Friday Night Economic Indices

Wolf Richter   www.testosteronepit.com

There still are some economic numbers that aren’t seasonally adjusted or otherwise manipulated with fancy statistical footwork by governmental, quasi-governmental, or non-governmental number mongers. And they give us the true picture of the worldwide economy: beer, wine, mood, and San Francisco real estate –with more predictive power than is allowed by law.

My favorite long-term inflation index is bridges. For example, the San Francisco Bay Bridge cost $77 million to build in the 1930s. Now its eastern span is being replaced. Price tag: $6.3 billion. For how that came about, and where the most phenomenal part of the bridge was made, and for some pics of collapsed Chinese structures, read... Our Chinese Bay Bridge. Of course, we’re not supposed to follow the price of a real thing over time. That would be comparing apples to apples. Oh no! We get served concoctions like Ben Bernanke’s favorite "trimmed mean PCE" inflation index. This way, there is no inflation.

So, let’s dive into the numbers that really count—and this being a Friday, let’s start with beer. More precisely, with beer shipments in Japan, a closely watched index based on data from the five major brewers. And dude, it’s catastrophic. Total beer shipments dropped by 3.7% in 2011, the seventh straight year of declines. Only 442.39 million cases were shipped, the lowest EVER in recorded Japanese beer history.

Beer is a predictor of long-term discretionary consumer spending in Japan. And the numbers tell us that beer shipments (and therefore consumer spending) won’t pick up until they get some additional young people to drink it. And that just isn’t happening.

Return to the US—and the housing quagmire. Soothsayers have been predicting for years that it would experience some sort of miraculous recovery any time soon. And true, there was a taxpayer-funded sucker rally. But now it looks tough. Let’s take the wonderful city I live in, San Francisco, which is often at the forefront when it comes to bad news. The graph below shows home values for December of each year. Last month, prices set a new post-bubble December low of $594,000—the first December in years below $600,000. Over the next few months, seasonal declines will drive home values to new post-bubble lows (data source: DQNews):

Now comes Gallup, and in its habitual wisdom, it tells us how we feel. Turns out, we feel awful about government and major corporations. Satisfaction with government is at a Gallup record low of 29%. And satisfaction with major corporations is at 30%, just above the record low set last month. There are some nuances, however: 84% of the Republicans and 75% of the independents are dissatisfied with the size and power of the government, and 71% of the Democrats are dissatisfied with the size and influence of major corporations. A consensus doesn’t appear to be on the horizon. This can’t be good for the economy, given how much of our lives are controlled by governments and major corporations (for example, we don’t like the idea of a national ID card, but we put our entire life on Facebook).

And the fine-wine indices have collapsed. Liv-ex, a leading source for fine wine market information, publishes a number of them, including the Liv-ex Fine Wine 50 (updated daily) and the iconic Live-ex Fine Wine 100 (monthly).

  

With permission, Liv-ex

 

With permission, Liv-ex

The curve of the Fine Wine 100 follows the unprecedented tsunami of money that central banks, and in particular the Fed, handed out. As this money sloshed around the world, a lot of it ended up in China, and they invested some of it in fine wines, particularly French wines. We’ve heard stories about that phenomenon. It’s an exuberance thing. Now the bubble has burst, and the sheer violence of it is predicting a hard landing for the Chinese economy.

Plus some rough years for the French wine industry. And as if the French didn’t have enough to worry about, their signature industry—fine wines—got slapped in the face. By China.... Merde! Chinese Wines Did What to French Wines?

Comments

[arg]

Gabrielle pomegranate diet pills Giffords, who survived slim pomegranate a gunshot wound to the super slim head a year ago, said super slim diet pills Sunday she would step down super slim green lean body capsule from Congress this week, setting super slim pills off a political scramble in Arizona super slim pomegranate to fill her seat. In a super slim pomegranate diet pills video released on YouTube, the super slim pomegranate pills Democratic congresswoman said she would super slim pomegranate weight loss capsule resign because she had more work to do on her recovery.

[Flakmeister]

Del'ed

[Element]

Not interested.
 
 
EDIT:  Oh yeah ... you did exactly what I suspected you were trying to do, to break up the discussion via moving it, and then not even providing a link to the original discussion to provide the necessary continuity.  You simply cut and pasted, without any linkage, and;

"Posted by Element (in another thread)"

You are being totally disingenuous Flak, don't pretend you're not bitch.

