confe...0737.htm
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
"On the one hand, they pretty much concede that every criticism of MBH is correct. They disown MBH claims to statistical skill for individual decades and especially individual years."
"With respect to Osborn and Briffa, Science has refused to require the authors to disclose the measurement data for Yamal, Tornetrask, Taimyr and Alberta sites on the grounds that the earlier data was from Briffa (2000). Osborn and Briffa have refused to provide the earlier measurement data. Even the identity of the sites used in the Briffa density study remain undisclosed and the authors have refused several requests to identify the sites."
http://climateaud...-report/


Since you quote climateaudit ...

I'll quote Realclimate

http://www.realcl....php?p=8
Cocoa
4.6 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2013
Noumenon: "But I did propose solutions above, or rather, maintained what the solution will actually turn out to be..... the market will be the arbiter of the next energy source."

You did not propose a solution to the problem presented - which is a pollution problem that is causing huge health problems in China (and has previously been a problem in mixed economies such as the U.S). How would the pure free market deal with this pollution problem.

I am in full agreement with you that free markets are the most effective way of making decisions - but there is a caveat for me. I am not aware of an example of a pure free market - so this all has to be very hypothetical - but I believe that history has shown clearly that free markets can lead to imbalances - that are not corrected by the feedbacks of the markets - and thus leave a role for some agency to monitor those problems (slavery would be a good example). cont.

Cocoa
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
cont. - I am excited that the cost of renewable energy is going to make it the default for our future energy systems - which is of course a win/win. The big problem we have discussed over and over on Physorg is that there is no such thing as a free market - and especially not in as complex a situation as global energy. Understanding true costs is almost impossible - due to multiple market distortions such as taxes, subsidies, etc. Governments around the world are heavily involved in subsidizing, researching, promoting, different energy systems. I think that for true advocates of competition and free markets - renewables would be a no brainer. Much more decentralized - much more opportunity for competition, and free agency - over monopoly and bureaucracy. Some on this board suggest it is possible to remove the politics from energy..... Hey a free market for plutonium - Al Qaeda is up for that one.....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2013
So, runny, there are has been NO analysis of CO2 as I suggested. If there were, you would have posted a paper.
Why has there been no analysis? Could it be CO2 absorbs so little heat it can't be measured?
You really must learn to see the Climate System as a whole (ie system) And not a sum of it's parts, my friend.

I understand it is a system, but AGWites claim they know everything about that system and in particular, they continue try to justify CO2 is the cause.
You assert CO2 mechanically transfers heat but only to H2O? If CO2 was so significant that mechanical energy should be transferred to N2 and O2, the major components of a dry atm and the air temp over dry deserts should rise.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
So, runny, there are has been NO analysis of CO2 as I suggested. If there were, you would have posted a paper.
Why has there been no analysis? Could it be CO2 absorbs so little heat it can't be measured?
You really must learn to see the Climate System as a whole (ie system) And not a sum of it's parts, my friend.

I understand it is a system, but AGWites claim they know everything about that system and in particular, they continue try to justify CO2 is the cause.
You assert CO2 mechanically transfers heat but only to H2O? If CO2 was so significant that mechanical energy should be transferred to N2 and O2, the major components of a dry atm and the air temp over dry deserts should rise.


In your dreams my friend.
If you don't look you wont see.
Try again.
You're getting close to an Uba type discussion here.
And, I'm afraid that is as obtuse as they come.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2013
How would the pure free market deal with this pollution problem.

If there was a govt that enforced private property rights, I would sue the polluter for any pollution from any source that violated my property rights.
A govt that protected private property rights would require the polluter to stop violating my rights or compensate me for that violation. Damages would not need to be proven, only that the pollution violated my property.
The Regulatory State protects polluters from liability by its regulations.
Another example of how the state allows property rights to be violated is with dangerous activities, like rocket launches.
Those who want to launch rockets seek and get waivers from liability for damages from the state to launch. In a free market no state would or could grant such waivers and any risky venture would have to find liability insurance or risk all their assets.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2013
Man, all you guys are sure makin' it tuff for someone to get in the last word on this thread...
goracle
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2013
That's some obsession for Dyson, bears and selective quoting. Search Google with
site: phys.org Shootist + Dyson + bears
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2013
@R2 says
... they continue try to justify CO2 is the cause.
I don't know how you continue to deny that CO2 is the cause of global warming, technically that I think has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Water vapor comes into play, but only after CO2's heat trapping effects have warmed the oceans enough to increase humidity. Let me backtrack a few hundred comments and redo the URL to the Bill Nye Science Guy ... and explanation of water vapor is in there R2.

http://www.youtub...w8Cyfoq8

At 4 minutes, it's a good 5th grade summery of the cause of global warming. R2, I think you would enjoy it. It talks about water vapor too.


ubavontuba
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2013
At 4 minutes, it's a good 5th grade summery of the cause of global warming. R2, I think you would enjoy it. It talks about water vapor too.
So you think a concentration of 100% CO2 in a glass jar under a continuous heatlamp is somehow equivalent to a CO2 concentration of a few hundred parts per milliion, on a global scale, open to space, which receives uneven heating over just 50% of the surface at any one time?

Or are you just admitting you know nothing of science?

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2013
Regarding Nye:
""Even if you believe that CO2 is the dominant control knob on climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, how is it a 'fact' to state that this must be dealt with by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (rather than by adaption, carbon sequestration or geoengineering)? And there is a missing element in this argument that warming is 'bad', which is a value judgment and has nothing to do with science."
http://judithcurr...re-14128

"As
we have seen in this brief sketch, the interaction of science, advocacy and politics in both
the global warming and eugenics cases share a number of characterisics:
Powerful
advocacy groups claiming to represent both science and the public
in the name of morality and superior wisdom.
Simplistic
depictions of the underlying science so as to facilitate widespread
'understanding.'"
http://eaps.mit.e...nics.pdf
goracle
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2013
No offense, but you're entirely ignorant of basic economics.

There is nothing intrinsically special about oil money. The Evil Big Oil Tycoons would just as much enjoy making their money off of monkey shit if that was a viable energy source in demand.

You presume rationality and a choice that is only about profit. In the real world, other agendas are mixed with the profit motive. The actions of the "Evil Big Oil Tycoons" (to use your straw man) speak for themselves. 'Basic economics' isn't up to describing reality.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Dec 28, 2013
Amazing how this article about the back-door funding of a very small number of skeptical think-tanks and the large number of straight-out denialist groups brings out the politically motivated denialist camp on this board! Rygg's shouted "beware the socialists/fascists/communists/liberals/whatever" like they are all somehow the same thing, Noumenon jumping around him like a the little dog around the boxer in the old Loony-tunes cartoons, and the "oh look at the conspiracy" crap from others. Even UbaMoron has chimed in to show the world how badly he understands the science.

It is somewhat gratifying to see the total lack of support they get, and laughable that there are so few actually posting this crap. Good on you runrig, ThomasQuinn, Cocoa, Howhot and others for your continued attempts to point out the actual science. Judging by the ratings, I'd say you're getting the better of the argument.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2013
Conspiracy!


I had to go ALL the way back to the first comment on this thread, to find out who started it - and how.
Cantdrive did it with ONE word...

And I haven't seen his name on a single other post since!
Doesn't that strike anyone else as odd?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2013
"beware the socialists/fascists/communists/liberals/whatever" like they are all somehow the same thing,


They are all advocates tyranny of one form or another.

Judging by the ratings, I'd say you're getting the better of the argument.

Typical of 'liberals' who prefer subjectivity.
No wonder AGWites promote 'consensus' over objective data.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2013
"Gore's Circle of Business"
"Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. "
"GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) "
"CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support "
"On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat"
" the co-founder of GIM is Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson"
http://www.humane...crusade/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 28, 2013
"Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests."
"In 2006 Al Gore established his own global-warming non-profit group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, a 501(3)(c) charitable organization. "
"The alliance CEO is Cathy Zoi, a former environmental advisor to President Bill Clinton. "
"There are billions of dollars to be made in trading emissions credits. But first the federal government must force everyone to play the game."
{Sounds like Obamacare}
http://www.humane...crusade/
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2013
"Meanwhile, environmentalists are discovering new ways to get rich while believing they are saving polar bears and rainforests."
"In 2006 Al Gore established his own global-warming non-profit group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, a 501(3)(c) charitable organization. "
"The alliance CEO is Cathy Zoi, a former environmental advisor to President Bill Clinton. "
"There are billions of dollars to be made in trading emissions credits. But first the federal government must force everyone to play the game."
{Sounds like Obamacare}
http://www.humane...crusade/

What's wrong with making money by advocating on the side of caution?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 28, 2013
What's wrong with creating wealth and creating jobs for 60,000 people around the world selling products and services people want to buy?

What's wrong with making money by advocating on the side of caution?

Nothing as long as govts aren't involved with plundering wealth, as Gore, et al have done.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2013
A govt agency fails and there is no recourse:
"A federal judge in New Orleans has dismissed almost all remaining lawsuits against the federal government for damages caused by the failure of levees and floodwalls during Hurricane Katrina, ordering both sides to pay for their own legal expenses.
The clean-up ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr., filed Dec. 20,

marks the end of an unprecedented series of class-action lawsuits aimed at collecting damages from insurance companies or the federal government that could have totaled billions of dollars."
"The final ruling was not unexpected. In earlier decisions Duval found the Army Corps of Engineers was immune from damages caused by failures of levees and floodwalls they designed and built, or from failure to maintain the rapidly eroding Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, a now-closed shipping channel that helped decimate wetlands east of St. Bernard Parish. "
http://www.nola.c...ismisses
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2013
Was anyone fired at the Corps of Engineers?
Has anyone been fired for the failures of Obamacare?
Was anyone fired for allowing 4 US citizens to be killed in Benghazi?
Has anyone been fired for abusing IRS power?

Failures of this magnitude in the business world result in some consequence for leadership.

FDA fails and responds by bankrupting a company, Bon Vivant. One person died from an a mistake in processing a batch of soup and FDA bankrupts the company.
http://news.googl...,1410985
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
What's wrong with creating wealth and creating jobs for 60,000 people around the world selling products and services people want to buy?


Nuthin'. Unless those products could possibly bring about the end of civilization as we know it.

... as long as govts aren't involved with plundering wealth, as Gore, et al have done.

It's been done for millenia. There will always be opportunists in any organization. Hell, YOU would probably do it if you could...
However, the principle goals are worthwhile.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
those products could possibly bring about the end of civilization as we know it.


This is the type of scientifically unfounded hysteria that has hurt climate change evironmentalism's credibility amongst the masses. It is reflected in the fact that the vast majority of the world is not in fact conducting their personal lives in a way that would indicate imminent doom.

Political Charlatans make use of such scare tactics for ulterior motives.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
There is nothing intrinsically special about oil money. The Evil Big Oil Tycoons would just as much enjoy making their money off of monkey shit if that was a viable energy source in demand.

You presume rationality and a choice that is only about profit. In the real world, other agendas are mixed with the profit motive.


Like what? Losing personal wealth tends to breed rationality. When it's no ones money, as in government spending, there is little egoistic motivation for rationality, which is why irrationality is replete in government spending. The prime motivation for investors is to maximise profit by definition,... and of course to protect and defend an existing market.

Again, the oil investors have zero power over the masses,.... they can't force AGW-enthusiasts to continue their massive consumption of it. If everyone who buys into AGW-catacysm would go to the extra expense of owning an electric car, it would hurt the oil industry.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
Why is the burden placed upon the "denialists" when the vast majority of AGW-enthusiasts don't conduct their affairs "for the common good", in a way responsive to impeding doom? Answer: individuals are intrinsically egositic. Government operates counter to this tremendous force while free capitalism works with it. It's is why the latter tends to be efficient and the former not.

The actions of the "Evil Big Oil Tycoons" (to use your straw man) speak for themselves. 'Basic economics' isn't up to describing reality.


It does in fact describe economic reality inversely proportonal to government intrusion. Btw, it's not MY straw-man,... I used that phrase so that liberals would understand me better.

.... and Maggnus gives his useless cartoonish summery.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
the principle goals are worthwhile.


As long as the state, the monopolist of force, has 'good' intentions, then 'liberals' will accept any violation of individual rights.
For example:
Goal, increase the population; Method: Ceaușescu bans all birth control in Romania; Result: million of orphans abused in state orphanages.
Goal: decrease the population: Method: ban more than one child; Results: millions of aborted baby girls in China.
Goal: root out terrorists: Method: spy on everyone, collect everyone's phone records; Results: a govt that can't be trusted by citizens or allies.

When the 'liberal' faces no consequence for their 'good' intentions, what won't be attempted?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
You did not propose a solution to the problem presented - which is a pollution problem that is causing huge health problems in China (and has previously been a problem in mixed economies such as the U.S). How would the pure free market deal with this pollution problem.


You have admitted that the China smug problem is indicative of failure of gov control, ... so such gov control evidently does not work (counter to many socialist leaning posters here (not you)). I never used the phrase "pure" free market as in a laissez-faire economy. Such a discussion would be very philosophical and idealogical, which Rygg is doing a fine job at. On account of this, I suggested above increasing pollution standards regulation, & auto efficiency regulations. Did you miss it?
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
"a typical American consumer in 1958 would have had to work for 185 hours (more than a month) at the average hourly wage of $1.98 to earn enough pre-tax income ($368) to purchase a toaster, a TV and a stereo system. Today's consumer working at the average wage of $19.19 would only have to work 26.6 hours (a little more than three days) to earn enough income ($511) to purchase a toaster, TV and iPod. In other words: 4.64 weeks of work in 1958 vs. less than 3.5 days in 2012 for those three consumer products, and one could argue that today's products (especially the iPod) are far superior to their 1958 counterparts."
"If you're not convinced that today's consumers are better off than at any time in history, spend some time browsing the old Sears, Wards, and J.C. Penney's Christmas catalogs "
"For that, you can thank the "miracle of the marketplace," which brings us better and cheaper consumer goods all the time."
http://www.aei-id...lustrate
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
I am in full agreement with you that free markets are the most effective way of making decisions - but there is a caveat for me. I am not aware of an example of a pure free market - so this all has to be very hypothetical -


Yes, correct, I agree. The phrase "free market" is justifiably used anyway and does not take the place of "laissez faire",... however the latter would be ideal, imo.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
I am not aware of an example of a pure free market

The closer any market is to being free, the more efficient that market is and the more satisfied those who participate in that market are.
A freer market exists for laser eye surgery than most procedures covered by third party insurance. Laser eye surgery is better quality and lower cost than when the concept was first discovered.
'Tech' is the closest example to a free market industry and it is resulted in computers and software that gets better and cheaper every few months.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
...but I believe that history has shown clearly that free markets can lead to imbalances - that are not corrected by the feedbacks of the markets - and thus leave a role for some agency to monitor those problems (slavery would be a good example).


