It is nice to know all those complex graphs and data can be compressed to one conclusion: Global Warming is a myth.

Simple conclusions are obviously perfect for simple things like the entire earth's ecosystem or right wing brains.

GALT LIVES!

Actually, on first blush this cuts both ways. We have several models that all trend the same way, and one set of data points that points the other way. Is there really something seriously wrong with every model, or do we have bad (or misinterpreted) data? I would feel a lot better if there were several other measurements that agreed with the ERBE. In any event, I'll use this in my summer physical science course when we hit Earth science (and argue both sides :)

Is that the same Richard Lindzen who gets funding from oil companies to "disprove" climate change?

Why yes, I think it is.

And is it not any other than RealClimate that for its part gets funding from nutcase and Leftie crank George Soros, the same guy who wants the banning of all guns and the socialization of the economy?

Why yes, I think it is.

Pig,

Up your game my man. Pay attention. Learn some science.

No one said Global Warming wasn't happening.

What is presented here is evidence that the models have made assumptions that do not conform to the data and so the climate's sensitivity to increased heat input may be less than the models show.

If this is verified the models will need to be changed.

We should start verification at once before enacting a devastating carbon tax. We should not be fixing problems that don't need to be fixed. There are hungry children in the world without access to clean water.

Wakefield:

Why you clever pedant! It's almost as if you're trying to imply that climate change research originates with RealClimate.org rather than the UN IPCC where it actually does!

Oh, what a nice argument you would have, if only it was true!

GALT LIVES!

M. Simon

As I stated, Richard Lindzen is an oil industry hack who openly gets funding from oil companies.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Richard+Lindzen+oil+company+hack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You're going to have to up your game, and convince him to stop taking $$$ from the oil companies, to convince anybody other than right-wing failure-worshippers to believe you.

Further, you state a carbon tax would be "devastating". I tried to google that and found that devastating is merely the scare word du jour for the climate change deniers.

Up your game, indeed. You can do better than repeating tired old blast-fax Talking Points.

GALT LIVES!

LiBPigs - are you contending that the data as presented is false? Or are you merely trying to smear the messenger since the message does not comport with the orthodoxy of your religion?

Lipstick piggy:

The "UN IPCC where it actually does"?

Are you saying thusly that the UN has no political agenda in the massive requisite transfer of wealth from the first world nations to the third, then?

You cheeky little monkey.

RealClimate undergirds and makes up its own crap in order to bolster the IPCC, where yes, most of the horsecrap comes from. Yeah.

But then, who said funding is not necessary to smear that crap around, eh?

Pointing to a feed chain that ultimately points to the UN (an organization that has suffered from horrid and grievous human rights oversights and dozens of scandals and the outright coddling of failed socialist and barberous states) hardly makes your point. Or theirs, come to think of it.

M. Simon

As I stated, Richard Lindzen is an oil industry hack who openly gets funding from oil companies.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Richard+Lindzen+oil+company+hack&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You're going to have to up your game, and convince him to stop taking $$$ from the oil companies, to convince anybody other than right-wing failure-worshippers to believe you.

Further, you state a carbon tax would be "devastating". I tried to google that and found that devastating is merely the scare word du jour for the climate change deniers.

Up your game, indeed. You can do better than repeating tired old blast-fax Talking Points.

GALT LIVES!

"who openly gets funding from oil companies"

"Openly"? Sounds rather, I don't know, 'transparent' and all that. Which is supposed to be a good thing, right?

Wakefield:

Are you saying the UN IPCC does have an agenda?

Go ahead and prove it. I find your evidence-free assertions pretty funny, but not too convincing.

GALT LIVES!

Pig,

So what? Is he right or wrong? A serious rebuttal my man.

But if you want to go down that route: What about all the warmists on the government dole?

And what about James "Auschwitz Trains" Hansen?

Guys working for Bell Telephone invented the transistor. Does that mean transistors don't work because they were invented by TPC - The Phone Company?

Does that mean we shouldn't use the work Stienmetz did on fundamental electrical problems because he was funded by the electrical industry?

