This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
I Lose a Bet, Start an Argument
Back on November 17, 2011 I penned a piece in response to Fed Governor Bullard's assertions regarding the collapse of MF Global. Bullard thought there was no lasting consequences to that blow-out: .
.
.
At the time, I thought that Bullard was full of crap, and that there would be significant consequences to the collapse of MFG. My words:
Okay, Mr. Bullard I'll make you a wager. A six pack of your favorite beer. Give the MFG story another month and it will be a problem. It will undermine markets. It will impact confidence in our financial system. It will impact liquidity. As those things will occur it will force both the Treasury and the Fed to take actions.
I was wrong, Mr. B was right. There were no consequences to the MFG disaster. No heads rolled. No one went to jail. There were no lasting economic consequences. There were were no regulatory changes. The MFG affair was buried. Bullard never accepted my bet, but I still feel I owe him. If he reads this and sends me a note I will forward his beer. He deserves it. He won. Unfortunately, we all "lost" as a result. Today we have yet another MFG in our laps. Perigrine Financial has followed the exact same path as MFG. The PFG bankers looted customer accounts.
.
.
I lost a bet for $12 worth of beer. Customers at Peregrine have lost $220m (so far). I can’t help wondering what would have happened had won the bet. If there had been hell to pay regarding the MFG affair, things might have turned out differently for Peregrine’s customer. But there was no market reaction, the CFTC ignored the signs, the SEC never lifted a finger. Nothing changed, so history has repeated itself.
Perigrine customers, looking at a loss today, might be warming up lawsuits against Bart Chilton and the CFTC. He clearly fell down on the job. I think he should be fired on the spot. Fed Governor Bullard is not responsible for the failure of Peregrine (or MFG), but his dismissing attitude is:
This is no big deal, it will blow over”
To that extent, he shares in the blame.
.
. .
+++
.
The markets are boring, so let's talk about global warming
.
I have absolutely no credentials or expertise to discuss matters related to climate change. I’ll do it anyway. I follow this topic and read what I can. In my opinion:
I) - Climate change is happening on a global scale. The evidence that this occurring is conclusive.
II) - I don’t know if humans are contributing to the rapid change, but I suspect they are.
III) - Even if there were conclusive evidence that human activity was contributing to global warming, I’m not at all sure that there is anything that can be done about it.
Consider these before and after pictures from NASA. These are images of the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska.
.
May 13, 2012
..
One month later
.
Okay, so some ice melted. Is that a big deal? The folks at NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) think it is:
Sea ice retreat in June is typical, but the first half of June 2012 brought unusually rapid ice loss.
How unusual?
On June 19, 2012, NSIDC reported: “Recent ice loss rates have been 100,000 to 150,000 square kilometers per day, which is more than double the climatological rate.”
Double the rate? How much ice is melting every day in the Beauford Sea? About the size of the state of Illinois – big!
As of June 18, temperatures were above freezing over much of the sea ice in the Arctic, and snow had melted earlier than normal, leading to warming on land.
June 18? It has been hot as hell over the globe since then. This year’s arctic ice melt will set a record.
The rapid melt north of Alaska was part of a larger phenomenon. Sea ice across the entire Arctic reached record-low levels for this time of year. It was also lower than the extent in June 2007; Arctic sea ice reached its lowest extent ever recorded by satellite in September 2007.
This is not a record that we want to set. Now consider this number:
20,900,000,000,000
.
20.9 Trillion is the number of pounds of CO2 that humans sent into the atmosphere in the last 12 months. It’s hard to relate to a number as big as that. Think seven billion Hondas. But even that is a number that is hard to fathom, as there are only a billion cars in the world today. How could we be producing 7Xs the weight of all the cars, every year?
Is there a connection to the incredible output of CO2 and the rapid ice melt that is happening all over the world? I wish I knew the answer to this question. I do know that CO2 emissions are directly tied to population growth/economic activity. The question is how rapidly CO2 output will rise:
.
.
Any thoughts?
.