[Purely] free markets have a self regulating mechanism built in because it operates according to the nature of man. So these "imbalances" you speak of are purely natural ones and it is in fact wrong to remove them artificially, because consequences are important. All animals have a natural aversion to ill-consequences of ther free choice and so they self correct on acccount of this. These imbalances are important as a means to motivate people, and it is only a subjective emotional response that sees them as a "problem",... when purely disinterested analysis shows them to be natural and necessary.

As to the slavery issue. African blacks themselves were the first brokers of that trade.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
,.. in anycase a purely free market requires natural rights to be protected and that they not be incompatble with property rights. Since it was in the case of slavery, it must have been that particular notion of "property" that was faulty.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2013
It is somewhat gratifying to see the total lack of support they get, and laughable that there are so few actually posting this crap. Good on you runrig, ThomasQuinn, Cocoa, Howhot and others for your continued attempts to point out the actual science. Judging by the ratings, I'd say you're getting the better of the argument.


Judging by the fact that Phys.Org, ....a willing broker of climate change alarmist propaganda, ...makes use of the back-door method of no longer linking this article in the "last comments" section, ....I'd say they are not getting the better of the argument.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
It's in the 'last comments' section.
Hit the 'more' button.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
It's in the 'last comments' section.
Hit the 'more' button.


Doesn't seem to float to the top upon a new post though (which is what I meant to say). Maybe the thread is too heavy.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
Noumenon - " it must have been that particular notion of "property" that was faulty."

It seems that you do not believe that imbalances occur in free markets. Could you give us an example of a free market - in which there does not need to be any external mechanism to protect against imbalances such as monopolies, pollution, criminal activity, etc?

"As to the slavery issue. African blacks themselves were the first brokers of that trade."

Ohhhh - I get it - it is OK if you do it to your own people - nice set of values you have there.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
external mechanism to protect against imbalances such as monopolies, pollution, criminal activity, etc?


Customers, compeition and protection of private property rights.
Monopolies cannot exist without the power of a coercive state to protect it.
A govt the protects private property rights deals with pollution and criminals, along with a free market in communications. A competitor told the SEC that Madoff must be committing fraud, but the govt agency chartered to guard against fraud, failed.

OK if you do it to your own people

I don't think all Africans believe all Africans are their own people. Rwanda is one example. Idi Amin's Unganda another. It's called tribalism.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
"As to the slavery issue. African blacks themselves were the first brokers of that trade."


Ohhhh - I get it - it is OK if you do it to your own people - nice set of values you have there.


I had the impression that you were a fair minded person,... I am now losing that impression.

I had clearly stated the following ,....

",.. in anycase a purely free market requires natural rights to be protected and that they not be incompatble with property rights. Since it was in the case of slavery, it must have been that particular notion of "property" that was faulty. " - Noumenon

This means that treating humans as property is against the core principals of Free market capitalism, and thus very far from being "ok", because it implies (society with) lack of respect for such natural rights. I'll await your apology....
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
It seems that you do not believe that imbalances occur in free markets.


I don't believe you're even reading my posts at this point. Above I stated clearly that they DO occur as a natural and necessary result of free markets.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
" I'll await your apology...."

Smile. I understood your reasoning about property rights regarding slavery - a valid point. However - YOU wrote ""As to the slavery issue. African blacks themselves were the first brokers of that trade."

Perhaps I misunderstood - what was the point you were making here?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
"Above I stated clearly that they DO occur as a natural and necessary result of free markets."

But you failed to answer the question. Here let me cut and paste it for you.

" Could you give us an example of a free market - in which there does not need to be any external mechanism to protect against imbalances such as monopolies, pollution, criminal activity, etc?"

Up to this point - it seems to me that your argument rests in a purely hypothetical ideology of 'free markets' - that does not in my view address the issue of the imbalances that occur - such as monopolies, pollution, criminal behavior etc.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
" I'll await your apology...."

Smile. I understood your reasoning about property rights regarding slavery - a valid point. However - YOU wrote ""As to the slavery issue. African blacks themselves were the first brokers of that trade."

Perhaps I misunderstood - what was the point you were making here?


That it wasn't racist western free market capitalists, as I presumed you implied by bringing it up. I continued (....) the point into the next post
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
Monopolies can ONLY exist with the coercive force of the state so eliminate state enforced monopolies and end the 'imbalance'.

C, How do you stop criminal behavior in the govt, in society, ...anywhere?

And if you hadn't noticed, lower pollution correlates with a free and prospering society because they can afford it.
""Environmentalism" itself is an artifact of civilization. The abundance generated by our technologically advanced civilization allows people to contemplate more than just survival. Creatures living in a natural state of subsistence cannot afford the luxury of refraining from unbridled exploitation of the environment."
"On balance, the environment is getting better. "
"The first source of difficulty for those wont to rely upon government solutions is that government is inherently irresponsible. Because government has the might to compel compliance with its dictates"
http://www.fee.or...oswMdOgk
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
"Above I stated clearly that they DO occur as a natural and necessary result of free markets."

But you failed to answer the question. Here let me cut and paste it for you.

" Could you give us an example of a free market - in which there does not need to be any external mechanism to protect against imbalances such as monopolies, pollution, criminal activity, etc?"

Up to this point - it seems to me that your argument rests in a purely hypothetical ideology of 'free markets' - that does not in my view address the issue of the imbalances that occur - such as monopolies, pollution, criminal behavior etc.


But I mentioned "pollution standards regulation, auto efficiency regulations", and you have now ignored that twice.

You seem to equate one who advocates capitalism and limited gov for one who is Anti-government. This is a common faulty association.

I'm a strong advocate of government for the protection of rights and property, and the justice and court system.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
"The Free Market Penalizes Dishonest Business People"
"Market cooperation, like all cooperation, depends on a high level of honesty. People who cannot trust each other cannot cooperate with each other, certainly not for long."
"the free market penalizes those who do not provide consumers with things they value—and consumers value honesty."
"Some will always go for the short-run gain through deceit and dishonesty. But the greater the freedom of others to compete with credible commitments to honesty, the less dishonesty pays even in the short run."

Read more: http://www.fee.or...osz2YeeW

Notice how politicians now want to pass more laws, take more power, because Target customers had data stolen?
Target responded quickly, informing customers of their exposure, offering discounts, all in an attempt they were doing what they could to protect their customers.
BHO lied about his health care plan to keep people from voting for Romney.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
"for a business to be prosperous in the long run, they must maintain general standards in their business, such as trust, stewardship, investment, and attention to consumer satisfaction (Wilson 1990)."
" The only way to make a profit in a free market is by providing a product people value enough to pay a price higher than the opportunity cost of the resources used to produce the goods. The threat of competition and availability of substitutes makes it necessary for firms to constantly evaluate whether their product or service is more appealing than the competition's. - \"
See more at: http://tifwe.org/...ZuG.dpuf
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 29, 2013
P.S. I dont know about yall but some posters (like Q-star, GSwift7 and even Otto) make me think long and hard about what I actually post... for different reasons


@Noumenon
it always comes up on my page with last comments: usually within the top 4.

Monopolies can ONLY exist with the coercive force of the state


@ryggesogn2
wrong. IMHO-Monopolies exist as long as there is greed and no one else willing to attempt to break it.
Period.
The "state" can be for/against it and protect/break it, but Monopolies existed before.
When a tribe as a certain person that excels at something (maybe by creating something new) to the degree that no other person attempts to (or can?) replicate his "something", that said person has a monopoly. There is no competition and he has all the business to himself. There is no competition then it is a monopoly. There is no "state" in a free tribal society either.
and if you can apply it to a tribe, then ANY free group of ppl will do...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
Monopolies exist as long as there is greed and no one else willing to attempt to break it.

Prove it.

'Greed' is what destroys the collusion you imply in a monopoly.
Ever hear of OPEC? How well has that cartel controlled oil prices?
here is no competition then it is a monopoly. There is no "state" in a free tribal society either.

Yes, there is a tribal govt.
Continuing your false analogy, say one guy has a 'monopoly' on making arrowheads. Can he eat arrowheads? How will he eat, obtain clothing if he doesn't trade his 'monopoly' for other goods he wants and needs?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
Noumenon: Here is the slavery post that you were responding to - "...but I believe that history has shown clearly that free markets can lead to imbalances - that are not corrected by the feedbacks of the markets - and thus leave a role for some agency to monitor those problems (slavery would be a good example).

There is no way you could read that as suggesting that I was implying that 'racist, free market capitalism' was the cause of slavery. I was using it as an example of an imbalance of free markets that I believe needs to be regulated - as there are flaws to the ideology of pure free markets.

You continue to not answer the question regarding pointing us to an example of a pure free market. My point is that they do not exist in reality - because the have flaws - and need to be regulated to some degree.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
My point is that they do not exist in reality - because the have flaws - and need to be regulated to some degree.


Free markets ARE, I say, ARE regulated by customers and competitors acting in their self interest.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
Obamacare, an example of the failure of the govt to create or operate markets:

" Advocates have been quietly pushing the idea of a CEO who would set marketplace rules, coordinate with insurers and state regulators on the health plans offered for sale, supervise enrollment campaigns and oversee technology, according to several sources familiar with discussions between advocates and the Obama administration.

Supporters of the idea say it could help regain the trust of insurers and others"
http://ca.news.ya...tor.html
Why can't BHO be trusted? It must racism, right, 'liberals'?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
@ryggesogn2

perhaps a "tribe" was a bad example.
But going to your arrowheads example, he can use barter and trade, but again, if he is the ONLY one making arrowheads, and he also does his own hunting, etc. then there is no need for a market... also, if he is the ONLY arrowhead maker, then the tribe must pay his prices or do without. Monopoly.

In the past, many tribes had an elected "chief" per say, but that chief was extremely limited in its power. (ie: Pre-white Oglala) the "chief" had no personal authority over any individual. Oglala used family ties and cultural upbringing to modify behaviour. This does not necessarily represent the "state" as you are referring to it.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
Noumenon: Here is the slavery post that you were responding to - "...but I believe that history has shown clearly that free markets can lead to imbalances - that are not corrected by the feedbacks of the markets - and thus leave a role for some agency to monitor those problems (slavery would be a good example).

There is no way you could read that as suggesting that I was implying that 'racist, free market capitalism' was the cause of slavery.


To assess how I took your comment, start with the fact that I categorically rejected the notion that slavery was valid free market capitalism,.... then within that context,.... I would wonder why bring up slavery to begin with, if not to blame capitalism for it? It is a common line of arguement, and is why the remaining of my response, continued on the subsequent post, was made to invalidate that argument by showing the faulty premise of "property" imployed.

What is your motivation for questioning my explaination as given?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
then the tribe must pay his prices or do without.

Or learn to make their own, aka competition.
Tribal societies depend upon social customs and members typically follow the leader or they are ostracized.
Somalis can have have existed with a state, but they still have law. It's a clan based law. Everyone is a member of a clan and protected by the clan. If you violate the rights of another clan member, clan leaders meet and decide upon a resolution.
Clan members keep their members in line or else the clan disowns him and anyone is free to kill him or do what ever they wish.
Other societies had similar 'laws' and violators could be declared outside the law and therefore not subject to its protection. The origin of the term 'outlaw'.
It's interesting how socialists like Stump must make up stories to justify state intervention.
I have asked others before, provide a real world example of a monopoly NOT protected from competition by the state.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
[EDIT: "...employed..."]

You continue to not answer the question regarding pointing us to an example of a pure free market. My point is that they do not exist in reality - because the[y] have flaws - and need to be regulated to some degree.


Actually I did answer you,... and I quote,..."I never used the phrase "pure" free market as in a laissez-faire economy. Such a discussion would be very philosophical and idealogical, which Rygg is doing a fine job at. On account of this, I suggested above increasing pollution standards regulation, & auto efficiency regulations."

... agreeing with you that laissez-faire capitalism does not exist, so I can't point to one that is not contaminated with government intrusion and reactionary liberalism.

We enter into philosophical idealogy in asking why it does not exist. This is where we differ. You view imbalances (I took to include inequalities) as "defects" that needs to be "fixed",... while I view them as necessary consequenes.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
rygg-wuss
Oglala pre-white "leaders" were only advisers, and they had NO AUTHORITY over any individual. Nor did tribal Elders.

It's interesting how socialists like Stump must make up stories to justify state intervention.


not a socialist.
if you could call me anything, anarchist would be closer than socialist. especially considering my current lifestyle.
you are just pissed and ranting.

what, are you in prison or something? that why you rant like you do?

or is it just all talk and no ability? mad because you cant be a real man/whatever?
(this would explain SO MUCH about why you rant on like you do)...

any shrinks in the house care to take a look at Ryggy-wuss?
(see, anyone can do the name calling bit)

at least you make me laugh, Ryggy
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
it always comes up on my page with last comments: usually within the top 4.


Yes the activity page, but not the "last comments" tab on the main news page, where there is "featured", "last comments", "popular", tabs at the top right.

I called attention to it 25 posts ago and this is post 523, so maybe the site auto drops articles from that list with more than 500 posts.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
Stumpy an anarchist? Not with your comments about free markets.
you are just pissed and ranting.

Read you last post. Who is ranting?
The Oglala Sioux are one tribe of thousands through history.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
rygg- regurgitates
Stumpy an anarchist? Not with your comments about free markets.


this is the closest political ideology to my belief system.(i am also a realist) Your belief in what I say is irrelevant. I dislike gov't, and authority and I live by my own set of rules, which are simple, but I do not allow anyone to break them. Is that not technically anarchy?