BTW did you know Oil Companies funded Hansen? Enron to be exact:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/10/more-enron-and-carbon-trading-hansen.html

There was also a previous article lined in that piece.

Actually, LiBPigs I have a proposal: you name a simon-pure stream of funding for some project you favor, and in return I shall do some research and deliver supercilious snark of the sort you seem to relish. Sounds great, and will really elevate the conversation, eh?

How about that data set; pretty interesting slope to that line, no?

JSinAZ:

Yes, you make a good point. The fact that he openly collects money from the oil companies makes him a "transparent" liar.

GALT LIVES!

So, the data as presented is false? I'd like to see your analysis, it would be useful.

M. Simon:

You want to know if he is right or wrong?

This would entail me analyzing the data he presents, comparing it to the IPCC data, and then figureing out if he is right or not.

It takes a special kind of genius to think that I could, or would, waste the many hours on that project that it would take to do.

However, I did have time to figure out that your source was a paid hack for the oil companies. If you want further research than that from me, you'll have to pay me. After all, I'm a GALTIAN!

GALT LIVES!

I'd like to see your analysis of the data that proves this lie, it would be useful.

Pig,

So you are no "special kind of genius". That seems to fit.

JSinAZ:

Pay me for the work involved in figuring it out, and I'll do it. The last time I did mathematical consulting (a financial model based on Hermitian Matrices for a Wall Street client) I was paid $650/hour.

If you want my contact information I can provide it to you. I estimate this project would be about 7 hours, so the price would be $4550 plus expenses.

GALT LIVES!

LiBPigs - cool, I can seen where you're coming from.

Sorry to chum the waters for bottom feeders, Mr. Simon - although I would contend that the final spew from LiBPigs was useful in that 1) it is no longer necessary for me to read LiBPigs 2) this actually was a wonderful envivo demonstration of a reaction to a threat to a religious othodoxy.

LiBPigs, is at its core a religious thing. It believes in things it has been told in emotive, fulfilling terms by his priest (exemplified by the imposing Mr Gore).

In turn, it is motivated by the zeal of the righteous to do what it can for the cause. In its case, since the horsepower of its reasoning centers are not up to the task, it is not able to muster a Kantian (or even Pascalian!) defense of orthodoxy in the face of the reasoning heathen.

Instead, it appeals to its religious dogma - which for it fails, since it is written in a language it does not understand, and the new Palmers that are writing translations are Heretics.

It must inadequate to the task, assuming it can feel existential pain. But reason it shall not, nor be deterred in its faith in the revealed Truth that is the IPCC Report.

JSinAZ:

You sound like one of those elitists so hated by the right wing! But don't worry, I'll help you out. You're just flailing away with a bunch of fancy-book-larnin' words that you think prove something.

In actuality, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about!

See, you can keep your membership in the Know-Nothings, AKA Republicans. I know there were some of them who were getting ready to to after you for what appeared to be a demonstration of having gone to one of those lib colleges.

GALT LIVES!

...and a voice on the breeze that sounds like a fart says "republican"... and I say back to the broken wind "never been one, buttbreath".

The United Nations has always been a hothouse for agendas and bitch sessions from the Third World wondering why they're not more productive all the while slamming capitalism and damning the productive, Mr. Piggy.

And yes, enviro-crap is its own form of religiousity and her high priests of Gaia are making pronouncements on Western Man's sin as we speak. Thusly it is more sinful to fly in a jet (unless you're Al Gore or a member of the Bambi administration) than to visit a whore.

You know that as well as I do.

Here comes the moment we'll have to re-invent the wheel.

On second thought, it appears that Piggy is a gag. He/She is plopped into place here to egg people on.

But just to cover the bases...

http://statismwatch.ca/2009/03/27/un-climate-change-plan-would-likely-shift-trillions-to-form-new-world-economy/

http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2009/04/happy-birthday-earth-day.html

Look, Lib. It's really simple. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax. It has been from day one.