.
»
- advertisements -
Satellite data... they can measure global tropospheric temperatures to .001 of a degree now... great idea!
Lets' see what they are telling us...
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=global+temperature+uah+rss+2012&hl=en&biw=...
Looks to me we just passed "peak warming" for this cycle.
Great link, thanks.
only trace (0.039%) on Earth
thats the number, .039% of the atmosphere isn CO2
and we make 5% of that
5% of god damn near nothing
There you go again, trying to bring things like numbers and common sense into the argument...
Yep... they confuse you...Why don;t you explain to use what fraction of the atmosphere absorbs long wave IR? And how that fraction has changed...
why don't you explain why mars is warming too, asshole? lots of anthropic CO2 there too i suppose?
bruce, you jumped the shark on this one.
Well, I am not sure if Bruce had this in mind or not. LOL! It is sort of pretty epic, really. ZH is very much about education for me, I try to keep up, but this thread is pure entertainment (and I contributed constructively).
Hopefully BK gets some add revenue share, because this thing still seems to be beaten to shit and its 12pm AK time!
With that, I am off to bed.
Regards,
Cooter
P.S. Bruce, if you are serious about global warming concerns (or general SHTF scenarios), check out South East AK. I think you will find a lot of things quite surprising if you do real homework.
oh my god what an incredibly stupid analogy and comment. It boggles my mind how stupid a percentage of people here are. You have some very smart people here mixed with some fucking retarded knuckle dragging embarrassing gold hoarding right wing hillbillies.
If you said that to my face crawdaddy I'd tear yours off.
Oh, Mars isn't also warming?
News to me!!!
Please describe why it is "warming" and by how much and for how long?
It's warming because of increased solar output.
Oh, and it's Mars, Neptune and Pluto http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/11/29/global-warming-on-mars-neptu...
And I'm not going to address you on any other topic until you address this, which you brought up, I answered, and you are ignoring http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-07-11/i-lose-bet-start-argumen...
Go fuck yourself.
Oh reallly?
Here is the satellite data for the "Total Solar Incidence"
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
Please show me where is it is trending higher (ignoring the 11 year cycle)...
Are you just much of a sucker for any bullshit that happens to confirm what you wnat to be right?
What part of "And I'm not going to address you on any other topic until you address this, which you brought up, I answered, and you are ignoring" don't you understand, fucker?
Wow....some blog is overturning 125 years of thermodynamics....
Get your buddy to publish a paper outling why the effect is bogus and he will be famous..
I don't do psueudo-science bullshit with innumerate assholes like you.. You would not even understand why your buddy is full of shit even if I took the time to spell it out...
Somebody should slip a cunt over your head and fuck some sense into you....
TROLOLOLOLO
Are you just much of a sucker for any bullshit that happens to confirm what you wnat to be right?
And exactly how can you be sure you're not falling into the same trap?
If you want an eye-opening look at the 'data' the AGW proponents routinely use, I suggest you visit surfacestations.org
www.wattsupwiththat.com is also worth checking out on this subject.
I'm no expert either, but having spent quite a few hours reading around on the matter - by both pro- and anti- AGW proponents - the only solid conclusion I came to was it's still too early to tell what's going on. The models AGW believers use are rubbish, and completely failed to foresee the hiatus in warming that has been going on for the last ~12 years.
I do know that a lot of the AGW proponents are extremely selective in their data selection... for instance, when talking about the 'dangerously high' levels of CO2, they always show this graph:
http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/images/icecoredatahistorical02.gif
and never this one:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats41378_image277.gif
Frankly, if you show the former graph to a chart technician, he'd say we're clearly in for an ice age and, if the greenhouse effect works, then we'd better produce as much CO2 as we can... 'cause if you think a +3 degree planet is a problem, wait until you see what happens in an ice age.
WTFUWT is a collection of blogosphere shills and hacks trotting out psuedo-science...
The number of times Anthony Watts has been outed as a two-faced lieing sack of shit is almost beyond count....