I would really like to know more about why you are the way you are though. I always had a fascination with the insane, criminally insane, and the victim mentality.

The Oglala Sioux are one tribe of thousands through history.


it was the best example that I am personally aware of and have knowledge/experience with to demonstrate my point.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
Read you last post. Who is ranting?


rygg-wimp
not ranting as much as attempting to figure out where to classify you.
you have a temper. you dislike being proven wrong by anyone. you think that your internet gives you abilities far beyond your real capabilities. i would think you have at least a high school or equivalent, maybe a couple of courses in college, but you dont come across as someone who is highly educated. (i would be surprised if you ACTUALLY had a 4year) you show signs of victim mentality. you whine a lot. you are a little paranoid. as well as egotistical and narcissistic.
so far, you are not so much of an enigma as just hard to nail down specifically given the limited scope of what you have revealed within the forum you have chosen.

you DO make me laugh, though. but there are OTHERS that are far, FAR funnier.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Dec 29, 2013
Are you going to send him a bill or was that psychological analysis free, or is that your way of asking him for a date?
Whydening Gyre
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
I have asked others before, provide a real world example of a monopoly NOT protected from competition by the state.


Ummm, Microsoft and Windows? Villified, but not protected...
runrig
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
My point is that they do not exist in reality - because the have flaws - and need to be regulated to some degree.

Free markets ARE, I say, ARE regulated by customers and competitors acting in their self interest.


Spot on ryggy - "in their self interest" indeed. Nail on head indeed.
Which obviously means eliminating your competitors.
In a free market the strong will necessarily buy the weaker by offering the shareholders a price they can't refuse, until with all bought up, they have a monopoly. At which point they can ramp up the prices for their widget as much as they like. If the widget is an essential, people will have to pay. So are you arguing that by the kindness of their hearts they'll let a widget be placed next their own on the shelf priced at 10% less? and do nothing?
Where's the sense in that to that dominant firm. You gobble "widget maker 2 Inc" up and put up your widget by another 10% to boot.
Who wins? Not the customer. Which is why regulation is needed
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
@Noumenon

you are so wacky... date...LOL

i should charge him/her/it, but that would be illegal, right? attempting to practice without a license?

perhaps i am prodding in order to learn something... he/she/it seems a mite unstable. bad habit from my past. LOL

noticed that certain types of responses get him/her/it going. also... i have a side bet going with some people here about how he/she/it will respond... so far Rygg has gotten me over $200 with his/her/it's responses... we had a great laugh about the socialist comments! my bud predicted he/she/it would call me communist that time
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
Noumenon: So now you say - regarding the question of the existence or non existence of free markets - 'agreeing with you that laissez-faire capitalism does not exist, so I can't point to one' (emphasis on the 'so I can't point to one'). - So finally a clear answer.

But previously you said

"[Purely] free markets have a self regulating mechanism built in because it operates according to the nature of man."

And in the next post you said

"in anycase a purely free market requires natural rights to be protected and that they not be incompatble with property rights."

so let's just drop this whole Alice in Wonderland charade.

Best regards.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
Noumenon: So now you say - regarding the question of the existence or non existence of free markets - 'agreeing with you that laissez-faire capitalism does not exist, so I can't point to one' (emphasis on the 'so I can't point to one'). - So finally a clear answer.


I provided an answer the first time I used the phrase "laissez-faire" to correct your incorrect presumption that by "free markets" I meant "pure" free markets" as you put it.

But previously you said

"[Purely] free markets have a self regulating mechanism built in because it operates according to the nature of man."

And in the next post you said

"in anycase a purely free market requires natural rights to be protected and that they not be incompatble with property rights."


What is your objection here?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
n a free market the strong will necessarily buy the weaker by offering the shareholders a price they can't refuse, until with all bought up, they have a monopoly.

Try it.
Maybe you can succeed. No one else has.
Which is why regulation is needed

It is called competition.
Socialists like runny need to create a capitalist straw man that doesn't and never has existed to justify their socialism.

@stumpy: how can a real anarchist support govt regulations? You claimed you are here to learn. Learn what 'anarchy' really means.
Stumpy, ever been to Belvidere, SD?
I dislike gov't,

Really? Then why do you advocate for govt interference in the economy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
For all you socialists:
"Harvard economist Dominick Armentano did a study of the 55 most famous antitrust cases, and in all 55, in every single case there was no evidence that a monopoly had been created. In fact, the evidence showed that they were operating competitively. Antitrust law is a cudgel for non-competitive businesses to hamper their successful rivals."
"The American Can example proves that it is impossible to create a monopoly on the free market. They tried to do it--buying up all their competition and shutting them down so as to increase their market share. It completely and utterly failed. Every time they bought and shut down a competitor, two more sprang up. Soon, people were making cans in their barns using old equipment. Everyone was making cans and American Can had to quit trying to monopolize the industry because they ran out of money. It simply was impossible. Monopoly can only happen when a government creates it."
http://www2.ljwor...e/2011/j
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
perhaps i am prodding in order to learn something... he/she/it seems a mite unstable. bad habit from my past. LOL
Well whatever your reasoning please keep it up! I've had a couple of good chuckles, and I'm also up with the bets on how he'll respond. Even have one for this comment lol!
Noumenon the "latest Comments" section appears to update when you sign out and sign back in. I'm assuming a cookies thing or some such - but certainly not a conspiracy by the site or phys.org! Lol do you see conspiracy everywhere, or only when you try to understand science?

I'm a strong advocate of government for the protection of rights and property, and the justice and court system.
Yet you state you agree with Rygg's position? So which is it? Rygg's gonna be mad at you!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
"The real purpose of antitrust law is government protection for firms that are not competitive but are politically well-connected. It is just another form of welfare for the wealthy. "
http://www2.ljwor...monopol/
Runny, cocoa, stumpy and all the other anti-trust socialist support laws that make Big Bussiness BIGGER and give them more power.
Why do they support a Regulatory State that stifles competition creating more monopolistic industries (aka fascism)?
They SAY they want to LIMIT the power of Big Business, but their ACTIONS do exactly the opposite.
Is 'liberalism' a mental disorder or are the likes of runny, cocoa ... lying?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
" Predatory pricing is merely a theory, for empirical verification remains elusive. "
"he FTC believes predatory pricing is rare because if the predator raises prices to
supracompetitive levels to recoup lost profits after competitors have thrown in the towel, new
firms and former competitors who moved to other markets after leaving the predator's market would be attracted by the extranormal profits to be earned. These prices would need to be extremely high since the predator traded current losses for discounted future revenues"
http://faculty.st...myth.pdf
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
Stumpy, ever been to Belvidere, SD

I was in Pine Ridge for a while, which is nearby. Been thru the area.

@stumpy: how can a real anarchist support govt regulations? You claimed you are here to learn. Learn what 'anarchy' really means

actually, I dont SUPPORT any gov't at all. I am a realist, though, and I know we have one and we aint getting rid of it anytime soon. I live in the world. No choice there.

Rygg – what color is the sky in your world? Do you often get chased by the gov't? Did you really think I didnt know where Belvidere was? I have family on Pine Ridge. or do you have a friend there that i may know? let me know... i would love to meet them. i can go say hi next time i am up there.

P.S. Keep it up... you just won me $50 more bucks. Thanks!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
"The charge, in McGee's words, maintains that "Standard struck down its competitors, in one market at a time, until it enjoyed a monopoly position everywhere. Similarly, it preserved its monopoly by cutting prices selectively wherever competitors dared enter." It was an allegation that McGee himself believed to be true, until he did the homework that others never got around to doing. "
"By examining the record of actual prices, McGee showed that empirically, there is no reason to believe that Rockefeller achieved his high market share (90 percent of the kerosene business for a fleeting moment around 1890) by preying upon either competitors or consumers. From 1870 to 1897, kerosene fell from 26 cents per gallon to about 6 cents—and the kerosene of 1897 was much improved over that of 1870. "
http://www.mackinac.org/3884
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
"At about the same time Rockefeller was the dominant oil refiner, Herbert Henry Dow was jump-starting the Dow Chemical Company in Michigan by turning the predatory price cutting theory on its head. German manufacturers, backed by subsidies from the German government, dumped cheap bromine on the American market in an effort to run Dow out of business in the early 1900s. "
"Unbeknownst to the Germans, Dow simply employed agents to buy all the cheap bromine they could get their hands on. He then sold it at much higher prices prevailing in other markets in direct competition with the Germans, who eventually threw in the towel when they saw how their attempt to make Dow their prey was actually making him rich. The Dow story is one that predatory price theorists never talk about because it utterly undermines their entire case."
http://www.mackinac.org/3884
No wonder so many of the socialists here buy into the AGW myth. They believe so many other myths.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
@Maggnus

Well whatever your reasoning please keep it up! I've had a couple of good chuckles, and I'm also up with the bets on how he'll respond. Even have one for this comment lol!


wish we still had PM, we could get a pool going! It would be MUCH more fun! lol
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
" documented attempts at predatory pricing are extremely hard to come by and successful attempts at it are even harder to find. However, economist Donald Boudreaux, former president of the Foundation for Economic Education and now chairman of the economics department at George Mason University in Virginia, points out, "court records overflow with actual examples of how disgruntled competitors alleging predatory behavior clamor for government to hamstring their more-efficient rivals.""
http://www.mackinac.org/3884
Why do socialists want to destroy companies that provide better products at lower costs and protect a company that can't compete?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
I am continuously reminded this is a science site.
So I provide data and references to refute socialist fantasies.
Where is the data to support your socialist fantasies?
Runny?
Cocoa?
Anyone?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
Maybe the Brit runny doesn't know any better?
"The impoverished and servile masses at the bottom are supposed to offer love and loyalty and labor to the handful of wealthy people at the top, and the moneyed handful are supposed to shed love and kindness and charity, like pine needles, on the underlings below. No one's place in society is supposed to change. Nor does anyone wish for a change. Everyone dreams of being patted on the head, or else of patting people on the head. These ideas were Thomas Carlyle's, and Carlyle was, in his political thinking, an utter reactionary, dedicated to the restoration of feudal hierarchies. "
http://www.newrep...-liberal
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 29, 2013
I am continuously reminded this is a science site.
So I provide data and references to refute socialist fantasies.
Where is the data to support your socialist fantasies?
Runny?
Cocoa?
Anyone?


Is that what you think you do? LOL now THAT'S funny!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2013
"Dow became the world's most efficient bromine manufacturer through his successful application of electrochemistry. By 1897, when he established The Dow Chemical Company, he had sufficient experience and financial backing to enter the world market for bromine. "
"In 1905, alarmed by The Dow Chemical Company's intrusion on their markets, the German chemical community determined to crush this newcomer through the Deutsche Bromkonvention, the worldwide bromine cartel. The Dow enterprise survived this effort only by secretly purchasing the cheaper bromides with which the cartel flooded the U.S. market. Dow repackaged the bromides and sold them in Europe, where the cartel maintained a good price for them. "
http://www.acs.or...ion.html
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Dec 29, 2013
Noumenon - "What is your objection here?"

My problem is that you directly contradict yourself. You make an argument regarding pure free markets - and then when pushed on the subject - acknowledge there is no such thing as a free market.

I like Capatain-stumpy's philosophy - of not taking this stuff too seriously - and certainly not interested in never ending arguments that go around and around in circles - but accomplish nothing. As far as I am concerned - you have directly contradicted yourself - and are now trying to continue the debate. This is not life - it is just an internet forum - and when someone demonstrates that they want to go down the rabbit hole - it is a good time to cut my losses.

Like I say - best of wishes to you mate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
To recap why socialist economics is relevant to AGW and AGWites:
AGWites advocate for the use of socialist coercion, not free market innovations to rid the planet of that evil CO2, with no guarantee that WILL be effective.
Historical and current data show how socialism fails to achieve the intended results.
Challenges by AGWites here to the efficacy of free markets and their self regulating property's have been addressed with numerous references.
Yet, no doubt, AGWites will refuse to act scientifically with respect to this information and will persist in their faith in AGW and socialism.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
My problem is that you directly contradict yourself.


I've asked you to explain your objection. You refuse to do so. You've degenerated into deliberate vagueness.

You make an argument regarding pure free markets - and then when pushed on the subject - acknowledge there is no such thing as a free market.


You are the one who first used the term "pure free markets", not me, implying that's what I meant. I then corrected this misapprehension, by saying my use of the phrase "free markets" is not meant to mean "laissez faire capitalism" and even indicated that such a discussion was 'philosophical ideology' , thus in effect saying it's not reality as it exists.

It is not my issue that you have selective reading comprehension issues and deliberately conflate the theoretical idealogical discussion with the reality discussion, even though I was careful to use and define appropriate terms to differentiate the two.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
"Concerned by the unreliability of scientific research in the field of psychology, an international group, the Many Labs Replication Project, began fact-checking major research. Of the thirteen studies it reviewed, only two were proven completely unreliable – and both had to do with conservative political behavior."
http://www.breitb...plicated
Will phys.org address these failures?
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
I am continuously reminded this is a science site.
So I provide data and references to refute socialist fantasies.
Where is the data to support your socialist fantasies?
Runny?
Cocoa?
Anyone?


You know when you have defeated a liberal, when they start the ad-hominems, the LOL's , and the conflating and splicing of quotes to "demonstrate" inconsistency, without ever providing actual substantive counter arguments.

I even spelled out where I thought Cocoa and I differed, to leave it at that,... but no....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
Oglala pre-white "leaders" were only advisers, and they had NO AUTHORITY over any individual. Nor did tribal Elders.


A good friend, the daughter of Bill Kuhn who owned the general store in Belvidere, SD, commented that as Sioux soldiers returned to the reservation from WWII, they were disciplined, but a few weeks later, back with the tribe, were not.
Maybe that's why the Sioux are so poor.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
"You are the one who first used the term "pure free markets", not me,"

No - you used the term pure free markets in your arguments. Then when asked if you could give an example of pure free markets - you acknowledged that they do not exist. In other words - you were making a purely theoretical argument -with no real world application - there is no point in doing that. Then you try to tie it all up in knots by accusing me of using the term first. So what - the point is that you were making an argument regarding 'pure free markets' Rygg does the same thing - and then dodges when pushed on the topic. You at least acknowledged they do not exist. Enough with the Alice in Wonderland nonsense.