Thirty years ago, human activity (specifically pollution) was going to trigger an ice age, and the only thing that could save us was the dismantling of the industrial world. One of the main purveyors of that theory? James Hansen.

Now we are told that human activity (specifically the output of CO2 from combustion) is causing global warming. Again, the only thing that can save us is the dismantling of the industrial world. Again, among the leading purveyors of this view is James Hansen.

However, there's a gigantic hole in the greenhouse theory. For the past ten years, atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing pretty much linearly. Global mean temperature has been steady or dropping. When measured results fail to meet prediction, it is an indication of one of two things - bad measurement or bad theory.

Since we have independent data sources that confirm the temperature is not rising, that leaves one conclusion: The greenhouse theory is either incomplete or inoperative.

There is no amount of name calling, no amount of straw-man flaying, no amount of finger-pointing that you can do that will change the fundamental fact of science.

When your theory has been falsified, it is time for a new theory.

Wakefield:

You state the UN has "always been a hothouse for agendas and bitch sessions from the Third World" as if it is a fact.

I'll give you one thing - you make assertions with no support as well as anybody! That is quite an achievement. If you keep working on it, you might win this year's "Best Evidence-Free Argument" award from the Republicans. But you're facing stiff competition, as Rush usually wins, but they made a new category for him: "Most Lies By A Drug Addict Radio Host", so maybe you can win.

Your links, to two sites that are just DNS aliases for conspiracy_theories.com, don't count as evidence, BTW.

GALT LIVES!

brian:

It looks like you are vying with Wakefield for this year's "Best Evidence-Free Argument" award from the Republicans. Good luck!

Here are some other assertions you can make. I'm doing this to help you in your fight to win the award over Wakefield, as he has a head start on you. Try these winners - the award committee are suckers for these!

"Obama is a socialist!"
"Obama's birth certificate is fake!"
"The DHS was fine until Jan 20 2009, but now it is part of the jackbooted black-helicopter evil empire!"
"Obama is a blackity-black black negro!"

GALT LIVES!

Pig,

Not only does Galt Live!

He has been cloned 100 million times.

Obama is a blackity-black black negro!

That is easy. According to Obama himself he is a mulatto.

Simon - nice troll you've got here.

He's done the same as every encephalic liberal I've had the displeasure of arguing with over the past couple decades: created an elaborate straw-brian of his own design and then smashed it to bits.

Too bad it's got no connection to reality.

I mean, he hit all the Al Franken talking points in a single post:

Republicans are stupid, Republicans are racist, Republicans will believe anything as long as it's negative.

I was wondering what would happen to the BDS-infected left after Bush went back to Texas. Apparently they decided that they would just spread the hate around and go after anyone to their political right.

The amazing thing about America is that it's still a successful nation even though 52% of its population is functionally retarded.

:s/encephalic/acephalic

PIMF. Should never post before coffee.

I'm quite sure the UN will be stunned that they've not been actively enganged with Sorosian plans for carbon taxation now being discussed by the new Bambi administration.

I'm piggy's news will also come as a real shocker to the economists who've taken the time to analyze in detail the deleterious effects of all this on the 1st world while the 3rd gets not only a free pass, but a nice load of bounty as well.

But then I doubt that matters to this new "GALT" advocacy.

And speaking of alias, pigman, the last web link, btw, was my own, on the history of environmentalism as a religion and faith unto itself, with input from both scientists and philosophers. You might find it interesting if you try really hard and look at all those wordy-words.

brian:

I see you've switched from trying for the "Best Evidence-Free Argument" award to the "Best Ad Hominem Attack" award from the Republicans.

Unfortunately, you have stiff, stiff competition for this one. I can't help you.

GALT LIVES!

Wakefield:

Tsk tsk! You're equating environmentalism with religion.

The growth of environmentalism arose with the discovery of more and more damage to the earth from man, among other things. Environmentalism uses evidence to change human behavior.

On the other hand, religion rejects evidence in favor of faith. Kind of a direct opposite to environmentalism!