For appropriate linear continuity here is the link to the previous discussion, that Flak wished to isolate and disconnect with, for his own curious reasons;

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-dont-frack-me#comment-2080479

[Flakmeister]

I moved it because carrying on a debate in a 400 post thread wastes a lot of time up and down loading...

I have nothing to hide....

Now do you want to debate the real science of Global Warming or do you want to blather on about innuendo?

Again, from the start...

You agree with the findings of FR2011 ?  Yes or No?

Is the Mauna Lea C02 record dating back to 1958 correct? Yes or No?

---

Buddy you are in a catch-22, either you reveal yourself as a blowhard denier or you will commit intellectual suicide by showing that you have no idea what you are talking about...

 Your choice,... I have some time today...

[Element]

Not interested, I've already clearly laid out all that needs to be said to you, and have dismissed your pet human-induced runaway greenhouse effect drivel. I'm satisfied with what I have already said to you, and have already explained to you why you warrant no further inputs on the topic. And I notice you inserted bolded question marks [?] in between my sentences within your cut-n-paste job that were not in the original, that I posted (in another thread).  That's a nice touch, thanks for that.

You certainly seem worked-up though, try some yoga.

nighty-night

[Flakmeister]

Thank you for playing and making my point....

You chose to take the blowhard denier out.... yeah, that probably is better than intellectual suicide, you save some face for now....

I will call you out every time, do you understand?

I will challenge you with the most basic arguments and data...

No lawyer talk and ad hominums, red herrings and strawmen, just basic science and the data....

-----

You don't have a fucking leg to stand on and you know it...

[Element]

Frak, you are one pissant little greenhouse-warmer, another unimpressive wannabe in a long list of similar pompous idiots I have discussed and debated this tiresome odious and inane 'topic' with over the past 25 years. You hardly have anything new to say to me, that I have not heard said in a hundred different ways previously. Why you want to waste your time, and more importantly, mine, will remain one of the eternal mysteries. Apparently you think it's important to learn me sumpfin, and I'm just too thickie and ideologically motivated to get it strait, er, straight. Sorries, but I am not the slightest bit interested in your quasi-mission-from-god dilemma, in an imaginary Pentaternary neo-sauna epoch, or some such voodoo nighmare.

I salute your readiness, nay, your downright eagerness to trott-off into a verbal wars and statistical banana-splitz about ppms of minor atmospheric constituents -- and good on you for it mate!  You're an inspiration to someone, I'm sure of it.  But I'm just not interested in yet another tedious version of the same old half-baked GW propaganda dressed up as rigorous science that I've been involuntarily exposed to, since about mid-1986.  And I know you sincerely think you have some new empirical twist to add, that will definitely clinch-it, this time for sure! -- but you don't (as I have already made clear with regard to your pet paper's foundational axiom).

You should come to terms with these matters.

It's been lots of verbal cheap-thrills, but I really do have to go beddie-byes now.

[Flakmeister]

You speak like a beaten man....

All hat and no cattle...essentially zero factual content, lots of noise, but nothing of substance...

I have your number....

Good night, for now

[Element]

Er no, you are merely ASSERTING some sort of obfuscation is even necessary.

There is only a 'catch-22' within your ignorant deluded little mind, because you wish to assert that rising CO2 in the industrial era (due to hydrocarbon oxidation) is correlated with rising temperature, because you see the two occurring in parallel.

So pseudo enviro-science morons like you merely assert that;

"correlation equals causation"

With regard to rising CO2 correlating with rising Temperature.

Except the detailed study of rocks during the Phanerozoic (the period that life has existed on earth)  reveals that Earth has had extremely high CO2 levels for extended periods, and it did NOT correspond with any correlation with a global greenhouse effect, in fact the palaeoenvironments of deposition reveal this was not the case.

The high CO2 correlation does NOT equal global warming causation.

This is an empirical fact.  You can not dispute it, so you merely ignore it, and all of what geology reveals, because you are in fact deeply disingenuous and mischievous, not the open scientific learned one you want to portray and the pretence of 'science' that you wish to use to pimp this global warming claptrap.

So because we know this to be so, we're never going to be sucked-in by your facetious imaginary 'catch-22', that you pseudo-scientists are pimping to the MSM and Govt.  And any member of the public should be unreservedly sceptical of your fiction of thermal rise causation via CO2 rise, that you a-scientifically keep insisting is real.