BTW, can you describe what the Sun was doing 300 million years ago?
I think the Vostok data is a far better reflection of the conditions under which H. Sapiens came into being and has existed...
Care to explain the hiatus in the context of El Nino and La Nina episodes?
Take a look at this, if you are really on the fence and not a faux denier...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
WTFUWT is a collection of blogosphere shills and hacks trotting out psuedo-science...
Oooh, look who knows so much! And yet they routinely call out such 'respected' figures as Michael 'Hockey Stick' Mann... you know, they sound a bit like Zerohedge, blogosphere skeptics calling out the establishment darlings/shills like Krugman.
Nice analogy! I think I'll keep that, if you don't mind.
As for Foster & Rahmstorf's paper, I'll hand you over to Frank Losner, at your favorite site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmst...
As for the Nino and Nina hiatus, I personally have no idea or even opinion. But I'm sure I could find two or more sets of scientists who do, and have opposing beliefs on the matter. Which is fine -as long as they don't want to tax the living daylights out of me on the basis of what are merely still poorly-tested hypotheses.
Well, why doesnt he publish his rebuttal?
Or could it be that
1) The analysis repeated with Sunspot data changes nothing'
2) Aerosols are a cooling effect
3) The PDO and AMO are highly correlated with ESO.... what dangers might exist using collinear varibles in a multiple regression? If they were inportant, then you could regress the residuals against the index.... since you do not improve the residuals, you can include they are not important....
So after all these Red Herrrigs where does Lansner stand? He does nothing to show the results are incorrect.... In other words, smoke and mirrors and bullshit
Here is another take
And I'm sure in due course someone will post an equally impressive rebuttal somewhere to your (unattributed) quote, probably mentioning the fact the land-based temperature series have been 'adjusted' to make the past look cooler, that the satellites in question have their instruments 'calibrated' once in space if they appear to produce readings that disagree with other (equally adjusted) data. It goes on and on an on.
I wouldn't mind so much if AGW proponents admitted that the science is still in its infancy and that temperatures changing a few tenths of a degree do not justify giving tax-funded grants to a thousand more Solyndras to reduce our carbon footprint. You want to run around like a headless chicken based on the 'science' of AGW? Feel free. Just don't expect the rest of us to get worked up about it. We're far more concerned with Fukushima-type events, mercury pollution (and yes, that really is toxic, unlike present or even foreseeable CO2 levels), the Fed, TBTF banks, the MIC, endless fucking wars, etc, etc.
AGW from C02 emissions was predicted in 1896...
C02 was shown to be a GHG in 1858 (or so)....
The Greenhouse effect was demonstrated to exist and to be consistent with science in 1969 when the first Infra-red satellite measurements were made.... (They measured the effect of C02 and H20 compared with predictions based on the measured absobtion spectra in the lab...)
I'd say that the science is pretty mature....
Well, could you describe the range of temperatures and C02 levels from the Vostok ice core going back 800,000 years? Coiuld you compare then to the present?
Finally, are you accussing scientists of outright fraud? If that was the case, I would think that it would be easy to detect.... After all, to get the the Vostok ice cores and anaylyse them is a fraction of the money spent by the deniers...
BTW, a true skeptic is doubtful about both sides, you clearly are not as skeptical about the non-AGW arguements as you should be....I mean, just look at the climate scientists on the nay side (there are a few) and look at their ties to the fossil fuel industry... I mean, reallly, you are going to make arguments from a flawed understanding of the role of clouds while not questioning the integrity of scientists taking money from coal interests????
So, if I reply to this thread, does it look like poetry? Kind of skinny on my screen.
Regards,
Cooter
You need to ditch that 14" monitor, amigo
STOP CONFUSING PEOPLE WITH THE FACTS, MOTHER EARTH IS SCREEEEEEEAMING...
Please quantify and backup this statement you made:
I think you are making shit up on the fly...
Chew on this prediction
Broecker 1975
Or this elegant bit of analysis
http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
The orginal paper is linked...