I guess you're working on another award from the Republicans now: "Best Completely Bat-Shit Crazy Argument". But like brian above trying for the "Best Ad Hominem Attack" award, you've got tremendous competition for it.

GALT LIVES!

Wakefield:

Just a question for you, since it seems you have, like, a direct tap into the nefarious Soros conspiracy that threatens to devour the whole capitalistic world.

Is Soros is the reincarnation of Lenin or of Marx?

Your answer would be very helpful in figuring out why the world will end in 2012, why California will fall into the ocean, and why nobody knows about the Hollow Earth green meanies.

GALT LIVES!

I'd like to see your analysis of the data that proves AGW is lie, it would be useful.

Now we are told that human activity (specifically the output of CO2 from combustion) is causing global warming. Again, the only thing that can save us is the dismantling of the industrial world.

This statement is a bald-faced lie: no one is proposing "dismantling the industrial world;" there are, however, plenty of proposals to use cleaner technologies and alternative energy sources, and for more conservation and more efficient energy use.

Your manufactured hysteria about "dismantling the industrial world" proves how totally unhinged, and unable to get a grip, you chickenshit libertards really are. Ayers was gonna kill 25 million people and Al Gore wants to dismantle the entire industrialized world? I've heard more credible bollocks from Lyndon LaRouche!

Rage,

And you don't think replacing 10¢ a Kwh continuous supply electricity with 30¢ a Kwh intermittent supply electricity will have a bad effect on the industrial world?

Of course not. You are incapable of running the numbers.

You take the money cost of ONE proposed action, out of more than I can count, and equate that with the complete dismantling of the industrial world?

Of course you do. You are incapable of contemplating change without abject hysteria.

Piggy:

Yes, I equate the more virulent forms of enviro-speak and alleged "science" in the government interest with religion. Because that's what it is after you boil away all their fluff and gush and mush.

And the science they claim is not the settled part: the POLITICS is. But that's another beast to tangle with.

If you actually bothered to read the quotes--and this goes for "raging bee" as well--you'd see the advocacy of yes, practically dismantling human industry at least down to the college town bohemian level. I took the quotes from the nutcases and advocates of virtual human extinction themselves.

If that (their anti-human animus and attitude as man being a cancer on nature) does not qualify as their advocacy--then what does?????

And if they use the fallback position that this is merely hyperbole to scare people, why should we take their other statements seriously???

So far it appears their lies are only multiplying. So they know multiplication and politics and the power of soft money donations from big hats: And that's about as scientific as their enviro-wackiness gets.

As to "The DHS was fine until Jan 20 2009, but now it is part of the jackbooted black-helicopter evil empire!"

1) Good to have Al Franken and Mike Milloy in the house to join us here today.

2) The problem here is not surveillence per se or black copters and men in dark glasses, you mollusk, but the fact that this hippo in earrings named Janet II (the first one was the Duchess of Waco) Napolitano can get her poor noggin around certain issues.

Among them, terror is not the same as a "man-caused" disaster. The latter ranging from spilled tomato sauce on a white shirt to accidentally messing up the spillway on a dam.

To this end, she claimed in several interviews she can't know for certain whether home grown terror from returning vets and right wing groups is the more serious threat next to things in recent history that actually happen--like the burning of mutilation of thousands of human beings on 911. Then she says illegal immigration (RE: MIGRATION of those who don't belong here) is a wonderful thing after all and not illegal after all. (false on both counts), and that now the grim task of feeding, housing, clothing, and medicating upwards of perhaps 30-50 human beings extra in the US who are not even citizens is just dandy in an age when the enviro-freakies are muttering about how the resource level thus far is...."like um, dude, UN-sustainable". But now, suddenly, it's SUSTAINABLE to do what she and Bambi are suggesting.

Poor thing. Decisions, decisions. Life is tough, I know. But Janet is incompetent to the tougher tasks.

She needs to be, like abortion rights advocates claim they are, safe, legal, rare, and I'll add UNEMPLOYED.
______________________________________

Lastly, would you two chuckleheads like a mint?

