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

Conspiracy!

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.

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.

Haha cantdrive, that's a good one :)

I wonder how Watt's and company will spin this one.

""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?

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

"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.

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.

Who knew there was an insidious relationship between science - money - politics?

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

What a surprise!
When challenged the 'liberal' responds with insults.
Typical.

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

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.

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.

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

@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.

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.

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.

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.

No corporation pays taxes, ever.
Their customers do.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

"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.

@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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

we are the ones doing this.

If we can get rytrdedmoron2 banned a few more times I doubt he can count high enough to keep reusing his username....

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?

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?

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.

The average voter is as dull as ditchwater. The scary thing is that half of you are even duller than that.

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.)

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.

Call me an optimist, but.... the mere fact that we have 2 sides for discussion is healthy.
Both economically and intellectually...

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.

monstrous profits

A few percent is 'monstrous'?

Auditing companies is the IRS' job.

Unless those companies are friends of Obama.

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/

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.

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.

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.

......

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.

@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.

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.

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."

...

"- 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."

---

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.

" 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.

"- 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."

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."

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

Peer reviewed research confirming last year's Guardian investigation that focused on Donors' Trust.

@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'.

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.

@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.

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?"

"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.

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.

This is a political article, not a scientific one.

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.

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.

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.

"- 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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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?

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

"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

"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

"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

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.

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

From Mother Jones, FEB, 2008:
"Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise. "
http://www.mother...-complex

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.

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.

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...

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.

@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.

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.

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.

Here's a few of Cook's 97 percenters:
http://wattsupwit...ed-them/
Seems like someone is cooking the books.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

It is funny how our COMPUTER SIMULATED MODELS thoroughly debunk anyone who's findings oppose the IPCC consensus.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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".

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!

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.

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?"

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.

Answer: The government funds the warmists. This is precisely why we don't trust them and why we believe they are lying.

Great news!

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

To pay bloggers? Dang, there must be a helluva lot of 'em.

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?

...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...

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?

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?

"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

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?

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...

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.

"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!!

"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?

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.

"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

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

"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

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?

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

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.

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/

Similarly the truth of AGW is predictable.

Like the predictions of Marxism, AGW predictions have failed.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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

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'.

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/

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

@ 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.

"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

" 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

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.

"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

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....

'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

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.

Remember, the greatest "Liberals" of them all, the Socialists have been directly responsible for over 100 Million deaths in their purges.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I wonder how much the frictional comments and hot air on this article alone have raised the global temps...

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

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?

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

"... 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]

"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

"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 ).

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

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 !

"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.

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?

Eugenics was once consensus 'science'.

Bull
Fricken
Crap!

You're normally just stupid. Now you're insultingly stupid. You don't have a clue.

Truth hurts, Maggie?

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.

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 )

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.

Maggnus - Originally Mark Twain, I believe.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Ah Magnus - Your defense of the indefensable is hilarious.

Just stick to name-calling, it's what you do best.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

"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.

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.

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'.

"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.

"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/

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

"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

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/

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.

Yep, Proto prefers a totalitarian socialist state.

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.

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.

"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/

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.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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

Werner Von Braun said what made Apollo fly was money. Something Proto wants to eliminate.

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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

" 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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

@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...

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 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...

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

@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.

Do any articles here ever consider multiple hypotheses for the causes of global warming?

@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.

"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.

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.

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.

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,...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

"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.

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..."

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...

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.

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.

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

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/

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.

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...

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.

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"

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.

@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."

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.

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.

@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?

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?

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?

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 !

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.

[...]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.

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

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

"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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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....

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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....

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?

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.

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.

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...

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 :)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Heehee. A seven day posting so far. I guess we all know phys.org's agenda -- and the desperation of their cause.

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.

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.

,... 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.

"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

"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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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, ....

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?

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?

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....

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.

@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.

@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.

@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!

@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

"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.

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.

434 posts as I type in this thread.

And 113 from a certain ryygesogn2.

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.

.... 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.

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.

,... 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.

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

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.

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).

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.

,... 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.

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?

.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.

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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: "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?

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

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

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".

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.

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.

"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.....