And you have the nerve to even assert that I'm the one ignoring facts, and am imbued with nothing but ideology.

Fuck you.

You therefore must keep endlessly disparaging Geologists, for simply stating the observable truth, of a lack of discrete correlation as causation. And no, playing with time-series enviro-SATs, and shallowly claiming glacial carving and icesheet retreat is evidence of a causation.

We know it isn't.

It is simply evidence of a warming-cycle, with a duration and amplitude unknown.

What you can't get your head around is that global warming and transient glacial retreat is exactly what we see repeated, incessantly, throughout geological history, which is far longer than you can possibly imagine, and you certainly can not comprehend it.  Even I can't.  

Such warming NEVER turns into a "runaway greenhouse effect", even with CO2 at level over 1,000 times higher than now, and both cooling and glacial advances often coincide with such high CO2 levels! 

A small sample of this sort of typical Earth behaviour is given in plain-english format within this page:

Climate and the Carboniferous Period:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

You see, we happen to know your greenhouse a-scientific carpet-bagging to get a crust, and a shiny arse desk job, at tax-payer expense, is complete and utter bullshit.

Go get a real job.

We also happen to know that the MINISCULE rise in CO2, during the industrial period of human history, in terms of the scale of geological history's record of CO2 levels rising and falling, is simply equivalent to a noise level within the geological data. It is inconsequential and irrelevant.  We also know that when such very high levels of carbon were in the atmoshere the profucion od life was extreme and spectacular, because life and the environment of life in general absolutely LOVE high carbon dioxide levels. The only thing life loves more than high Co2, it High Co2 combined with HIGH TEMPERATURES

Because when you get such, planet Earth explodes with life and a massive biota develops, over almost all of its surface.

While fools like you use your lame nonsense arguments to stupidly suggest that life will be damaged by higher temp and CO2, and completely ignore the fact that the very highest levels of speciation and bio-diversity occurs at the hot saturated humidity equator, and is lowest at the cold very low humidity poles.

So none of your pseudo-science and alleged environmental concern, and pompous 'expertise' impresses me.

CO2 levels up to 1000 times higher have persisted in the past while the Earth was in the deep-freeze Glaciation cycles of an ice age, with many glaciers existing even at the EQUATOR, so we KNOW for sure, that CO2 does NOT directly or indirectly lead to sharp rise in runaway global temperature rises.

Thus we know that the PROSAIC CYCLIC WARMING PHASE that is occurring NOW, and has oscillated measurably during the past 1000 years, which is on the scale of inconsequential NOISE  within the geological data, is not being DRIVEN by a coincident CO2 rise from modern human economic activity.

We know that humans do not cause this ROUTINE planetary cyclic variability. 

It is simply a political fear campaign that is not at all supported by the full-range of scientific data available.

This is the sort of crap guys like you support, simply to brain wash the next generation of children, and to deliberately attempt to scare the existing generation with you disproportionate absurd melodramatics, and all your huffy-puffy nonsenses:

2009 Copenhagen Global-Warming Summit Opening Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aKtjwvTFAv8

It is a deeply disingenuous, thoroughly perverse and totally a-scientific process, and nothing but vile political propaganda and a psychological attacks, on the clear thought and sense of proportion of the population, is the aim.

SO FUCK YOU

And naturally geologists are just a wee bit tired of all your errant crap, developed from ignorant data-selective story-spinners like you Flak.

Fuck you all.

And this is why I'm not at all interested in your tedious little dog-and-pony show, that pompously pretends to have a franchise on scientific data, and hard facts.

An experienced geologist who understands their sedimentology, via field experience (no, not via pdf files and GIGO computer models) and their Palaeonvironmental geology (the environment of deposition of sediments, not mere 'environmentalism') and knows their palaeoclimatology fundamentals, regarding the state of Earth, throughout the past 1.5 billion years, especially during the past 15 million years, and particularly the past 4 million, is going to very broadly agree with a highly-experienced and rightly very respected Geologist like Professor Ian Plimer.

Because he's actually right and he's telling the truth about how Earth is observed to behave with regard to CO2 and temp variability, and the clear absence of causative 'forcing' of a temp rise via CO2 rise.