Best wishes again.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
Cocoa, who is dodging?
Why are you wasting your 'spit' when you could be defending your socialist POV?

Oh, I know, you can't.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
"You know when you have defeated a liberal, when they start the ad-hominems,"

"I even spelled out where I thought Cocoa and I differed, to leave it at that,... but no...."

I am very happy to leave it at that - you and I differ. Were you referring to me as a liberal? Why would you do that? Is that an ad hominem? I was very careful to just stay with the facts - and to avoid ad hominem? Why would you suddenly turn this conversation into an attack on liberals? I suspect that is just a knee jerk reaction to start throwing around insults. Do you see the purpose of this kind of discussion - to score cheap points? I suspect that is the case.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
Calling someone a 'liberal' is not ad hominem when the data supports description.
Do you believe this to be an 'insult'?

I am very happy to leave it at that

What a surprise!
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
@Cocoa,

You mean like this...

so let's just drop this whole Alice in Wonderland charade.


or this?,....

Ohhhh - I get it - it is OK if you do it to your own people - nice set of values you have there.


-------------------

Were you referring to me as a liberal? Why would you do that? Is that an ad hominem? ..... suspect that is just a knee jerk reaction to start throwing around insults.


Someone like me would indeed take that as an insult, as everyone should. However, of course "liberal" refers to a political mindset, and is what I was referring to,... one who is reactionary wrt social and economic problems and so seeks solutions by government force or coercion, rather than thinking out carefully how the natural course of events within the arena of freedom and capitalism might resolve the issue or whether the issue is even a problem to be "fixed" or just a consequence and thus cost of freedom. So, ya, you're a smelly liberal imo.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
"So, ya, you're a smelly liberal imo."

Now - earlier you said that "You know when you have defeated a liberal, when they start the ad-hominems,"

Perhaps we have a different understanding of the term ad-hominem. As previously stated - I was very careful to stay with the facts - and not to use personal insults. I don't see that you could find any example of when I have done so. I have also been careful to avoid any reference to politics. You call me a liberal. I ask you why - and you cannot answer.

I wonder if you can understand why someone would suggest that this is an Alice in Wonderland charade. Do you see the bizarre nature of this sequence -

1. You claim that you have 'defeated a liberal' when the liberal resorts to ad-hominems.
2. You call me a "smelly liberal"
3. When pressed you are unable to provide any support for using the term 'liberal' - and of course you can have no reason to call me 'smelly'

What a strange conversation this is.

Best wishes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
The first referernced I can find regarding 'pure free markets' is from cocoa.
"I am in full agreement with you that free markets are the most effective way of making decisions - but there is a caveat for me. I am not aware of an example of a pure free market -

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
If cocoa believes free markets are most effective, why the need to build up a false argument about 'pure free markets'?
runrig
5 / 5 (1) Dec 30, 2013
In a free market the strong will necessarily buy the weaker by offering the shareholders a price they can't refuse, until with all bought up, they have a monopoly.

Try it. Maybe you can succeed. No one else has.

Correct - there are agencies to prevent it. In the UK it's the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Which is why regulation is needed

"It is called competition.

Unfair competition (more companies competing for that set of customer will ensure a cheaper, better product).
Socialists like runny need to create a capitalist straw man that doesn't and never has existed to justify their socialism.

Not difficult against you, even dear old Ronny.
Just obvious to anyone with an inkling of human nature. We can't be left to our own devices. The strong will bully the weak and "society" (oh, you don't recognise "society" do you, that's Communist). …. the average man/woman, will come off worst. Hence a body is needed to get twixt human-nature & greed
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
Ryggesogn2
A good friend, the daughter of Bill Kuhn ...Maybe that's why the Sioux are so poor.


so now you are attacking the Sioux? The Sioux of today are not the same as the Sioux of pre-white times, or even of the day of Crazy Horse. You do not understand the culture, and should leave it be.
I had a feeling you would attack the Sioux... you just won me $50 more! THANKS.

how can a real anarchist support govt regulations?..Blah..Learn what 'anarchy' really means.


Perhaps it is YOU who should read and learn?
https://en.wikipe...narchist
https://en.wikipe.../Anarchy

I also realise there is one (gov't) and it aint goin' nowhere.
Just because I live in a location that is part of a nation does not mean that I love that gov't. That's like saying that if someone lives in the Bible Belt, they are a Christian. Pure idiocy. By that logic, if I bought an old church and refurbished it to live in, I would be God.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
Rygg - I will answer your question - and break my rule just one time in responding to you.

What I was saying was - that in my experience - if you would compare a centralized form of decision making (such as a Soviet Union style government) - to a decentralized one - such as a free market system in the U.S. private sector - you would find the decentralized one to be more effecient/effective. However - I added the caveat that there is no such thing as a 'pure free market'. The real word examples that we have of economic 'markets' are all mixed systems - with a government sector - interacting with a private sector. So arguments regarding 'pure free markets' are purely hypothetical - and do not have real world applications.

Do you disagree with this?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
@Ryggy
IF Cocoa said
I am not aware of an example of a pure free market -


then I am confused about your comment

If cocoa believes free markets are most effective, why the need to build up a false argument about 'pure free markets'?


I dont see a "build up" of a false argument. Seems legit... Cocoa posed a valid personal assessment: that he is not aware of a pure free market.
If YOU are aware of one, give examples. Its not Quantum Mechanics... its real simple. Either crap or get off the pot.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
1. You claim that you have 'defeated a liberal' when the liberal resorts to ad-hominems.


It's generally a good indicator that they have no more arguments. You posted two of my quotes and made some vague reference that they were somehow contradictory and that I was conducting some Alice in Wonderland charade. None of that was necessary. All you had to do is point out WHY the statements are contradictory... still waiting btw.

2. You call me a "smelly liberal"


I'm sorry that you can't find humour in my concluding an argument about ad-hominems, with an ad-hominem. Perhaps you're pretending you didn't laugh to score a point?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
"All you had to do is point out WHY the statements are contradictory... still waiting btw."

If you make an argument regarding 'pure free markets' in one post - and then acknowledge that 'pure free markets' do not exist in another post - that is inherently contradictory - I simply needed to put the posts next to each other to make the point.

You do not see the problem in stating that 'you have defeated a liberal when the liberal resorts to ad-hominems' - but you are not able to demonstrate that I ever used a personal insult (due to the fact that I never did) - but then you resort to ad hominem. Hiding behind the old 'it was just a joke' is pretty foolish.

Again - you never supported your slurr (that is clearly what it was meant to be) that I am a liberal.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
3. When pressed you are unable to provide any support for using the term 'liberal' - and of course you can have no reason to call me 'smelly'


In fact I went out of my way to outline precisely why I had done so,.... and I quote ...

...."liberal" refers to a political mindset, [....]... one who is reactionary wrt social and economic problems and so seeks solutions by government force or coercion, rather than thinking out carefully how the natural course of events within the arena of freedom and capitalism might resolve the issue or whether the issue is even a problem to be "fixed" or just a consequence and thus cost of freedom."

That was like the 3rd time that you claimed I failed to elucidate a point, when in fact you failed to read my posts,... causing me to re-quote myself.

Do you see the bizarre nature of this recursive sequence ?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
I know that you defined liberal. You never provided any support for calling me a liberal. Yes I see the bizarre nature of this recursive sequence. You called me a liberal - but never provided any support for anything I have ever said that would fit your definition of liberal. Re-quoting a definition of liberal - does not support your insulting me - by calling me a smelly liberal. Do you see the bizarre nature of this recursive sequence?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
If you make an argument regarding 'pure free markets' in one post - and then acknowledge that 'pure free markets' do not exist in another post - that is inherently contradictory - I simply needed to put the posts next to each other to make the point.


You're not making any sense here. It is not contradictory at all. To discuss an ideal circumstance even if that ideal has not been achieved in actuality, is NOT contradictory,... it is,... and I quote myself again,...

"... the phrase "pure" free market as in a laissez-faire economy. Such a discussion would be very philosophical and idealogical"

.....
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
.......
Here are the two statements in question,...

[Purely] free markets have a self regulating mechanism built in because it operates according to the nature of man."


And in the next post you said


"in anycase a purely free market requires natural rights to be protected and that they not be incompatble with property rights."


What it contradictory about this?

Keep in mind that I had already stated that "purely free market" does not equate to anti-government (or no-government) and that the role of gov in a "purely free market" is in the protection of natural rights AND property rights. If those two notions are incompatible then the idea of 'one who is entitled to natural rights' being also considered the 'property of another' as in slavery, reflects an invalid notion of "property".
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
"What it contradictory about this?"

There were three quotes in the post. This quote "agreeing with you that laissez-faire capitalism does not exist, so I can't point to one' (emphasis on the 'so I can't point to one').

Contradicts your discussion of 'pure free markets'

You did the same thing again in your last post. Let me show you. You said "the role of gov in a "purely free market" is in the protection of natural rights AND property rights."

But when asked to point out a 'pure free market' - you acknowledge that there is no such thing. That is a blatant contradiction - you are discussing something - that you acknowledge does not exist.

Do you see the bizarre nature of this recursive sequence?

No answer on the issue of claiming that you have defeated a 'liberal' - because they resort to ad-hominem - but providing no support for calling me a liberal - and then being the one to resort to ad-hominem.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
Runny quoted Churchill about democracy. I'll quote him on socialism:
"

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
"There are two places where socialism will work; in heaven where it is not needed, and in hell where they already have it."
Winston Churchill

Socialism can only function where every participant is a volunteer and every participant acts like an angel.
Not very robust.
In free market capitalism participation is voluntary, but does not require angelic behavior of its participants. Each individual is free to act in their self interest.
A more robust system as it follows the laws of nature.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
And, again, runny can't find ANY example of any business that succeeded in predatory practices to create a monopoly as he asserts WILL happen.
I have DATA that shows two cases where it was attempted and FAILED both times. One even with the backing of the German govt.
We can't be left to our own devices. The strong will bully the weak and "society" (

I find socialists make this excuse all the time to justify their need for control. They are projecting THEIR desire for power, THEIR desire to bully others to get their way.
I see that in the language 'liberals' use here.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
And, again, runny can't find ANY example of any business that succeeded in predatory practices to create a monopoly as he asserts WILL happen.
I have DATA that shows two cases where it was attempted and FAILED both times. One even with the backing of the German govt.
We can't be left to our own devices. The strong will bully the weak and "society" (

I find socialists make this excuse all the time to justify their need for control. They are projecting THEIR desire for power, THEIR desire to bully others to get their way.
I see that in the language 'liberals' use here.


Like said it's because we have regulation to prevent it - mind you we have a company called Stagecoach which bought up all privatised bus services in the UK (+ some in US)
http://www.planet...gulation
http://www.indepe...141.html
http://epetitions...ns/35393
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
Runny quoted Churchill about democracy. I'll quote him on socialism:
"

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
"There are two places where socialism will work; in heaven where it is not needed, and in hell where they already have it."
Winston Churchill

Socialism can only function where every participant is a volunteer and every participant acts like an angel.
Not very robust.
In free market capitalism participation is voluntary, but does not require angelic behavior of its participants. Each individual is free to act in their self interest.
A more robust system as it follows the laws of nature.


As I've said to you before - since when did "not (Tea-Party) Republicanism" = Socialism?
Why to you have think in extremes?
Again - there are an infinity of greys between my friend.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013


"Thus are the Ridley reforms still called 'deregulation', even though the policy of the
White Paper and the 1985 Act should properly be called 'regulatory reform and
restructuring', since in practice the bus (though not the coach) industry is today
more regulated, not less. "
"Yet there have also been many occasions where small firms have survived by offering better quality, lower fares or more friendly drivers, or some combination of all these. "
" But its achievements far outweigh the
carping; it has reduced costs and attracted new demand, invested heavily in new vehicles
ahead of the rest of the industry, and pioneered developments like the inter-urban Stagecoach Express services. Its new fast commuter services in Greater Glasgow, using motorway connections (and serving orange juice and muffins on early morning trips) have
once again outflanked the competition (in this case the private car)."
http://www.adamsm...cade.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
Stagecoach which bought up all privatised bus services in the UK (+ some in US)

What is its competition? Other bus service or private autos and public trains/buses?
As I've said to you before - since when did "not (Tea-Party) Republicanism" = Socialism?

When it violates property rights and promotes legal plunder.

"Stagecoach was once again among the winners at the 2012 UK Bus Awards."
"Stagecoach Group has won numerous awards for its ground-breaking web-based low-cost inter-city travel service, megabus.com."
http://www.stagec...rds.aspx

"Megabus.com is the largest privately funded provider of intercity express bus transportation, serving more than 70 major cities in North America. Megabus.com is the first bus line to offer high-quality travel for as low as $1 via the Internet."
http://www.coachu...ease.asp
I would prefer to take a Megabus from BOS to NYC instead of train or plane.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
Why to you have think in extremes?
Again - there are an infinity of greys between

As Ayn Rand noted, when you compromise with evil, evil wins.
UKs Regulatory State kills:
"Coroner condemns paramedics who refused to save drowning man in ditch 'for health and safety reasons'

http://www.dailym...ons.html
"Man drowned in shallow lake after firefighters 'not allowed' to rescue him
Charity shop worker died in Gosport, Hampshire, after rescuers said they could not enter water for health and safety reasons"
http://www.thegua...fighters
"The number of existing health and safety regulations is to be cut in half by the end of the year and a cap imposed on the legal fees that can be charged on employer and public liability claims worth less than £25,000 to reduce costs and discourage vexatious claims. "
http://www.telegr...nce/your
runrig
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 30, 2013
.... when you compromise with evil, evil wins.


So the black at the opposite end to you and ALL the greys in between are evil?
OK - sorry if you don't like it - but I liken that attitude to Islamic fundamentalism. Zero room for compromise. "Off with the Kaffirs heads" says Allah. Fantastic. Just the sort of fellow inhabitants I object to sharing this planet with. (not accusing you of any espoused violence BTW - just highlighting the "evil" that can be brought on by rigid, unyielding views).
In my world all views are equally valid - as long as you don't impose it on others. Hence Democracy is the only way to square that circle. Oh, the "health & safety" thing - I agree with you and (my mantra) - common-sense/compassion should have overruled their training. However, how many people's lives have those PCSO's employed by the state saved? As a famous red-neck of yours said "shit happens"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
ALL the greys in between are evil?