Since you claim to be a statistician, you cannot plead ignorance about the technique or the significance of the results (statistical or otherwise)...
Fer Christ's sake, it's pretty uncontroversial that farming practices affect the weather (dust bowl), deforestation affects the weather (Indonesia), coal-fired power plants poison and acidify the water (reef die-offs) and kill people (London, China, etc.) yet somehow industrial pollutants on a continuing and accelerating global scale have no effect?
After spending Billions of dollars, having great new satellites, super computers, hundreds of thousands of weather stations the Gov't still cannot tell me what the weather will be in 10 days, let alone next month, next year or next decade....Nor can they tell me what the "climate" will be.
Climate changes. That is what it is supposed to do. The temp goes up, it goes back down. I live in the Rockies where it was minus 18 two winters ago. Just what is the the CORRECT temprature of the earth? I sure as hell wouldn't mind if it only got down to 10 degrees in the winter versus minus 18. Maybe it is supposed to warm a bit????? None of us knows, PERIOD.
Hell, 10,000 years ago the last (notice I said "last", that means there were others) Ice Age ended. Why? It certainly was not from human activity. Since then the glaciers have been retreating and the oceans have risen. There is evidence that the oceans were Higher in the past than they are now. What exactly is the Correct level of the ocean??? So why did the glaciers start retreating 10,000 years ago? Until you can prove to me that it was my pickup truck or my coal fired plant - piss off.
All of this ignores that huge glowing fireball in the sky that right now is very very active.....I am all for saving energy and a buck, but to do it because it will "Save the Planet" is pure bovine excrement!
Pure genius! Seriously.
This is the question I always use to end any 'global warming' debate before it begins. Why is this question not being asked MUCH more often?
Can't answer that question... then can't waste my time/money with continued climate questions/demands.
CO2 is not SO2. CO2 is essential for life, and about as far as being a pollutant as you can get. Casually comparing it with something that combines with water vapor to form acid which precipitates out of the atmosphere is erroneous.
AFA everything else you mention... Not even remotely related to the issue.
The examples were meant as an anacdotal illustration of relative magnatudes of the purtubations to the environment. 100+ years of fossil fuel emissions - to the extent that roughly half of avaiable world reserves are estimated to have been burned - is arguably at least as significant as these other well-established purtubations.
Put simply, if we have so clearly altered the chemistry of the ocean, why is it such a stretch that we have altered the chemestry of the air and its characteristics?
btw - CO2's necessity for life has no bearing on it's classification as a pollutant when present in sufficient quantities. Surplus O2 is deadly as well and would rightly be considered a pollutant in high enough concentrations.
Yes, indeed, at too high a concentration, anything can be considered a pollutant.
However, the CO2 level is pretty low, historically speaking:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats41378_image277.gif
Care to clarify how that C02 thingie is doing since H. Sapiens started walking on the Earth...
HINT: You might want to think about what rising Wet-Bulb temps. mean in the context of mammals....
Hmmm, well, according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Human_physiology if we go from 375ppm to 10,000ppm I might get a bit drowsy. That sounds to me like we (H Sapiens) have quite a bit of wiggle-room.
But please explain to our audience the significance of rising Wet-Bulb temps, including also how humidity is expected to rise significantly without clouds forming... the negative feedback component AGW alarmists always seem to 'forget' to include in their predictions, because frankly no one knows for certain what will happen to cloud cover (and, consequently, the Earth's albedo) if temperatures increase.
I strongly suggest you look up the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship before making a bigger fool of yourself...
As for clouds, instead of waving your hands, I suggest you start here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new_research_special_clouds.html
A nice summary of the last 3 years of papers on clouds and feedback that came out yesterday....
I'll give you a hint...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback-intermediate.htm
The effect is very small....