You can't get around any of it, it is all factual, so you simply cast disingenuous aspersions on it, and hope everyone will ignore scientific reality.

That's the sort of a-science 'scientist' you are, or aren't, Flak.

What Plimer is reiterating is based upon about 150 years of accumulated detailed observations and methodical empirical development, as you would expect of any professional science of understanding the Earth. And it is simply indisputable by some greenhouse warming obsessive with a .pdf file, because none of your twisted 'catch-22' nonsense negates the reality of what the rocks of the Earth itself reveals to be true.

There is no catch-22, and you do not have a franchise on facts, and I swiftly and logically totally demolished your silly little paper, with the geological realities, in a couple of concise sentences-- it was that easy.

Any geologist can see that.

Your a-scientific bleating is pathetic, and you're only doing it now, because I clearly showed that humanity actually has vast reserves of extractable hydrocarbons, still available, which absolutely will be used, and which will maintain economic activity and large human populations and theirmore-or-less controlled decline, for many centuries to come.

So not expecting me to be able to recover from your silly little challenge, you then went into a cerebral spasm and sought to immediately separate that very relevant part of the discussion from your global warming propaganda horseshit that you wished to assert is real, simply so you can formulate a cheap shallow nonsense 'argument' that says such hydrocarbons should not be used, and that economic activity should thus grind to a halt (to save da whirld!), on the basis of your false premise that correlation equals causation.

You are a disingenuous pompous fool.

And I blow my nose in your general direction.

[Flakmeister]

Wow.... that's a lot of ranting...sorry, I am not even going to read it, because it is a cut-and-paste puff propaganda piece...

And lay off the ad hominums.... they are a sure sign that you are losing....

====

Now this is how science really works...

Lets start by figuring out what we agree upon...

Because if you deny the most basic physics and facts, it shows you are dogmatic and irrational...

1) Is the Mauna Loa C02 record an accurate measurement of the C02 record from 1958 on? Yes or No.

2) Have C02 levels been higher than now in the past 400,00 years?  Yes or No?

3) Do you understand what a linear regression is? Yes or No?

Thats enough for now...

 I am more than willing to give you yes no answers on similar questions of your choice...

I will check back in a while.... I am in no rush...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Edit:

I read it... wow, it seems like you are more angry than anything else...

You base everything on Plimer and C02 estimates for 440 million years ago.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

So you rely completely on a very dodgy use of data and Plimer also fails take into account that the sun was cooler then (see below, he knows this fact since it is in his book)...

Sounds like a very selective choice of what is right and you rely on probably the most difficult C02 levels to measure precisely... 

Here chew on the abstract of this recent paper

http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~saltzman/youngetal_2010.pdf

"The Late Ordovician Hirnantian Stage (?444 million years ago) was one of three time periods during the past
half billion years in which large continental glaciers formed over Earth's polar regions. The effects of this
glaciation were far-reaching and coincided with one of the largest marine mass extinction events in Earth
history. The cause of this ice age is uncertain, and a paradoxical association with evidence for high
atmospheric CO2 levels has been debated. Precise linkages between sea level, ice volume, and carbon isotope
(?13Ccarb and ?13Corg) proxy records of pCO2 have been poorly understood due in part to uncertainties in
stratigraphic correlation and the interpretation of globally important sections. Although correlation
difficulties remain, recent Hirnantian biostratigraphic studies now allow for improved correlations. Here
we show that consistent trends in both ?13Ccarb and ?13Corg from two well-dated stratigraphic sequences in
Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada coincide with changes in Late Ordovician (Hirnantian) climate as
inferred from sea level and the extent of ice sheets. The integrated datasets are consistent with increasing
pCO2 levels in response to ice-sheet expansion that reduced silicate weathering. Ultimately, the time period
of elevated pCO2 levels is followed by geologic evidence of deglaciation.

----

Read it again... I'll translate it for you... Proxy C02 levels rose in response to reduce silicate weathering and the elevated proxy C02 levels is followed by glaciers melting...

Now, you see to have a lot of faith in proxy C02 data and not others... you can't pick and choose...

Finally, if you are so sure of the proxy C02 levels from 400 million years ago then  you must be confident that the Vostok and Dome C02 records which directly measured C02 levels going back 400,000 years are reliable?  

---------

On Plimer's recent book...