They are steps along the way. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That's the way of the Regulatory State.
runny and so many here are so quick to demand the state pass ANOTHER law to 'fix' some new perceived danger.
How effective are those laws and who really benefits from such laws?
The 'progressive' state in the US was kicked off by 5 large meat packing companies supporting the creation of the FDA to knock off their competitors.
The result is an out of control Regulatory State with associated lobbying groups that the author of the subject paper rails against. Not because lobbying in not effective, but because the bribes paid to politicians don't support HIS agenda, AGW.
Bastiat called this out in 1848 with The Law. When the law is perverted from protecting everyone's property rights to whatever those in power want, then everyone will want to pervert the law to benefit their special interest.
(cont)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
In my world all views are equally valid - as long as you don't impose it on others

But your views are more valid whey you have the power of the mob behind you.
Unless, your views are in line with mine that the monopolistic power of the state must not plunder, but protect everyone's private property rights.
This IS the only view consistent with your statement of 'not imposing on others'.
But you have stated you do support using the power of the state to plunder, to impose YOUR view (under the cover of a majority, of course).
There are ways other than a Regulatory State to protect private property rights, but the downside for the socialist is it limits the power of the state.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
@R2 say
The welfare state benefits big corporations. ...
R2 you are so full of shit. Big corporations want big money for their products. It does not benefit anyone to have a "welfare state". Liberals are not for it, nor are you guys.

Your accusations that liberalism wants a welfare state are false and as phony as most Republicans. You know if a majority of right wingers in the house can only pass 58 bills, it sound to me like the majority party of the house is corrupt and have been influenced by dark-money to be the POS's they are.

The question @R2 does you head explode when everyone disagrees with you? And they are right!

If that were true he would have been gone long ago!
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 30, 2013
does you head explode when everyone disagrees with you

Why is 'agreement' or 'consensus' so important to so many here?
The great scientists challenged consensus and if they were lucky, and good, caused a paradigm shift.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
@ryggesogn2
the great scientists also used logic (some used empirical data) and proved that they were right...

Why is 'agreement' or 'consensus' so important to so many here?


real question here: are you saying only your views are valid?
Really... what exactly are you getting at?
It is one thing to have different opinions, but when you argue against another point of view without knowing a whole lot about that particular subject/point of view, it ceases to become a sharing of opinion (or intellectual discourse) and becomes a soliloquy of ignorance.

repeating yourself, referencing yourself, flooding with irrelevant items, or malicious attacks with no basis like you have done then makes one think you are nothing more than another fanatic looking for his 15 minutes. Or a troll. yet you persist.

i can admire one who is passionate about their beliefs, but sometimes you border on fanaticism... or just blind faith... which is just as bad, if not worse.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.That's the way of the Regulatory State.

That's also the way of the Capitalist State.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.That's the way of the Regulatory State.

That's also the way of the Capitalist State.

How?
Capitalists can't put a gun to their customer's head and force them to buy.
Coercion is the ONLY way a Regulatory State can make anyone 'buy' what they are selling.
when you argue against another point of view without knowing a whole lot about that particular subject/point of view,


What do you think I don't know?
flooding with irrelevant items,

These are called references. What have I posted that is not relevant? AGWites want to use the power of the Regulatory State to implement their plan to 'save humanity' from itself and I provide data showing the failures of the Regulatory State and point out it is also known as socialism.
Maybe some are uncomfortable with socialism and don't realize what they advocate is socialism. If so maybe they will reconsider.
If not, others need to be warned about AGWism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
"Fiery train derailment leads to evacuation"
http://nypost.com...-dakota/
How does this relate to AGW socialism?
1. The train company is owned by Berkshire Hathaway (Warren Buffet) who is a friend of Barack opposing the Keystone pipeline so Buffet can transport the oil on his rail.
2. How do the fellow traveler AGWites feel about aiding and abetting the profits of billionaire Buffet and while risking lives and burning diesel to transport crude oil?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
These are called references.

they are called opinions. Just because you SAY something is true, does not make it so. Case in point
How does this relate to AGW socialism? ...oil?


as for
What do you think I don't know?


for starters, your attacks at me (and others) and the name calling. Like "socialist"
Unlike you, some people live in the real world, and may have opinions about any things that are not the same as others. SOME of those opinions may coincide with your political ideology, or with another, but that does not make them adherents to said ideology. It is an opinion, and may be based upon observation or because reality sucks sometimes.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 30, 2013
@Ryggy continued
What do you think I don't know?


another good example of talking about something you know nothing about:
A good friend, the daughter of Bill Kuhn who owned the general store in Belvidere, SD, commented that as Sioux soldiers returned to the reservation from WWII, they were disciplined, but a few weeks later, back with the tribe, were not.
Maybe that's why the Sioux are so poor.


if you have not lived it, dont try to explain it, especially from a perspective, or from sources that may not be able to comprehend the intricacies involved with life on the res.

It makes you look really bad... and prejudiced to boot.

Do you understand what i am saying now?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Dec 30, 2013
@ryggesogn2
and finally... what does your political ideology and hate have to do with climate change and the fact that the anti-AGW are hiding their support? (FACT)
IMHO- When you hide, it is probably because you are doing something wrong, or you dont want to get caught, or you dont want to have to suffer the backlash... so, spreading your "i hate certain political ideologies" as well as flooding with links to news articles that you THINK are related, because you are paranoid and attempting to share this wealth of mis-information with others does nothing for you, and only makes you seem even more paranoid and fanatical.

If you had FACTS, you could then retain a solicitor and litigate. But you do not, therefore you can only vent in public forums.
And linking more articles will not make me click on any... it just reinforces what I am saying. comprender? Verstehen? capire? καταλαβαίνω? 理解する? UNDERSTAND?
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2013
What I still try to understand is why conservatives (republican, conservatives, teapartiers, they are all the same rightwing nut cases) invert the truth and somehow we are all supposed to standby, hold our tongues and like it. Case after case, fact after fact, the rightwingers will argue, insult and ridicule the ideas of the center and left of center as some sort of conspiracy to do evil!

As once said; "Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition." The republicans seem to have based all their political thinking and actions on superstition and an enthusiasm to embrace fiction. The denial of AGW is a case in point. Similarly evolution, or even fundamental human rights that have been enshrined in the equal-rights amendment and voting rights act. So far Adam Smith's words don't apply to the republicans. Eventually they will, I suspect, when faced with the real consequences of their ignorance. In their eye's, it's enthusiasm for falsehoods.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
Ryggy,
No "my" view is always as valid as is yours and vice versa – but it can only be the "way" if there is a majority of those who will be directly affected by that "way", are in agreement. Common sense says that's the only way to proceed my friend. To do otherwise is to cause division, which grows/festers and poisons following generations. We can see many examples of that around the world. In a world of disparate and often opposing views the only way peoples can live together is via compromise. Certainly Democracy is a compromise – it's just life, all a compromise – or should be.
I support the power of the state to do as it's electorate (via vote) agrees. After that "shit happens" and cant be avoided as it's human nature.
You're like King Canute my friend, sat on the beach ordering the tide to stop advancing. It's not going to happen. So why rant about it. Human nature is NOT avoidable and "shit" will always happen. Common sense.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
what does your political ideology and hate

Thanks Stump for proving my assessment of your 'liberalism'.
he ideas of the center and left of center as some sort of conspiracy to do evil!

Because it is true. The better question Hottie is why don't you socialists think it is evil to use the power of the state to take life, liberty and property from individuals?
but it can only be the "way" if there is a majority of those who will be directly affected by that "way", are in agreement.

A tyranny of a majority is still tyranny. Runny doesn't seem to mind as long as he is not be tyrannized.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
from sources that may not be able to comprehend the intricacies involved with life on the res.

Observations by someone who raised next to the 'res' of how Sioux Indians who return to 'res' from WWII who also returns to culture of dependency and alcoholism can't be noted?
Is this a matter of culture of genetics?
I submit it is culture. Culture can be changed and/or individuals can leave that culture. Of course this puts responsibility upon the individual and the individual can't blame anyone but himself.
And for Hottie, the evil of 'liberalism' reinforces dependency and irresponsibility. SD democrats are all over the 'res' during elections. Daschle was elected one year by obvious voter fraud on the 'res'.
I have noted before, conservatism ends racism. Any minority that becomes a conservative is no longer considered by the 'liberal' as a black or a woman or Hispanic or....
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
but it can only be the "way" if there is a majority of those who will be directly affected by that "way", are in agreement.

A tyranny of a majority is still tyranny. Runny doesn't seem to mind as long as he is not be tyrannized.


Did I really read that? Did you really type it?
Can you just sit down and contemplate the conseqences of those views?

Look, we live on a planet of ~7bn peeps - and you're saying we should all live unregulated by the majorities wishes?
AS individuals.
That didn't even work when we were hunter/gatherers - Humans are social creatures - we bunch together. Ever wondered about the success of cities? it's because people like to be with people.
How can we act as individuals and just do as we wish without rules and law enforcement in those circumstances?

You have bizarre ideas my friend. Black and white, completely disregarding human nature - and as I say, certainly not logical common sense - nor even compassionate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
You have bizarre ideas my friend.


runny states we must live according to majority rule regardless of what that majority rules.

How can we act as individuals and just do as we wish without rules

Those rules must protect each individual's right to life, liberty and property regardless of the majority's attempt to violate those rights.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
Thanks Stump for proving my assessment of your 'liberalism'.

@ryggesogn2
what language do you normally speak, because you OBVIOUSLY have issues with english and are not very literate. I do not care WHAT anyone else thinks as long as you dont attempt to force your belief onto me... and you are doing exactly that. And you DO spew hate, usually starts with name callling...

Observations by someone who raised next to the 'res' of how Sioux Indians who return to 'res' from WWII who also returns to culture of dependency and alcoholism can't be noted?


I know some white folk that are KKK that live next to a black Doctor and they tell me all coloured people are shiftless and lazy, and that African decent people are no smarter than monkey's. Should I consider his opinion valid?

Living near someone means squat if the observations are not taken in context, or are not understood by knowing/experiencing the culture.

to be continued
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
The last post continued...
That is why cultural anthropologists actually go TO tribes and experiences them first hand and attempt to decipher their culture... you cannot sit on the outside and understand a culture.
Perhaps they have a friend on the inside... that would expose them to ONE point of view... is that a good basis for a decision?

This is an issue I have with YOU Ryyg

you feel that only YOUR point of view makes sense or is logical. Well... MY point of view is this: who gives a crap?
In MY world, as long as you dont try to force YOUR beliefs onto me, you can believe that the tooth fairy is really Shrek, or whatever absurd belief system you have is accurate. I really dont care. I am more interested in the WHY anyway, of which you are COMPLETELY silent...

and like I said, you dont post PROOF.

But! You have won me a LOAD of cash, so...

given that you CANT answer any questions, and all you do is call names... i am headed elsewhere, maybe i can find someone SMART, not paranoid
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
force your belief onto me... and you are doing exactly that.

How can anyone force you to believe anything?
Living near someone means squat i

Now you are accusing my friend of being racist for growing up in Belvidere, SD and observing the behavior of her neighbors?
And you DO spew hate, usually starts with name callling...

This is a typical response of racist 'liberals' to shut down any discussion.
knowing/experiencing the culture.

So you agree with me that the problems of the Sioux are cultural. And they can change their culture. This is consistent with what my friend told me. Sioux returning from WWII, in uniform, coming from an Army culture behaved quite differently in only a few short weeks of returning to the 'res'.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
I am more interested in the WHY anyway, of which you are COMPLETELY silent...

The WHY of what?
you dont try to force YOUR beliefs onto me

From your previous posts, you have advocated for the use of state coercion to force YOUR beliefs on me. That action earns the definition of socialist for advocating the use of state force to control private property rights.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2013
Happy new year to everybody at Physorg, and may the 2014 discussions, arguments, and vitriol be just as entertaining as in 2013.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Dec 31, 2013
Happy new year to everybody at Physorg, and may the 2014 discussions, arguments, and vitriol be just as entertaining as in 2013.


Seconded Steve.

We have people on here who will ensure it!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
Rygg-urgitator
Now you are accusing my friend of being racist for growing up in Belvidere, SD and observing the behavior of her neighbors?


nope. Re-read my post. 1St was example of your stupidity. Then I said:
Living near someone means squat if the observations are not taken in context, or are not understood by knowing/experiencing the culture.


that means exactly what it says. And I dont know your friend. Is your friend Oglala?

I know quite a few people that live around reservations and some are racist, but not overtly. There is a great deal of interpretation, and without knowing about some of the background, people assume the worst.
For instance: I know a man @ Pine Ridge that owns 40 acres. The Gov't will not allow him to do ANYTHING with his 40, and rents it out to white cattle ranchers for a dollar a year. Even though it is OWNED by him, he has to ask permission to use it for his religious purposes.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
From your previous posts, you have advocated for the use of state coercion to force YOUR beliefs on me.


knowing that something WILL happen because one is a realist and advocating something is two different things.
the gov't WILL do what it has to in order to continue. this is just how power and bureaucracies work.
that does not mean i advocate it.
although i may support certain things about gov't, it does not mean i am a loyalist, nor does it make me a liberal, communist, or anything else. it makes me a normal every day human. Personally, i dont like gov't at all, and it really has little impact where i live. it only affects me when i have to travel, like now.

and just because i DONT believe i something does not mean that i dont have to live with it either. i am a citizen, and therefore i have to deal with the gov't. this is not something that anyone can really get away from entirely. even me. no matter how hard you try.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 31, 2013
lastly, Ryggy,

the Sioux have some cultural issues, yes, but so do the other people living around them. it is not JUST the Sioux- there is MUCH YOU DONT understand.

and trying to explain it to you would not be worth the effort with your closed mind. so...

a heartfelt THANKS to you, though, Ryggy... your paranoia and predictability have won me considerable cash... really! and i appreciate it!
i am headed elsewhere, maybe i can find someone who is not paranoid... see ya!

and to EVERYONE ELSE

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
hat does not mean i advocate it.