Compare that to the rate of change of the radiative forcing from C02 (last table in link)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
"The Clausius–Clapeyron relation, named after Rudolf Clausius[1] and Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron[2], is a way of characterizing a discontinuous phase transition between two phases of matter of a single constituent. On a pressure–temperature (P–T) diagram, the line separating the two phases is known as the coexistence curve. The Clausius–Clapeyron relation gives the slope of the tangents to this curve. " - wikipedia
How is this relevant to either of my points, that CO2 can go up many times the level it is presently with no direct impact on human health, or the degree to which increased cloud formation will effect the Earth's albedo is still poorly understood? Or should I file this under more 'wet bulb' red herringery?
As for your link, it says:
Subject of the week is clouds. Clouds are one of the biggest sources of uncertainty in future climate projections and are hence very important issue. Below you find all cloud papers that were included in the new research series during 2010 and 2011.
Note it says
Clouds are one of the biggest sources of uncertainty
not
Clouds were one of the biggest sources of uncertainty
It determines the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere as a function of temperature....
I would say that it is pretty relevant to the discussion, wouldn't you? And whatever you postulate, it had better be consistent with it....So if you know the CC relationship and its role, you would understand the difference between a driving and feedback mechanism...And suddenly the role of clouds becomes a little clearer...
I chose the end of this thread because I just want to say ... OMFG, this is potentially one of the most troll laden posts I have seen on ZH in some time.
I want to thank posters who participated, constructively, provided resources, links, and thoughtful opinions. You know who you are (winks at the tauren up thread)...
As for the trolls, I think most on ZH know who you are too. It is typically evident in the nature, tone, candor, and sometimes conceit of comments made. Some folks wanted to say/share something, but some folks wanted to just swing their dicks.
That is all.
Regards,
Cooter
P.S. For the paid trolls, the best way to earn stripes here is to constructively participate over an extended period of time, offering valuable opinion, life experience, and occasional humor. Practice sharing opinions that sound like real life experience, from a field that might qualify your opinion as something other than pale-white-male-in-basement. Then, people will start to trust you, at which point you can screw them with your disinformation. Otherwise, best of luck with this crowd.
I respond in like tone....
I have very little patience for people making claims that are outright wrong in matters of fact, not opinion, and continuing to do so in the face of counter-evidence...
Then there are the fake skeptics that appear doubtful but have no intention of educatiing themselves....
When it comes to AGW, given the money spent by fossil fuel interests to deliberately mislead people and the stakes at hand, I have zero tolerance for asshats that repeatedly trot out discredited arguments... I called out Crockett for posting quotes that were complete fabrications or deceptively edited. It should tell you something when people knowingly lie to back their position....
I earned my stripes here by adding content for over 2 years on energy matters, precious metals mining and most technical matters. I steer clear of threads dealing with matters of opinion on purpose.... Just the facts, ma'am and those that are verifiable...
Hint, the real troll is LP... His only science arguement consisted of saying that we throw out 125 years of verified and tested science....
When it comes to AGW, given the money spent by government/carbon credit/anti-capitalist/anti-humanist/scaremongering ecological interest groups to deliberately mislead people and the stakes at hand, I have zero tolerance for asshats that repeatedly trot out discredited arguments...
There. Fixed it for you. See? Easy, isn't it, the ad hominems... there are dubious motives on both sides.
The science is not settled, and saying that AGW proponents have '125 years of verified and tested science' proving their ideas is horseshit.
Climate 'Science' findings with regards to AGW simply are not yet actionable, and anyone who says they are either doesn't understand the economic consequences of what the AGW people want, or stands to personally gain from them.
So, tell me your sources of information on climate science...
I'm serious, all ears...
Let's figure out where you stop believing in the science, step by step...
Are you game?
Let's figure out where you stop believing in the science, step by step...
'THE science'? Chum, as I pointed out to the coug elsewhere, there's two kinds of 'science' at play here. There's stuff that's testable and repeatable (for instance, your beloved (but here irrelevant) wet bulb measurements, or orbital mechanics, or the oxidation of iron, etc) and then there's attempts to understand incredibly complex processes from observation, with some empirical knowledge mixed in... but which are not testable because there's no way of isolating the variables. Climate 'science' is the latter. They simply do not have anything like a full grasp of how all the pieces fit together. And the fact that the IPCC's trusted models completely failed to predict the hiatus in warming for the last decade should mean AGW believers admit that their models (and thus, their understanding of the overall system) are shit. But do they? No.