Here is an example where he contradicts himself:

On page 411 he states (correctly) that C02 and H20 keep the planet warm via a Green House effect

On page 278 he denies C02 is correlated with temperature

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Plimer-vs-Plimer-one-man-contradiction.html

Here is a more complete list of the contradictions in his book...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/plimervsplimer.php

So Plimer cannot even get his story straight in his book and this guy is your key witness???

----

Here is a example of him getting called out on TV in an outright lie about C02 sources

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

Excerpt:

TONY JONES: Let's hear Ian Plimer respond to that. Do you stand by the claim in your book that volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world's cars and industries combined?

IAN PLIMER: Well I'm very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology. Now Mr Monbiot wrote to me when I asked him some questions of science and said he was not qualified to answer these questions of science. So he's a journalist and he's asking me a scientific question. He has not read this book ...

GEORGE MONBIOT: Could you answer the question, please?

IAN PLIMER: He has not read this book.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Do you stand by your claim or not?

IAN PLIMER: He has not - it is the height of bad manners to interrupt.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Do you stand by your claim or not?

IAN PLIMER: It is the height of bad manners to interrupt.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Could you answer the question. Could you just answer the question.

TONY JONES: George Monbiot, just hang on. I will ask the same question of you if I can because I did raise that.

IAN PLIMER: And in this book I referred to a number of types of volcanoes. There are two types, and I know you haven't read the book. He certainly hasn't read the book ...

TONY JONES: It's not true that I haven't read your book, as I told you last time. I suspect that George Monbiot has also ...

GEORGE MONBIOT: And I have also read the book.

TONY JONES: But I have actually read your book.

IAN PLIMER: Well, let me make two points on this. On the chapter called Earth I talk about two volcanoes. One are the terrestrial volcanoes, which is the USGS reports on emissions of carbon dioxide, but more than 85 per cent of the world's volcanoes we do not measure, we do not see, these are submarine volcanoes that release carbon dioxide and we deduce from the chemistry of the rocks how much carbon dioxide is released.

TONY JONES: Can I ask you a question about that, if you don't mind? Because one British journalist whom you quoted those exact figures to went back to the US geological survey after you told him about this 85 per cent figure, and asked he them to confirm their claim that actually 130 times the amount of CO2 is produced by man than volcanoes. The volcanologist Dr Terrance Gerlach confirmed that figure and said furthermore that in their counting they count the undersea volcanoes. So your response to that.

IAN PLIMER: My response is that there are 220,000 undersea volcanoes that we know about. There's 64,000 kilometres of undersea volcanoes which we do ...

GEORGE MONBIOT: Which they have counted.

IAN PLIMER: It is the height of bad manners to interrupt. Please restrain yourself. And we have 64,000 kilometres of volcanoes in submarine environments with massive super volcanoes there. We do not measure them. And the figures that I have used are deduced from the chemistry of rocks which erupt on the sea floor.

TONY JONES: OK. Now, that's that point dealt with. George Monbiot, a quick response to that and then we'll move on to other questions.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Yeah, sure. I mean, it's, again, straightforward fabrication. Ian produces no new evidence to suggest that the USGS figures are wrong. He keeps citing this statement that they don't include submarine volcanoes. It's been pointed out to him many, many times that the USGS figures do include submarine volcanoes. And actually, it's the height of bad manners Professor Plimer to lie on national television about something that you know to be plain wrong.

-----

I sure hope you can do better than this guy..... This is easier than I thought....

[Element]

Seeing you love cut-n-pasting, and also love to lie about it and accuse me of it when I have done no such thing, then I may as well cut-n-paste right back at you some findings (from the sample link I already provided you):

-----------------------------------

Putting Things in Perspective

New studies of plant stomata add important information about natural CO2 variations in Earth's atmosphere. Such studies show that natural variations in CO2 are more dramatic than we have been led to believe, and that CO2 levels which regularly rise past 300 ppm may be the norm-- not the exception-- during the last 11,000 years. Natural CO2 levels up to 340 ppm are suggested during this time, challenging claims that 300 ppm represents a CO2 threshold which is both "unprecedented" and un-natural in our recent climate history.

In reality, the actual amount of human additions to CO2 over the past 250 years is more of an academic issue than a practical one, as the theory that human additions to atmospheric CO2 are the principle driver of Earth's temperature changes, has not been proven. For example:

    The notion that CO2 drives temperature is disproved by the ice core record,which shows that temperatures rise first, then CO2 follows later.