But you did in previous posts.
i am a citizen,

Really?
WILL do what it has to in order to continue. this is just how power and bureaucracies work.

And won't do anything about it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
this is not something that anyone can really get away from entirely.


""The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. it is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists."
― G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils : An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State "
.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 31, 2013
This is from 1922.
What has changed?

""Government has become ungovernable; that is, it cannot leave off governing. Law has become lawless; that is, it cannot see where laws should stop. The chief feature of our time is the meekness of the mob and the madness of the government."
― G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils : An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State "

""The thing that really is trying to tyrannize through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statues, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen—that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. " {Or AGW}
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Dec 31, 2013
Government has become ungovernable; that is, it cannot leave off governing. Law has become lawless; that is, it cannot see where laws should stop. The chief feature of our time is the meekness of the mob and the madness of the government."
― G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils : An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State "

Here is the methodology of that madness - Have corporations keep coming up with cool products and services that further entrance the meek mob, making them even more comfortable. Oh - and protect them from themselves being hopelessly addicted to those same products and services...
What a diabolically evil plan...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Dec 31, 2013
Rygg-urgitator
And won't do anything about it?


what makes you think i am not doing anything?

But you did in previous posts.


i also give presents to my grandkids on december 25th, does that make me a christian?
i was standing in a forest earlier too, does that make me a tree?
call me a paradox. i can believe in one thing while understanding that i must live in the real world.

Really?

yes really.

A tyranny of a majority is still tyranny


and an paranoid idiot is still a paranoid idiot, no matter HOW many (mostly irrelevant) posts he makes... but dont feel bad, Rygg... there are meds you can take!

How can anyone force you to believe anything?


i would offer to let you come visit for a demonstration, but i dont like to hurt idiots or children

Of course the AGWites like to use the 'peer' review process and stifle any heresy.


actually, it is used to keep quacks and idiots from publishing crap. you are SO lucky that peer review aint here!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 31, 2013
rygg-urgitator
The great scientists challenged consensus and if they were lucky, and good, caused a paradigm shift.


actually, they used logic and experimental data – IOW -PROOF

and since you dont need proof for your theories, that means, by definition, you believe in something by faith. Which is why whenever someone argues science with you, you immediately switch gears to either politics or something like that, because it requires no real proof, and is subjective to the individual.
Which is why when I asked WHY you use your politics and ideology (and hate) instead of logic and science, you called me a "liberal"

because you know NOTHING of science. I stand by my prior assessment of you. There must be a great deal of accuracy as I have made a few hundred dollars off of your replies...

your "faith" has no place in science. the science speaks for itself. it is YOU who cannot interpret it. go back to flinging fries at McD's. they hire the mentally challenged lol
Mike_Massen
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
ryggesogn2 just doesnt get it
Why is 'agreement' or 'consensus' so important to so many here?
The great scientists challenged consensus..
ryggesogn2 ignores combinatorial issues, such as;

- Good 'experimental methodology' is a relatively recent discipline
- 'great scientists' are mostly of the earlier era where basic Science was still being covered
- 'consensus' will be more common in contemporary times as Science, at these levels, is now asymptotic towards covering variables (first and) most likely to be directly causal.

Eg. Take graduates but, who are schooled & experienced in lab testing of the main materials & processes implicated in Global Warming. Ask them to assess the evidence in relation to material properties.

Most will agree on factors such as:-

- CO2 has known thermal properties
- CO2 is increasing in atmosphere

If some don't agree then have them offer a hypothesis & test ?

Hasn't this been going on for years ?

Trouble is non-science people object to method !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014

If some don't agree then have them offer a hypothesis & test ?

I have proposed two tests to measure the efficacy of CO2 to trap heat in the atmosphere.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
Another example of how crony capitalism is used to destroy competition.

"Competitive markets with low costs of entry have a characteristic that consumers love and businesses lament: very low profit margins. GE, Philips and Sylvania dominated the U.S. market in incandescents, but they couldn't convert that dominance into price hikes. Because of light bulb's low material and manufacturing costs, any big climb in prices would have invited new competitors to undercut the giants — and that new competitor would probably have won a distribution deal with Wal-Mart."
"That's the hard part about capitalism — consumers, not manufacturers, get to demand what something is worth.

Capitalism ruining their party, the bulb-makers turned to government. "

http://washington...lick=rss
How do all the socialists here like getting into bed with the big corporations?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
BTW, anyone who wants incandescent bulbs, check out Newcandescent.com

" Larry went on to say that, "the inspiration to continue to manufacture the long-lasting (10,000 hours) rough service Newcandescent bulb that satisfies all federal requirements, is simply the result of what customers continue to want.""

http://www.newcandescent.com/
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
MR166 is clearly pretending to be stupid or lying badly with
A consensus is meaningless. After all a consensus of scientists believed that the earth was flat. It is Verifiable truth that is the foundation of science and not computer simulations that are rewritten at will.
There is no evidence Scientists ever 'believed' the Earth was flat.

Science is not about belief at all, it is about evidence & balance of probabilities and in terms of AGW it is fundamentally based upon known thermal properties of CO2 and no AGW denier here claims CO2 is not increasing...
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

So when MR166 talks belief he talks dogma & religion and lack of experiment and fear of verification lest it affect hope we are not responsible...

Science at its highest integrity is about the embracing of uncertainty moderated by the balance of probabilities.

230,000L of petrol burned each second, hmmm what is the most likely outcome of so much CO2 added to the atmosphere ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
Science is not about belief at all,

Of course it is.
what is the most likely outcome of so much CO2 added to the atmosphere ?

How much is that relative to the total atmosphere and the amount of CO2 introduced without human influence?

Data, evidence and probabilities show that the MWP was global in spite of attempts by Mann et al to hide this with the hokey stick.
How did CO2 create the MWP?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
ryggesogn2 hasnt shown where with this claim
I have proposed two tests to measure the efficacy of CO2 to trap heat in the atmosphere.
One would assume that intelligent people, knowing there are so many posts and so many threads, would be efficient and smart to report the link or paste in *RESPONSE* ?

Why do you waste so much bandwidth ryggesogn2 ?

You post much political propaganda without Science.

You don't dispute CO2 is rising as per this link:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

You don't dispute the thermal properties of CO2.

Where is:-
- abstract re your 'experiment' ?
- analysis of experimental method ?

Perhaps you might want to start with partial pressures, you know CO2, vs O2 vs N2 vs H2O etc ;-)

And just *why* adding CO2 to a system when the thermal properties are known will *not* increase global temperatures,Causal relationship - any offerings ?

Which is more important ryggesogn2 ?

Pathetic propaganda that leads nowhere or Science that leads to truth ?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
ryggesogn2 complained
When I stated
Science is not about belief at all,
Of course it is.
As I said before, you MISSED the point, Science is based soundly on the balance of probabilities, you could shortcut this to a belief as some lazy people do but, essentials are clear it is not arbitrary.

ryggesogn2 blurted
what is the most likely outcome of so much CO2 added to the atmosphere ? How much is that relative to the total atmosphere and the amount of CO2 introduced without human influence?
Surely you as someone who vaguely implies you are a Scientist can work out the mass of burning some 230,000 litres of petrol per second ?

The most likely is warming, work it out by Addition ie Maths !

Your question is strange, you claim there is no AGW yet, even to this stage you havent availed yourself of the facts re summing all existing CO2 sources vs known methods how naturally added CO2 leaves the atmosphere.

Perhaps a lot less propaganda but, more Science PLEASE, for a change ?
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
As I said before, you MISSED the point, Science is based soundly on the balance of probabilities, you could shortcut this to a belief as some lazy people do but, essentials are clear it is not arbitrary.


Now ryggy, lower down this thread I stated I use common-sense by invoking the probability of occurrence in assessing, well, anything in life.
Now you crop-up and say that "science is based soundly on the balance of probabilities".

Given that we have many scientists investigating the subject, is it not reasonable to do that here - via gauging the probability of a "consensus" being correct - why does it not extend to the overwhelming probability of the world's experts on the subject of AGW (multi-disciplined remember) are correct in there findings?
Why is it more "on the balance of probabilities" that the minority are correct?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014
why does it not extend to the overwhelming probability of the world's experts on the subject of AGW

Because it is false to state that the worlds' 'experts' agree on AGW, and asserting 'consensus' is a poor quality science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014
Look, we live on a planet of ~7bn peeps - and you're saying we should all live unregulated by the majorities wishes?


Yes.
How do you prevent the 50%+1 majority from enslaving, murdering, plundering,...the minority?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2014
ryggesogn2 vomited up
Because it is false to state that the worlds' 'experts' agree on AGW, and asserting 'consensus' is a poor quality science.


you are assuming that there is issue with the worlds experts when you actually mean: there are some "scientists" who disagree with the majority of the EXPERTS. That is different.

If you are so scientifically literate, Ryggy, try answering Runrig's questions. (this i GOTTA SEE)
show proof. Show empirical data... WITHOUT all the poli-sci jargon and paranoid schizo drivel.

oops, forgot. It does not jibe with your faith, therefore you will just start posting political clap-trap instead.

looking forward to the scientific answers! XD
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014
show proof.

Science is not a court of law.
'proof' is not the correct term to associate with science.
gauging the probability of a "consensus" being correct

Based on what data?
The official AGW gatekeeper journals and 'peers' have not demonstrated objectivity.
When trust is squandered for political gain, it is difficult to recover.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014
why does it not extend to the overwhelming probability of the world's experts on the subject of AGW

Because it is false to state that the worlds' 'experts' agree on AGW, and asserting 'consensus' is a poor quality science.


Only if you deny the obvious.
Then again there are many peeps in the asylum that think they are the only sane one in there.
And no, it is as you said - science should be done "by the balance of probability".
Yes ryygy the balance of probability lies with the minority - stands to reason - to that inmate of the asylum.

runrig
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014
Look, we live on a planet of ~7bn peeps - and you're saying we should all live unregulated by the majorities wishes?


Yes.
How do you prevent the 50%+1 majority from enslaving, murdering, plundering,...the minority?


You don't - as I said "shit happens" - that's life and can't be avoided. In this Universe at least.
Not without tyranny. Common sense says it's best to take the chance than the alternative. Like, I might get struck by Elvis drunk at the helm of a UFO tomorrow but do I fear it, prepare for it?
What'll you do? Hunker down in your "Prepper" hideout?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2014
Ryggesogn2 demonstrates illiteracy with this comment:
proof' is not the correct term to associate with science.


but Ryggy COMPLETELY missed :
Show empirical data... WITHOUT all the poli-sci jargon and paranoid schizo drivel.

which FOLLOWED it...
should have kept reading Ryggy... empirical data is considered PROOF.

The official AGW gatekeeper journals and 'peers' have not demonstrated objectivity.

at least SCIENTIFIC efforts are based upon malleable theories that CAN be adjusted in light of new empirical data and observations. Not like YOUR rhetoric

If you CANT adjust in the face of logic, it is FAITH, not science. I will at least CONSIDER science that goes against my theories, and learn from them or adjust my theories. THAT is how science works.

you cut and paste what you will without reading the whole thing. that means you cull data and select pieces the YOU think prove YOUR point...

that is FAITH. NOT SCIENCE.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2014
Ryggy sputters out
When trust is squandered for political gain, it is difficult to recover.

this is true... but that still does not answer why you are on a science site spewing political jargon instead of offering empirical data. Politics affects science. But YOU are an individual, and should be able to rise above that to form logical expressions for debate, but instead you waste everyone's time with Vitriolic regurgitations with NO empirical data for support.

Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts.

why hide yourself if you are defending TRUTH? Or at least something that you truly believe in? Makes me think they are in it for $$ and to sway the weak minded...

Like you, Rygg.

at LEAST post something that is relevant.
or is that asking too much?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2014
You don't - as I said "shit happens" - that's life and can't be avoided. In this Universe at least.
Not without tyranny. Common sense says it's best to take the chance than the alternative.


Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et al decided over 200 years ago that they were tired of living at the whims of a crazy English king and devised a govt that would attempt to limit the damage cause by tyrants.
Now we have 'progressives' that prefer to be tyrants and erase the real progress made by real liberals like Locke, Jefferson, Madison, ...
Maybe those who didn't escape the tyranny of monarchy or socialism in Europe are content to live with a majority that murders a minority in concentration camps.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
SCIENTIFIC efforts are based upon malleable theories that CAN be adjusted in light of new empirical data


After the failure of GCM to predict the halt in rising temperatures NOW assert the heat is hiding in the oceans and any change in climate, snow, ice, cold, can be explained by CO2. This is faith, not science.
Carl Popper was motivated by Marxism to develop falsifiability as a criterion for science. Marxist claimed a scientific basis but failed the falsifiability test. Popper respected Einstein's theories as science as it was falsifiable.
AGWites use their models to make a prediction in 100 years from now, but expect everyone to believe them instead of waiting for the model to be validated in 100 years.
Then the AGWites assert we can't wait and must act now to impose socialism to prevent our unfalsifiable predictions. What a scam! That is not science.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
"The Copenhagen Summit was bound to fail if only because politicians are beginning to realize that ordinary voters do not believe in man-made Global Warming, as polls plainly show. They did not believe in Marxist Dialectical Materialism either, or Freudianism. These three pseudo-sciences have a lot in common, not least their ability to inspire a religious kind of belief in highly educated people who lack a genuine creed."
"Popper argued that prima facie evidence of a bogus theory was the practice of altering or enlarging it, by its authors, to accommodate new evidence since its original formulation. This, he argued, had happened in the case of Marxism and, still more, Freudianism. Scientific theories, he argued, must be very precise and scientific to be of any use."
http://spectator....e-planet
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
"It is a pity Popper did not live to see that Global Warming fit perfectly into his model of a pseudo-theory. It is vaguely and imprecisely formulated. It fails the falsifiability test, because all new evidence is made to fit by enlarging the theory. "
"The fact is that the theory has now been expanded to include any unusual form of weather, anywhere. Hot summers, warm winters -- global warming. Cold weather at an unusual time of year -- global warming. Drought, storms, floods -- global warming. No snow on the ski slopes, sudden snow, out of season snow, very heavy snow -- global warming. "
"Of course vested interests accept it. It is regarded as a splendid way of damaging the American economy, by the same kind of left-wing intellectuals who supported the Club of Rome in the 1960s, which argued that world resources were on the brink of exhaustion"
http://spectator....e-planet
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
"THEN AGAIN, GLOBAL WARMING NOW HAS a powerful, worldwide institutional substructure. If a media outlet has an environment correspondent, or a university a Department of Climate Studies, or a government a Ministry of Global Warming, those involved are certain to be not just believers but fanatical propagandists for the cause. Their livelihood depends on it. I calculate that the lobby now includes over 20,000 full-time, well-paid professionals whose entire life is spent in pushing "proofs." "
"It used to be supposed that scientists, or those calling themselves such, were incorruptible and guided purely by genuine convictions based on objective evidence. But scientists behave just like politicians if the pressure and prizes make it worth their while to conform."
http://spectator....e-planet
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
"We need to repeat the imaginative effort of the late medieval Spanish, Portuguese, and Genoans in navigation, technology, and courage, but on an infinitely greater scale. This would be a worthy cause for the united resources of the human race to combine in furthering -- the colonization of the universe.