Let me simplify it for you. There's science, and there's science. If NASA announces it's spotted a 50-mile wide asteroid coming our way and we need to spend a trillion dollars building rockets to deflect it, I'd believe it. Yes, spend our money, we understand orbits and we can calculate that that lump of rock will hit the earth. But if NASA says they believe the universe is made up of 66.7% dark matter and we need to spend a trillion dollars designing a dark matter reflector because they believe dark matter ratios above 65% are bad news, I say pshaw.
Anyone who swallows the AGW line clearly hasn't examined the skeptics' rebuttals. Go visit the surface stations site I linked to. See what ridiculous 'corrections' the data gets put through to emphasise the warmists' agenda. See how stations in rural areas have dropped off the map, unlike stations in (expanding) urban areas. Examine the assumptions made about the UHI effect. See how the supposedly separate three surface temperature records are actually largely based on the same ('corrected') data. Have a look at the 'hide the decline' dendro nonsense. You'd think that last little scandal would dent warmist's confidence, but, no, the earth's in peril, let's ignore that a lot of the scientists promoting these theories seem to be as bent as fuck.
If the AGW proponents' 'fixes' to the problem were cheap, I'd say, yeah, precautionary principle and all that, I'll tie a feather to my aerial if that'll stop (the unlikely) chance of the world warming up a few degrees this century. But they're not asking us to tie feathers to our aerials, they want vast, expensive, crippling changes and even less price discovery in our already busted markets, and no, I don't believe they've mustered anything like the proofs to justify it.
I recently pointed out that the nature of cloud formation (and consequently, the Earth's albedo) if the planet warms up was poorly understood. Your idea of a rebuttal was to post the latest papers on the subject. Don't you see? AGWer's have been going on about how the science was settled 10 fucking years ago... but they're still discovering new things.
Give it a fucking rest. Just because someone pointed out 150 years ago that humankind's burning of fossil fuels might lead to a warming of the atmosphere doesn't mean there's 150 years of 'tested' science behind AGW. Christ! Do you think we're idiots out here?
Could you please cite a credible study showing a UHI bias....Or are you just saying that all the temperature data has been faked?
What new things have been discovered?
Now, you are smart enough not use the "Argue from Denial of Consequences Fallacy"...
Look, I'm real sorry that AGW is inconvienient to your world view, it's going to be real fucking inconvienient to the people forced to move from low lying land and those that starve because of drough and those that migrate from unlivable environments (think Mexico becoming Death Valley)...
Deal with it and take some personal responsibility like a *REAL* Libertarian...You figure out what the best way to cut GHG consistent with your desired world... Thats the challenge, buddy...
Here mull on this plot for a while.....it is the max % of the atmosphere that is water vapor as a function of temperature, you can think of the fluctuations about that curve determining the weather, whereas the climate depends where you are on that curve...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dewpoint.jpg
The earth sits at 15 degrees on average, given that H2O is a very powerful GHG, what do you think happends as C02 forcing drives the Earth up the curve? Double C02 and you get a long term ~2 C rise
Well hell, I missed another Flakmeister endless linkage to skeptical science blog...lol.
"Climate 'Science' findings with regards to AGW simply are not yet actionable, and anyone who says they are either doesn't understand the economic consequences of what the AGW people want, or stands to personally gain from them."
In Flaks case...I'd say the latter.
It really takes some gall to say, as he does...
"...complete fabrications or deceptively edited. It should tell you something when people knowingly lie to back their position...."
...after the global warming "scientists" email scandal was exposed at East Anglia and elsewhere, after Goldman teamed up with the alarmist statists in power to essentially create a "new currency" exchange scam, after every model they have ever invented at unknown costs of manpower and unknown amounts of money failed to predict the KNOWN recent past.