    While CO2 has risen steadily over the last decade, global surface temperatures have not increased.

  Temperatures in the mid troposphere (5 km up), where signals of greenhouse warming should be strongest, have actually declined since 2000. According to greenhouse theory, this should not be happening if CO2 increases are the primary cause of global warming.

As the case for a CO2 problem looks increasingly uncertain it is appropriate to question climate projections and computer models on global warming to ensure that we are not basing important and expensive decisions on information that currently may be no more meaningful than answers given by a magic 8-ball.

Given the many complexities of clouds, ocean sinks, cosmic influences, and historical uncertainties, it is clear that our understanding of CO2 levels and climate cycles is incomplete. A new piece to this puzzle comes from simple plant fossils, which hold important clues about Earth's dynamic climate past-- and future.

Return to Carboniferous Climate

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

-------------------------------------------------------

Our Future Written in Stone

Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.

Following the Carboniferous Period, the Permian Period and Triassic Period witnessed predominantly desert-like conditions, accompanied by one or more major periods of species extinctions. CO2 levels began to rise during this time because there was less erosion of the land and therefore reduced opportunity for chemical reaction of CO2 with freshly exposed minerals. Also, there was significantly less plant life growing in the proper swamplands to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis and rapid burial.

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but has since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to currently. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on its own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.

Understanding Earth's geologic and climate past is important for understanding why our present Earth is the way it is, and what Earth may look like in the future. The geologic information locked up in the rocks and coal seams of the Carboniferous Period are like a history book waiting to be opened. What we know so far, is merely an introduction. It falls on the next generation of geologists, climatologists, biologists, and curious others to continue the exploration and discovery of Earth's dynamic history-- a fascinating and surprising tale, written in stone.

This page by Monte Hieb
Last updated: March 21, 2009

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor83826

-------------------------------------------

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

------------------------------------------

"... TODAY, AT 380 PPM OUR ATMOSPHERE IS CO2-IMPOVERISHED, ALTHOUGH ENVIRONMENTALISTS, CERTAIN POLITICAL GROUPS, AND THE NEWS MEDIA WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE OTHERWISE. ..."

 
 There you go toss pot, we actually KNOW that you and your fellow pseudo-scientists extravagant claims are just full of shit.

[Flakmeister]

I have demonstrated that Plimer is a discredited over-the-hill geologist...

Your Geocraft site is an out of date web site. From a google search of its author:

Monte Hieb is the author of several popular web pages skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming...(he does not state his qualification in climatology or a related science). He is an employee at the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training.

A cursory look reveals every discredited denier argument with regards to C02 (more on that is a sec)....

And ironically, look at this

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/panorama/panorama11.html

The very first bin that is truncated by deliberate choice of scale which shows that CO2 is literally off the scale..this is classic denier bullshit...

Here is the full data for past 1000 years

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html

and a figure can be found here (scroll down a bit)

http://processtrends.com/pg_global_warming.htm#CO2_Trends

Very stable until 150 years ago and then it takes off....

And C02 is not the only driver of climate, the Sun plays a major role as well. And in all your posturing about higher C02 levels in the past, not once have you taken into account the change in the Sun... Here I quote Plimer  from his book pg. 45

The early Sun had a luminosity of some 30 per cent less than now and, over time, luminosity has increased in a steady state. The low lumunosity of the early Sun was such that the Earth's average surface temperature would have been below 0°C from 4500 to 2000 million years ago. But, there is evidence of running water and oceans as far back as 3800 million years ago. This paradox is solved if the Earth had an enhanced greenhouse with an atmosphere of a lot of carbon dioxide and methane

----

So you cherry pick your sources, rely on a discredited geologist and mining engineer for your arguments...

If you believe the claptrap from your geocraft site, you have fallen for a classic strawman argument, that is trying to make C02 the only driver of climate change and then coming with examples where this is clearly not the case...

And if you understand the strawman argument, you are guilty of being an irrational denier...

So you are either a fool or a twister of facts....

Do you want to keep playing?

[Element]

The rocks of the Earth show conclusively that you're little fairy tail is completely wrong - end of story.  

Nothing rests on Ian Plimer, the man, it all rests on the Geology alone, as he also would tell you.