I took the quotes from the nutcases and advocates of virtual human extinction themselves.

Any evidence to indicate that the people you just admitted were "nutcases" are in any way representative of the overwhelming majority of environmentalists? Of course not. You know damn well most environmentalists don't support "dismantling the industrial world," yet you take a few quotes from a few irrelevant nutjobs and pretend they represent the rest of us, because that's the only way you can justify your blind, mindless hatred of the environmental movement.

These are the FOUNDERS--the Founding Fathers, if you please (ugg) of that movement. From the Alpha to the Omega, woman.

They are not "irrelevent" except perhaps in their pathetic personal lives of hatred and envy of production and individualism, yes.

In philosophy and politics? Unfortunatley not so irrelevent...

And EVEN IF they are not representative of the whole movement, they don't have to be--they merely need to guide the movement. Stephen Schneider and many of the others are still active--and HONORED for their works and prescriptions and advice--to this very day. Even if some feel they are slightly "overboard" in the attitude department.

And their opinions are promulgated and shared by more than a few other nuts. Yes, they are nuts, but the problems is that nuts can and will have wide influence in politics from time to time.

And even IF they are largely unsuccessful, or rebuffed and rebuked at some point politically, the damage they can and probably will due in the mean time with their horrid distortions going all the way back to liars or just misinformed people like Haekel and Rachel Carson, could be incalculable. The banning of DDT comes to mind, based on long-debuned "studies" and anectodes, that in any case the banning of which led to MILLIONS of dead human beings in "skeeter" infested hellholes all over the planet. That is but just one example. In more recent times we have the Carbon Demons, supposedly making a Laodicean Hellfire out of the planet though the planet has cooled in the last decades, and in any case humans are tropical beings.

Cold and chill are the enemies of health and food production, not warmth and moisture (nature has feedback mechanisms that handle this, and a slightly warmer world with more Co2 would enhance food production).

Lastly, there is something my dear Granny used to say. A term called "Distinction without a difference."

The restrictions and carbon spit swapping now gearing up to slap taxes on industry will in turn tax all of us. That's how the "ad valorum" styled taxes get tacked on in stealth to products and services from industries. And that, even if not outright destroying industries per se, will severly limit productive effort, increase costs, reduce tax revenue in the long run without massive European styled hikes to boot, as well as discourage investments. Recent studies by several organizations and nations including Spain and the US indicates for example, that the much bandied claim that "green jobs" will make up for the loss elsewhere is pure hooey.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2009/03/17/study_disputes_job_creation_figures_for_green_industry

____________________________

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Deception-Stealth-Assault-Americas/dp/0974670146

http://www.amazon.com/Rational-Readings-Environmental-Concerns-Lehr/dp/0471284858

Lastly, the end result so far of this "carbon offset" mess has led to some gruesome crimes--though one must say at least the natives are suffering together with yet one more white man's bane due to the atonement and indulgences:

http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-was-wondering-when-id-hear-about-or.html

No one said Global Warming wasn't happening.

Ok, I will: global warming isn't happening.

You know damn well most environmentalists don't support "dismantling the industrial world,"

That may be what they say, but they espouse policies that will accomplish exactly that. Since I believe that people intend the side-effects of their policy preferences, I'll believe their policies over their disclaimers every day of the week.

Since I believe that people intend the side-effects of their policy preferences...

This belief is a sure sign of paranoid delusion and conspiracy-mongering: the belief that whatever we see happening was exactly what was intended by the all-powerful conspiracy allegedly manipulating human events behind the scenes. It's also a sure sign that your hatred of the environmental movement is based on insanity and probably bigotry as well.

Seriously, you folks are as ignorant, hateful, irresponsible, childish and deluded as the Birfers. Yet another bunch of reactionaries in retrest from reality, and making themselves yet another crusty spoodge-stain on the "libertarian" label.

Rage,

I suppose the alternative is that they are too stupid to figure out the side effects of their policies. But you are smart enough to figure it out and still support them. Excellent!

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/06/taxes_send_jobs.html