It may be a distant goal, but it is a practical one, and in pursuing it we would do more to unite the human race in purposeful activity than anything else so far proposed. By contrast, combating a largely imaginary threat of global warming is just as costly, as well as scientifically unsound, technologically impossible, and, not least, divisive. "
http://spectator....e-planet
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
"The behaviour of a great many researchers involved in climate change is far from Popperian. Rather than test their hypothesis by trying to falsify it, they look instead for evidence which supports it and, in a deeply unscientific manner, will often simply dismiss contrary evidence on the basis of minor flaws or criticism. This is research done according to prejudice rather than with an open mind. To compound the error, and because evidence can only be gathered by observation rather than experiment, increasing reliance has been placed on computer models."
"climate science, heavily influenced by global warming politics, continues to adhere to a central paradigm as described by Kuhn. Contrary evidence is clearly not going to be accepted as falsification. "
http://www.scient...e-change
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2014
Maybe those who didn't escape the tyranny of monarchy or socialism in Europe are content to live with a majority that murders a minority in concentration camps.


Really? Funny, I always thought Hitler was a Fascist.

And that ideology is far closer to yours than to socialism my friend.

What it does show – which your blind extremism demonstrates - is that the middle ground is the only way to go. Hence Democracy (sorry to use that dirt word).

Oh, just as an aside….
To newcomers here
Welcome to the ryggesogn2 thread (now at 635 posts – 189 from ryggy, an order of magnitude above any record I know of here) – the dedicated political ranting one-stop forum featuring (a speciality to the bigoted) verbose quotes from the seemingly omniscient of past/present. Listed here as though written on tablets of stone from on high.

Saves going down the pub I spose.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
I always thought Hitler was a Fascist.

Yes. Fascists are socialists too.
It was called National Socialism.

Rummy, you still don't address what prevents a majority from murdering a minority.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
I see Europe is following the US model:
"This European political directorate has taken decision-making away from national parliaments. On virtually everything that matters, from the economy to immigration, decisions are made elsewhere. "
"politicians encouraged this tendency because they wanted to "divest themselves of responsibility for potentially unpopular policy decisions and so cushion themselves against possible voter discontent". "
http://www.telegr...acy.html
How is that democracy working for you rummy?
This is the few plundering the many so you have a long way to go before needing to worry about the majority murdering the minority.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2014
I always thought Hitler was a Fascist.

Yes. Fascists are socialists too.
It was called National Socialism.

Rummy, you still don't address what prevents a majority from murdering a minority.


Rummy? I take it you mean me.
I've said it several times - you don't and you cant. "shit happens" because of human nature which CANNOT be eliminated (which is IMO the reason Communism never worked - corruption/greed/power/inefficiency etc).
You can ONLY do your best to mitigate it.
AND as we are talking of extremes here (which necessarily excludes ~90% of people) then we must throw away your lot and the lot at the other extreme - As being outliers statistically and allow the 90% to decide. Or in other words your lot will cancel the other lot during voting in a Democracy and we'll end up with something that is sensible.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
You can ONLY do your best to mitigate it.

Yes, by pointing out that socialism is state control of private property and waaay too many people are too eager to want to use state power to control other people.
People claim to be abhorred by Fascism and the German national socialist party event though they are socialist, too.
ou don't and you cant

runny apparently doesn't mind murdering a minority, if he is in the majority.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
runny: "Look - I didn't mind this behaviour from smoking deniers as that was personal choice but I live on this bloody planet as well as you."

""The Copenhagen Summit was bound to fail if only because politicians are beginning to realize that ordinary voters do not believe in man-made Global Warming"

runny: "shit happens"

Democracy sucks for AGWites, no?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2014
ryggesogn2 still doesnt get it with
Because it is false to state that the worlds' 'experts' agree on AGW, and asserting 'consensus' is a poor quality science.
Wrong !

1
It is correct that ~97% of Climate Scientists have sufficient agreement that CO2 is the key factor in global warming & the change in CO2 reported on http://www.woodfo...rg/notes
is substantially correct.

2
Science is "The discipline of the Acquisition of knowledge"
People agreeing does not make that Science *unless* each of those that agree are (also) trained in the logistics of many issues Eg. "Experimental Method" with "Probability & Statistics" both of these are only touched on in high school but well extended at University Level where there is a clear discipline of higher mathematics & exercises such as "Literature Reviews" of peer reviewed journals - ie Critique employing Dialectic.

ryggesogn2 you don't come across as a person trained in any university study all !

Where are your hypotheses PLEASE ?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2014
ryggesogn2 it is so clear you are avoiding key issues, that YOU find contentious Eg:-

1. You accept thermal properties of CO2 well known *and* are easy to demonstrate
with any number of simple experiments, proving its inherent capacity to store heat & insulate ?

&

2. You accept CO2 is increasing as shown on this link?
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

You have previously claimed you have a couple of ideas, I guess you imply, ameliorate CO2
warming issue of the atmosphere. Pray Tell ?

Given Science of gases is well known & a host of atmospheric physics/chemistry is also well known *and* from knowledge of probability/statistics/chaos you know about intrinsic difficulties in predicting ocean currents at ALL depths in any system subject to an essential step change in geological times then you must therefore have a well thought out alternate hypothesis (or 2) as to why CO2 will *not* result in *overall* warming & therefore must be able to be articulated most easily ?

Science ?
Tewk
1 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2014
The Global Warming crowd should concern themselves with the fact that there IS NO global warming. Also the fact that the data they base it upon is FRAUDULENT.
I see no mention of pro-global warming financiers, their ties to the World Government scheme, and how they getting filthy rich through this international fraud.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2014
I see no mention of pro-global warming financiers,


@Tewk
please re-read the article. you obviously missed the entire last paragraph:

This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.


there will be more.
as for
their ties to the World Government


what world government? could you be more specific?
runrig
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2014
runny: "Look - I didn't mind this behaviour from smoking deniers as that was personal choice but I live on this bloody planet as well as you."
"The Copenhagen Summit was bound to fail if only because politicians are beginning to realize that ordinary voters do not believe in man-made Global Warming"
runny: "shit happens"
Democracy sucks for AGWites, no?

Opinion doesn't give me/you the power to overrule the majority, only influence by free speech.
The majority in AGW terms comes via expert advice passed on to elected officials.
That's how representative democracy works.
The only places I know of where this is going against the tide of the science is you and OZ.
"Your" ordinary voters are not in the majority globally. Far from it.
The antics of deniers whose political ideology rules every aspect of their and selfishly, wished on others, is only too easily accepted by the equally uninformed but unengaged.
Nothing can stop "shit" happening. Democracy is just most likely to.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2014

AGWites use their models to make a prediction in 100 years from now, but expect everyone to believe them instead of waiting for the model to be validated in 100 years.

The whole point of their predictions is to prevent further global warming. Waiting to see if their theory is correct is no different than checking the sharpness of a knife by plunging it into your own heart. (If you try this please youtube it!!)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2014
The majority in AGW terms comes via expert advice passed on to elected officials.
That's how representative democracy works.


What really counts, as you say, is the will of the majority of the citizens, not the AGWites.

"Your" ordinary voters are not in the majority globally. Far from it.

How many people in the world get a real opportunity to vote?
But, the majority of the third world govts have claimed they have a 'right' to plunder the wealth of the world. Typical socialist tripe.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
Mikey.
My two experiments are described in previous posts.
It will measure the heat captured by CO2 in a dry atmosphere to quantify its effect with out any interference from water vapor.
The method is to compare the historical differences between daily high and low temperatures over deserts, including Antarctica.
If CO2 has any effect, a decreasing difference should correlate with increasing CO2.
jdw
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
Imagine that! Money flowing to counter a far-Left, politically-motivated-and-driven pogrom who's spokesperson is none other than that failed politician, 'The SCIENCE!, it is forever SETTLED! Al Gore, the smartest man on, and inventor of, the internet!.

It's no wonder that Climate Change is attacked: a cabal of leftists chose a partisan divider to become it's figurehead. You chose poorly.

Who's decision was it to use that failed clown as spokesperson? If Climate Change is as grave as portrayed, why a known political hack, Al Gore, of all people? Even Michael Moore would've made a better figurehead. And cheaper by the pound, these leftist clowns.

Yes, we are warming, planet-wide. No, there's not a damned thing we can do about it but get ready to either evolve as a species or fade away, as thousands of species have disappeared over the millennia. Let humans fail if they can't evolve. But to allow leftists to take CONTROL of everything because of it?

No way. Sorry, not happening.
Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014
But to allow leftists to take CONTROL of everything because of it?
I think so. Given the complete mess that the conservative SOBs have gotten us into to (time after time, btw), I think it's about time the left pulls on the reins and asserts some control on climate change law making. We don't need John Bolton making climate change policy from the right-wing closets of a dark-money think tank that isn't clear on the consequences of unfettered growth! Or climate-change!

AGW is just about as close to fact as the speed of light is constant. To be a climate change denier is tempting faith.

Dim-bulb right-wingers will be the death of free men.

BTW: Happy New Year everybody.

Howhot
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
Mikey.
My two experiments are described in previous posts.
It will measure the heat captured by CO2 in a dry atmosphere to quantify its effect with out any interference from water vapor.
The method is to compare the historical differences between daily high and low temperatures over deserts, including Antarctica.
If CO2 has any effect, a decreasing difference should correlate with increasing CO2.

@R2, experiments to quantify CO2's effectiveness as a global warming agent have been around since the early 1900's. You might find this an interesting read; "The Discovery of Global Warming"

http://www.aip.or.../co2.htm

When physics is against you, you know you have troubles.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
ryggesogn2 doesn't get it, naive design
It will measure the heat captured by CO2 in a dry atmosphere to quantify its effect with out any interference from water vapor.
These sorts of tests have ALREADY BEEN DONE & reported, simple experiments very easily duplicated, why have you never prepared or subsequently critiqued unless you are 'off with the fairies' undertaking guesses without ANY basic Research first ?

ryggesogn2 went on badly with
The method is to compare the historical differences between daily high and low temperatures over deserts, including Antarctica.
No.
This is not experiment it is mere interpretation.
A mature experimentalist would advise this is fraught with difficulty, you cannot manage the variables, if at least insolation.

ryggesogn2 blurted
If CO2 has any effect, a decreasing difference should correlate with increasing CO2.
No.
This is NOT how it's done.
Do you know difference of Arithmetic vs Geometric ?
You guess it is, SHOW the maths PLEASE ?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014
Howhot hit a nice nail very well on great head with
@R2, experiments to quantify CO2's effectiveness as a global warming agent have been around since the early 1900's. You might find this an interesting read; "The Discovery of Global Warming"
http://www.aip.or.../co2.htm
When physics is against you, you know you have troubles.
What a nice link to find, 5/5 from me & especially so as I didn't know how far back climate science has gone in respect of CO2.

Two key issues ryggesogn2 has never disputed & over the course of MANY postings given the opportunity etc he must therefore by his inability or ignoring this question must accept:-

1. KNOWN thermal properties of CO2
By extrapolation, no geometric issues with other atmosphere gases, only arithmetic.

2. Continued rise of CO2
http://woodfortrees.org/

It's unclear how much ryggesogn2 knows basic math, physics, gas laws & indeed how to design experiments aimed at being definitive !

97% CS' might already know !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2014
It still does not address first principle heat 'trapping ' by CO2.

However, CO2 is very convenient as it, as they say, is well mixed, and really only has one significant IR absorption wavelength of interest at 15 um. Other than this IR absorption band, its thermal properties are no different then N2.

The most significant gas, water vapor, is a more complex molecule with significantly more absorption bands, but is NOT well mixed and difficult to model and measure.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014
i am going to leave this for Ryggy to choke on
a quote from another thread by EyeNStein:
So you lot hadn't heard of the extra 3 watts per square meter of warming ,over the whole earth, attributable to the MEASURED recent (anthropogenic period) increase of the known greenhouse gasses?I know the global measured temperature rises are a better indicator of warming but the figures ,and causes, are disputable. So I quoted the directly calculable world heat input figure from the measured atmospheric gas concentrations. These gas sources can also be indisputably measured at the car exhaust pipe or at power station effluent.
The extra heat input to the world that 7 Billion people have caused is not a political opinion, or a left wing agenda. It is apparent to anyone who will listen and think.

argue with THAT

@Mike_Massen
Ryggy argues with politics because he does not understand physics. he MIGHT understand some basic science (ie: no flat earth), but that is about it.

@Howhot
NICE
Mike_Massen
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
ryggesogn2 obviously hasn't researched
It still does not address first principle heat 'trapping ' by CO2.
No.
CO2 absorbs & RE-radiates !
If CO2 weren't present then heat escapes, CO2 IS present it absorbs & heat is RE-radiated, obviously some goes back in direction of Earth & *not* to space - get it !

ryggesogn2 mumbled further
However, CO2 is very convenient as it, as they say, is well mixed, and really only has one significant IR absorption wavelength of interest at 15 um..
No.
You *MISS* the fact it RE-radiates back to Earth *AS WELL* !

ryggesogn2 mumbled again
The most significant gas, water vapor, is a more complex molecule with significantly more absorption bands, but is NOT well mixed & difficult to model and measure.
Mentioned before it returns via easy & often precipitation, CO2 & especially at higher latitudes doesn't, it RE-radiates & heat comes back to Earth, PLEASE !