I only defended his reputation and findings due to your previous baseless attack on his character, slighting of his credentials, and of the relevancy of his technically spot-on facts and conclusions in order to cheaply smear him, so you can attempt to push him and also reality aside, so your lies can gain a little traction, and you can pretend to be a real scientist.
 
(1) Your baseless petty attack on his work and professionalism is simply done in order to deny and ignore the GEOLOGICAL DATA that he presents, which entirely kicks the floor out from under the global warming regime of theoretical psychosis.

(2) Geology and experienced geologists broadly agree with Plimer based entirely on hard evidence and on that alone, and not on personalities, nor any shallow irrelevant bullshit on the MSM.
 
You have nothing whatsoever to contradict WHAT THE EARTH SHOWS TO BE TRUE, because you are only a damnable little pseudo-science twat with your head stuck up your arse, another worthless deluded .pdf expert-clown, trying to steer humanity into a grand economic, policy and scientific error, via your unrequited farce of pretending that correlation equals causation.

And several other geologists have done exactly the same thing.  It's because the science shows that the axioms you follow are bunk, and they have been conclusively debunked, according to geological evidence.

That is why people like me have zero time for a hapless brainwashed nuggets such as yourself, as we know from long experience that morons like you are a completely unable to face the physical reality of Earth, that entirely denies and disallows your mental edifice of MSM-propaganda based bullshit, and that you are in fact no scientists at all, but merely committed propagandists, looking to weasel your way into the public-purse, via talking crap and pretending to have something worthy to add.

You don't.

Plus my last post had zero cut-n-past bits in it, it only had two links, and not even any quotes from them.  And yes, you definitely read it, you childish cockhead, just who do you think you are kidding?

You're a disingenuous lying fucking idiot, and it's very plane to see that you're deliberately trying to misrepresent the situation, and wish to completely avoid and deny damning fundamental contrary evidence.

And I will keep pointing that out, any way I see fit, since you want to maintain your charade, you pitiful little maggot. You're just seeking to spray more of your petty lies and cheap-shot disparagements, in order to try and escape the simple fundamental facts and truth, ESTABLISHED BEYOND DISPUTE BY THE PHYSICAL REALITY OF THE EARTH ITSELF.

You are thus demonstrating that you are wilful concerted idiot, and not merely deeply ignorant and a mislead one as I had formerly suspected, and people like you will not prosper, when people like me are around to pound the shit out of your lies, and your propaganda, and your attempt to mislead others into a needless monumental mistake.
 
 
EDIT:  And by the way, you dopey fuckwit, I notice your post above is almost entirely cut-and-pasted (!) you utter fucking hypocrite, as opposed to mine, which contains zero cut and pastes.

[Flakmeister]

Posted by Element (in another thread)

You seem curiously intent on suggesting a breaking-up of any critical pre-discussion, into something non-linear.  Basically, you don't want the earlier part of the discussion to be included in what would follow.

I scanned through your links, it was a yawn, I'm not interested in revisiting the notion or suggestion of anthropogenic climate change. I'm satisfied it's pure farce, from one end to another.  The very first IPCC report (which I unfortunately had to read) established that, and all the IPCC 'report' circus-of-claims, since then, have only confirmed that initial assessment.

The Earth warms, and it cools, and it warm, and it cools -- b i g   f u c k i n g   d e a l

CO₂ goes up, and it goes down, and it goes up, and it goes down -- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wake me up if it ever stops doing one or the other, because that actually would be unusual, otherwise, no, you don't get to waste my time with intellectually insulting rank greenhouse-warming propaganda and 'models', dressed up as objective empirical science, that pretend to predict the future with some sort of allusion to 'scientific' certainty.

EDIT: Oh I see it can be downloaded in .pdf ... wow, this will make me an expert!

In the Conclusions section it says;

"... There is no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors."

?

i.e. there is no reason to just assume it's not due to the natural cyclic processes that are recorded in the Geological record, prior to the existence of humans.

Don't waste my time with this pitiful radiometric fluff-piece, when it regards a planet that is KNOWN to 100% naturally warm and cool itself, incessantly, regardless of the presence or the absence of humans.

?

What an endless idiotic farce. 

?

Paper Dismissed

--------

You sure do say a lot of stuff without saying anything.... Do you think I am intimidated by you shouting empty rhetoric?  

Let focus on facts....