Even after the elites and their cronys are seen by the public fjoyously laughing as they fly off to exotic, warm destinations, to dine on lobster and kobe beef (belching the devilsh CO2 in their wake ON their state funded jets) to debate taxation schemes on the masses.
They still show no shame or contrition.
Still playing the fucking clown eh Nmewn?
I know better than to even discuss the science with you...
Hell, you don't even recognize what argumentative fallacy you are using....
Could you even explain what data you think was fabricated? No, you never learned anything that didn't suit your selfish worldview....
Your denial is so deep and twisted that even when it hits 125 in Kansas you'll still keeping sticking your head in ground...
"Your denial is so deep and twisted that even when it hits 125 in Kansas you'll still keeping sticking your head in ground..."
Would that be termed as weather or climate?...its hard to keep up with the ever shifting language of the AGW "alarmists".
And yes, I'm going to start using the same propaganda tactics as "your side". If I'm a denier, you've become an alarmist.
I'll stop being a clown about it when you smarmy, statist, faux chicken littles start doing world wide tele-conferences instead of pouring even more CO2 into the atmosphere by flying off to Bali and Cancun to discuss the proper amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Its a lot like most "progressive" causes/issues...the masses must be forced (ultimately) onto railway platforms to await and pay again for, an always late, tax subsidized train, in order to get them off the streets and out of the way of the always late, tax subsidized SUV's carrying the most important "progressive" dignataries of the day.
The subject/cause/issue may change from day to day but the immediate beneficiaries never do.
In short...stuff them into Prius' with their knees in their chest and wheel them over to the local hotel to do a tele-conference and eat off the same buffet line as everyone else and you may get a warmer response from me.
Oh...and make a "climate model" that actually works.
Your colors are showing.... just a blustering bullshitter constructing strawmen or other fallacious arguments...Not to mention a lot of unresolved anger....
Why not just admit it, you are too much of a narcissist to care about anything but yourself...
PS Here are three predictions/models that worked, but you are too fucking lazy to read and learn:
1975 http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-broecker.html
1981 http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-predictions-hansen-1981.html
1988 http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-Hansens-1988-projections.html
This is in contrast to a typical dernier "model", e.g. the warming stopped in 1998 (which is fast becoming so obviously wrong to be almost comical)
James Hansen?...lol...really?
This is a snip of Hansen's superior at NASA (Dr.Theon) in Congressional testimony;
Hansen is a well known climate alarmist hack who has gone from being any sort of "real scientist" to an activist....a sort of Don Quitoe in searcch of a windmill to tilt at...pun intended.
Even you (popping your head out of your "climate bunker" every so often to look around) should know he's been completely discredited.
Leaving aside outright fraud & corruption as the only motivating factors...concerning the 1980's data "modeling"...tell me, what do you think the data showed when a few hundred weather stations went dark >>>in Siberia<<< after the Soviet Union collapsed?...average world wide temp rising or falling?
And do you really think that US (and elsewhere) monitoring stations (that collect the data that Mann, Hansen et al parse and manipulate) sitting next to air compressor exhaust, asphalt parking lots with idling cars etc. are the most accurate?
Never mind...you've clearly been baptized into the evasive Church of Gaia where any admission of sin or error is the real sin.
I wouldn't want you to get excommunicated or sumpin ;-)
Seeya
If your bullshit alluding to the UHI was so obviously correct, someone could easily show the effect...
I wonder why they can't, eh?
And maybe you get up to speed on the recent BEST collaboration results....
Edit: The Theon quote is hilarious... he was never Hansen's superior and he retired from NASA in 1994 and become a skeptic in 2009... Moreover, his career at NASA consisted of being bureacrat as his active science days were over and done with....
Just wait until Manhatten is underwater in 20 (or 40) years just like NASA GISS head scientist James Hansen warned us about back in 1988...
Not so bad in Boston though...
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=sea+level+rise+2012+noaa+graph&um=1&hl=en&...