Obviously, more CO2 = more RE-radiation back, so higher CO2 = more warming, SIMPLE!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014
Mann's hokey stick was created as cover for the MWP.
If warming the global warming spike occurred without high levels of CO2 in the past, how can any current warming be explained only with CO2?
As noted earlier, AGWites are using the Kuhnian method of science. They have latched on to human produced CO2 as the cause and have gone down many rat holes to 'prove' it because it is convenient politically (for the enviro-socialsits) and because CO2 is easy to measure and model.
If the Popperian method of science were followed, scientists would be rewarded for demonstrating alternatives to CO2 instead of being punished by the community.

As for heat radiating from earth, there are significant broad atmospheric windows for heat to radiate into space.
And, once again, if CO2 is soo significant, then it would be very easy to measure the heat trapped over deserts at night with decreasing daily delta high/low temperatures.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2014
The other telling sign of the CO2 hoax is the opposition to nuclear power.
Nuclear power is the only significant power source ready, NOW, to decease that dreaded CO2, but the watermelons are opposed and prefer to increase state power to control and limit economic growth and prosperity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2014
Ryg-gurgitator spews:
If the Popperian method of science were followed, scientists would be rewarded for demonstrating alternatives to CO2

what makes you think that no one is working on anything else?
Maybe there is nothing to show

if CO2 is soo significant, then it would be very easy to measure...

see EyeNStein quote:
So you lot hadn't heard of the extra 3 watts per square meter of warming ,over the whole earth, attributable to the MEASURED recent (anthropogenic period) increase of the known greenhouse gasses?I know the global measured temperature rises are a better indicator of warming but the figures ,and causes, are disputable. So I quoted the directly calculable world heat input figure from the measured atmospheric gas concentrations. These gas sources can also be indisputably measured at the car exhaust pipe or at power station effluent.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2014
Ryg-gurgitator sputters
The other telling sign of the CO2 hoax is the opposition to nuclear power.

you make this assumption based on what?
I dont mind nuke power at all.

I especially LOVE that last part of the EyeNStein quote:
The extra heat input to the world that 7 Billion people have caused is not a political opinion, or a left wing agenda. It is apparent to anyone who will listen and think.


Ryggy continues to puke up
to decease that dreaded CO2

http://dictionary...nce.com/
I hope that helps

but the watermelons are opposed and prefer to increase state power to control and limit economic growth and prosperity

OR maybe said "watermelons" are concerned about the ability of our species to continue to exist, and therefore are attempting to save it? Now THAT would definitely support growth and prosperity...

I know what you are going to say...BUT
I am offerering an alternative
I am not supporting anything EXCEPT the science
but you cant understand it!
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014
If warming the global warming spike occurred without high levels of CO2 in the past, how can any current warming be explained only with CO2?

Ryg,
I'm not 100% sure, but I think all they are saying it is a major contributor, among a variety of contributors - that we have a modicum of control over.
Fine. There may be a measure of panic to it, but no more than yours over the perceived loss of individual freedoms. However, those "freedoms" must be taken in context to the perceived situation (by a majority of humans, scientists and not).
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Jan 03, 2014


If warming the global warming spike occurred without high levels of CO2 in the past, how can any current warming be explained only with CO2?

I'm not 100% sure…


I am……
ryggy, my dear boy/girl..

Err - ever heard of ALBEDO..???????????

SO, SO, Elementary.

The planet then would have a much larger fraction of Solar SW reflected - and SO, in order to maintain a warm temperature, a LARGER proportion of GHG was needed to retain a SMALLER quantity of Solar energy. COMPREDE????????
Well obviously NOT but I'll keep flogging a dead horse.
Do TRY to keep up.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2014
Err - ever heard of ALBEDO.

What about it?
Where is the albedo data for the MWP?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2014
"For many U.K. residents, winter is getting a lot colder.

In Newcastle-upon-Tyne in northeast England, 43-year-old single mother of three Gemma (she did not want to provide her last name) can barely afford her utility bills.

"I find myself not eating at all just to keep the heating on," she said. Like many who live in one of the country's millions of unimproved houses, Gemma's gas heating is metered. So is her electricity. She pays for heat and light a pound coin at a time. She receives state benefits. At one point, she was £1,000 ($1,630) in debt to her energy supplier."
" Last year, more than 30,000 winter deaths were thought to be caused by fuel poverty, up by a third from the previous year, according to the Office for National Statistics. "
http://www.eenews...59992359
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
ryggesogn2 is so lazy with
"For many U.K. residents, winter is getting a lot colder..
Didn't U research "Atlantic Conveyor" - the massive ocean current distributing heat from equatorial regions to east coast of USA & towards UK etc ?

Why is ryggesogn2 trying to look like an ignorant angry old man that can't think well ?

Why is ryggesogn2 going to some trouble to pretend he is un-intelligent & incapable of understanding combinatorial issues ?

ryggesogn2 goes on with more idiocy
1..broad atmospheric windows..
2..heat trapped over deserts at night..
1. Which "windows" don't have any CO2 ?
2. Why might heat be "trapped" at *any* altitudes over deserts ?

ryggesogn2 desperately needs to understand:- http://en.wikiped...i/Albedo

& Differential calculus
& Integration
& How to craft an experiment aimed for a definitive outcome
& To try not to look stupid spouting propaganda
& How to communicate in scientific language so HE can progress, save time & bandwidth

Science ?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
Clearly ryggesogn2 needs help - if at least to write down straightforward combinatorial logic - which seems so complex for him, thus HE can gain an education so he won't keep wasting (all our) time with flakey propaganda & MIGHT actually gain an understanding with 'some' eventual wisdom.
This should also to apply to MR166 & others who make dumb claims as a blurt with no reference !

So please avail yourselves of sites such as this linked below *and* the reference quoted by Jones and Mann (2004) on that page as a starting point.

http://www.realcl...iod-mwp/

It would be great if you would enroll at a university in climate physics or if at least to gain easy access to all the peer reviewed journals & student generated literature reviews which ALREADY cover the critiques you have mumbled about here.

Sad it shows ryggesogn2 has NOT researched or read up on many to either save his time or our bandwidth.

Please be smart - for a change !
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
Is anyone at all doing the numbers on the fact that we have a HUGELY larger number of data collection points than we did some years ago?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
Err - ever heard of ALBEDO.

Where is the albedo data for the MWP?


Why is it not possible for deniers to twig that you can't lump all warming events down to one cause (or at least not CO2) or make em all global.
"Despite clear evidence for a MWP warmer than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that max MWP warmth was restricted to 2-3, 20–30 yr intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20 th cent warm time interval. Failure to substantiate hemispheric warmth greater than the present consistently occurs in composites because there are significant offsets in timing of warmth in different regions; ignoring these offsets can lead to serious errors concerning inferences about the magnitude of the MWP and its interpretation of late 20th cent warming.
http://www.bioone...-29.1.51
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
Further on the MWP myth.......

http://www.youtub...index=44
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
...barely afford her utility bills

A quote from someone struggling with normal weather conflated into a scientific fact of denial via inferred financial consequences.
How many deaths were there before, due normal winter weather? You know, when it wasn't cherry-picked out to refute AGW.
If implying that prices are solely inflated due green subsidy, then you are mistaken.
Even if they were, it would not make the science wrong – just give your backwards logic reinforcement – because you don't like some consequences. It is worked backwards via desperate squirreling about to find bits of science you think wrong because you've read it on a blog with a cheering crowd of fan-boys egging each other on (I post on WUWT).

Are you saying the science to you is clear – really? – or that you think it's a left-wing agenda, compounded by conspiracy/greed/incompetence. Your posts on here make the answer clear to me.
http://www.bbc.co...24646527
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
ryggesogn2 goes on with more idiocy


@Mike_Massen

that pretty much sums up ALL of Ryggy's posts.

Ryggy can't DO science. that is why Ryggy resorts to arguing politics. in his/her/it's little world, there can be no answer that refutes his/her/it's logic.

this is no different than a religious fanatic. or a paranoid schizophrenic. both of which apply to Ryggy.

either that or Ryggy is attempting to set some kind of record for number of irrelevant psychotic rant/rave posts about political garbage...

i am guessing it is number two.
(kind of applies to all Ryggy's content too... number two... CRAP!)

besides, if Rygg actually admitted to understanding logic and science, he/she/it would not have an argument, and therefore would find itself being beaten by logic and science, and that is something the fragile Ryggy-ego would not handle.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
It is AGWism that is a religion to runny and his fellow socialists.

The classic sign is declaring the 'science is settled' and there can be no further discussion.

The socialist aspect is clear with the AGWite intent to use politics to push their agenda instead of factual data. Why? Because the theory and data of AGWism is too weak.

And finally, the Kuhnian process of science, blaming CO2, and using the 'peer' review process, and govt funding processes to 'prove' CO2 is the cause, is the ONLY path available to the followers of scientism.
CO2 has to be the ONLY cause of AGW because if humans were NOT the cause, the socialists, and their fellow traveler AGWites, like most who post here, cant' 'fix' it.

I can post links of PhD climate scientists who agree with me, but, of course, it doesn't matter to the AGWites since ONLY the consensus matters and NO heresy can be tolerated.

cont
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
"Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, "the problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago." "
"Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion"
""It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion," Lovelock observed. "I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.""
"about claims "the science is settled" on global warming: "One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. "
http://www.toront...n-drivel
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
"Global warming is harsh toward skeptics, heretics, and other "deniers." One of the most dangerous features of the global warming religion is its level of intimidation of the heretics, the non-believers. For example, former Vice President Al Gore called skeptics "global warming deniers." Many climatologists have been intimidated into silence, or have had calls to punish them go out."

Read more: http://www.americ...pUqXpyKj
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
"EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to 'Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic"
http://www.epw.se...2278f4cf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
"NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity." Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics in 2007, declaring "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors" In 2009, RFK, Jr. also called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and declared CEO's 'should be in jail… for all of eternity."

In June 2009, former Clinton Administration official Joe Romm defended a comment on his Climate Progress website warning skeptics would be strangled in their beds. "An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds," stated the remarks, which Romm defended by calling them "not a threat, but a prediction." "
http://www.climat...hem-now/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2014
"A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.

Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn't believe in man-made global warming. "
"Climate change is all about cycles, it's a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer."
http://www.expres...e-change
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
ryggesogn2 claimed
I can post links of PhD climate scientists who agree with me,..
PLEASE do & WHY (the f..k) have you not done it already - pray tell ?

So where is your Science, your Mathematics, your analysis of Experimental Method of your 'idea' if at least to pre-empt any negative critique ?

Please ryggesogn2 SCIENCE...

Not politcal rants that go some length to suggesting you can't do Science, can't listen and ar actually some sort of experimental Bot ...

http://niche.ii.net/AGW

Where is the Science furthering your hypotheses & how do you manage the variables, thought about doing a laboratory based trial to get the foundations sorted - as so many other climate scientists have already done.

Its easy, enroll in a university or technical college, get lab experience, do the experiment - ok ?
rdpurdom
1 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2014
Please give me one huge break! $558 million dollars? Just over half a billion dollars? I can point to a dozen programs foisted upon the American public with THEIR MONEY that have spent multiple times this amount each year of the Obama administration!
This entire "global warming" cult is nothing short of the NEW Nazi Progressive's interpretation of the Third Reich!
Any one that believes this crap is a total rube and needs to be put in a rubber room or they are are actively trying to destroy the western civilization. I put this President in the second catagory
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2014
rdpurdom comes across as an un-educated idiot of the worst kind with
Any one that believes this crap is a total rube and needs to be put in a rubber room or they are are actively trying to destroy the western civilization..
There are two issues re Global Warming that are not in dispute:-

1. The well known thermal properties of CO2 & easy to confirm by experiment

AND

2. The increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
As shown here which deniers use: http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

The Science is well known & the combination of the above two items.

What is not articulated by any denier is just WHY there should NOT be warming given the conditions accepted & not in dispute !

So rdpurdom, rather than stupid rants about rubber rooms - why not show us how well educated you are & focus on the science, apply a little intelligence too & arrive at a hypothesis which offers a counter to invalidate the two facts above...

Can you understand that simplicity rdpurdom ?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
ryggesogn2 desperately needs to understand:- http://en.wikiped...i/Albedo

& Differential calculus
& Integration
& How to craft an experiment aimed for a definitive outcome
& To try not to look stupid spouting propaganda
& How to communicate in scientific language so HE can progress, save time & bandwidth

Science ?

My GOODNESS Mike_Massen
he barely understands ENGLISH...this would burn his little pea brain out!

ryggesogn2 claimed
I can post links of PhD climate scientists who agree with me,..

Im with MM on this one... besides, I think you mean Psychiatrists... and they agree that you have ISSUES... not about climate science.

Not politcal rants that go some length to suggesting you can't do Science

@MM
Rygg CANT do science
all he has is his paranoia
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
Please give me one huge break! $558 million dollars? Just over half a billion dollars? I can point to a dozen programs foisted upon the American public with THEIR MONEY that have spent multiple times this amount each year of the Obama administration!
This entire "global warming" cult is nothing short of the NEW Nazi Progressive's interpretation of the Third Reich!
Any one that believes this crap is a total rube and needs to be put in a rubber room or they are are actively trying to destroy the western civilization. I put this President in the second catagory


holey underwear!
either Ryggy has been cloned
or they are all gettign their information at the same training seminar!
they are all sounding alike now!

So rdpurdom, rather than stupid rants about rubber rooms - why not show us how well educated you are & focus on the science, apply a little intelligence too & arrive at a hypothesis which offers a counter to invalidate the two facts above


I TOTALLY AGREE!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2014
This entire "global warming" cult is nothing short of the NEW Nazi Progressive's interpretation of the Third Reich!

Does this mean it's time to invoke "Godwin's Law"?
goracle
3 / 5 (2) Jan 12, 2014
Documentary 'Silence of the Labs' http://www.cbc.ca/fifth