You correctly say that the planet has a variable temperature.... Yes, there have been many fairly well understood cycles in the past.

So you agree then with the results of FR2011? i.e. the planet is warming at a rate of 0.16 C per decade since 1979?

BTW, FR2011 does not claim AGW, it is only an analysis of the temperature record since 1979...

Simple question...

Do you think the Mauna Loa C02 record since ~1958 is correct? Yes or No?

[Element]

Not interested.

[Flakmeister]

Damn rights you are not interested because for all your bluster you know damn well that I will make you look like a fool...

You are a blowhard chickenshit GW denier whose opinion is based on ideology and nothing at all to do with a grasp of science....

[ebworthen]

Wait, talking about the economy using real things, like beer, wine, and real estate?

Next you'll be putting in the cost of gas, food, and rent.

(/sarc)

[covert]

or gold, bread or big macks? maybe sex or cocaine?

too funny.

http://expose2.wordpress.com

[AbruptlyKawaii]

i always liked sapporo, check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Rs6YEZAt8

[tony bonn]

"Soothsayers have been predicting for years that it would experience some sort of miraculous recovery any time soon."

ah yes, who can forget asswipe extraordinaire jim cramer's declaration of the end of the real estate slump in june 2009 (or was it 2010)? he has earned a 8-ply asswipe commendation....

[cowdiddly]

from the chart it looks like San francisco homes are still overpriced about 3X. Mexifornia was always priced for an idiot though

[tamboo]

the nicer areas of sili valley are even more insane and prices are still RISING in some areas.

my folks' house in saratoga (paid $54k in 1974) would now sell for $1.5m!

comparable digs in most other locales would be worth maybe $200k.

truly wtf.

http://www.trulia.com/CA/Saratoga/

[disabledvet]

"and herein lies the lesson." this is why the Fed moves heaven and earth to prevent a breakdown in "technicals." Collapses are never surprising...but sustained high prices sure are. The numbers truly are staggering...even at "this late date in the housing collapse." In short: San Francisco experienced nary a burst bubble at all. And unlike New York City where they stick you in a closet and call you a king (for $1500 a month) these are actual single family homes. Single family homes are the bread and butter of global real estate...not these friggin "apartment REITS." And no...it is not hard to priced out of your own real estate market. Indeed it your the financial media "that's our goal!" But instead of going where the demand and amazingly high prices are (San Francisco) they stay where the media is (New York) and shout "we're gonna get that here, too!" Maybe. But i drive around so many multiple cities that have completely collapsed--(Rochester is well on its way now) it puts me more than just a little on the pessimistic side.

[Dick Gazinia]

I have always thought that the average price of a BJ was a good economic indicator.

Deflationary----Bitches

[new game]

fuck em all.

markets too minipulated to consume.

everything becoming toxic-seriously...

except g,s, & real durable goods usable for existence.

fuck the rest-don't care about market value of xyz corp and cleptocrates extorting last drops of blood money.

did i say fuck em?

[CH1]

Sell! Sell NOW!!

[AnAnonymous]

Just wondering if that chained list of articles references given everytime at the endof the article loops and goes to the first article written on the blog...

Ah, US citizens, their eternal nature pushes always to more consumption.

Wont change.

[Peter Pan]

It is clear that an aging society is quite deflationary for a great number of items and economic downturns do not help.

The patterns we grew up with are in the process of being disrupted and the question is whether these processes will slowly change the face of society over decades or whether there will be a sudden and violent jolt caused by severe monetary imbalances and jockeying between trigger happy nations.

[The Monkey]

I think we get Gary Shilling's decade + long malaise. No fire and brimstone rapid debt deflation. So you might as well settle in. Long duration bonds, selected healthcare and high dividend payers. Not quite as fun as the old boom times for sure.

[walküre]

ZIRP or low, low interest rates for 10 years. Is possible if the creditors play along.

[DeadFred]

You, Sir, are an optimist.

[AnAnonymous]

There is no question. US citizen nature is eternal and the US world order is a world of quasi certainty.

Framing actually. There is no slow or harsh changes in US citizens' PoV.

Only changes that affect them or not.

So the answer is already known. US citizens only see what they are willing to see.

[BlackholeDivestment]

...Shinto gods (of Loyd Blankfeind) inspire Sake, not Abbey Ale. Lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuHqFPDfLxE