Open thread June 4, 2013 Dan Crawford | June 4, 2013 7:47 pm Tags: open thread Comments (58) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere recently hit the 400 parts-per-million mark. So is all that CO2 scorching the planet? No. But it does seem to be making our deserts greener.
Listening to the global warming alarmists, one would think that man-made CO2 emissions are threatening the globe. But that’s speculation. Let’s deal in reality. And the reality, according to Australian research, is that in this era of higher carbon concentrations, plant life in dry regions has grown lush.
Did you know that current CO2 levels are at historic lows?
the 6th frame from sammy’s graphics link above is proof positive of global warming..
the deserts bloomed during the Cretaceous. but I don’t think you would have liked the climate then.
What’s next? Sammy says, “I got a raise today, so global warming must be good for us.”
Informative post at New Economic Perspectives titled: “Do Banks Create Money Out Of Thin Air?”
It is sometimes said that commercial banks in our modern monetary system create money “from thin air”. While there is truth in this metaphorical claim, the metaphor can also be seriously misleading, and leads some to attribute powers to commercial banks that are actually retained by the government alone under our system. It is worth trying to get clear about all this.
Has the Congress given up all hope of conducting legitimate legislative business for the betterment of the country? A fool from Oklahoma has hit an all time low on the floor of the House. that he has not been chastised by the House leadership only further supports the contention that this Congress serves no useful purpose. It doesn’t matter what one thinks of the President to understand the ignorant disrespect for the political process demonstrated by Rep. Birdbrain, R OK. As reported by Think Progress: “Congressman Unhinged On House Floor: Calls Obama An Incompetent, Vengeful Liar With No Moral Compass”
thanks for the cite. i read the article and many of the comments. i conclude that the subject is too complicated for anyone to understand to everyone else’s satisfaction.
i didn’t have any trouble with the article until the author apparently ignored that the money “creation” was being used, hopefully, to draw real new productive activity “out of thin air.” That being the case one would not expect the books to balance over time.
i may very well have got this wrong, but like i said, it’s a bit complicated to follow, and i get a bit annoyed with those folk who say.. “you don’t understand this. you need to read “the book”; you know, the one i read and believe is the Word.”
meanwhile i think that there may be no big mystery to this. people have been exchanging goods and services for a long time, and borrowing and signing notes that gradually became centralized by big merchants, private banks, and the government. it all seems to work the same way. and the occasional crashes are caused when the borrowing gets too far ahead of the ability to produce.. or, what is the same thing… the “asset” upon which prices are based, and loans are collateralized, loses value because of some social or technological change.
i think this kind of garbage has been going on for a long time. what might be different now is that we have a larger than usual number of congressmen who are either trying to bring down the government, or just don’t give a damn as long as they are making money by selling their souls to the highest bidder.
these people seem to me to be descended from the slave owners before the civil war who were bent on creating a slaveocracy even if they had to destroy the Union to do it.
“during the Cretaceous. but I don’t think you would have liked the climate then.”
Why do you assert this?
consumer credit outstanding, nsa, 1947-2013
no doubt a superb amt. of consumer credit money created, partic. since earlier 70’s and mid 90’s.
coberly, seems youre probably wrong about sammy…he’d probably fit right in the Cretaceous..
Global warming is happening!?! Really? the very, very, short term look. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/
Remember, the models represent the best and most complete knowledge we have of climate science. EPIC FAIL!
The actual long term look at temps: http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
And finally, a truly long term look: http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg
there was no grass, no wheat, no corn, no oats, no rice,…
no cows, no sheep, no horses, no goats…
no monkeys, no people…
sorry. i don’t have time for you any more.
could you explain your point in a few words?
sorry. i don’t have time for you any more.”
Co Rev is posting data with links. Data. Showing there is no global warming. That you refuse to acknowledge data and go on with your own “gut feelings” and post nonsensical ramblings is immature at best, but typical coberly.
Thanks Sammy! After years of watching Coberly’s antics, its just not worth the effort to take his bait, anymore.
There is so much ignorance out there re: Climate Change it is mind boggling.
Some sites, Dan referenced SkS, are dedicated to misinform or counter new studies failing to support the AGW agenda, and they are failing in their public relations roles. Even though we see flawed studies which claim 97% of scientists…, the public is smarter and ~55%+ do not believe the hype.
The first chart I referenced comparing the model outputs over relativity is telling. Reality has overtaken the hype, and key climate scientists (Hansen, Trenberth, and the UK Met office, etc) have been forced to admit that warming has stopped for well over a decade.
“Reality has overtaken the hype, and key climate scientists (Hansen, Trenberth, and the UK Met office, etc) have been forced to admit that warming has stopped for well over a decade.”
CoRev, when you lie in such an obvious and public way, do you realize how stupid you appear?
does anyone understand why folks like CoRev are so scared of those of us who see climate change happening? it seems he’s driven to contually attempt to argue it with us & others, as i’ve seen him beating the same drum elsewhere…
it’s odd behavior…for instance, i dont believe in UFOs, but i dont spend any time on the alien sighting sites arguing with them; i just ignore them cause i think they’re crazy..so if CoRev really thinks global warming is just our imagination, why is he contunally concerned about it?
Your fellow troll CoRev may lie with links, but he still lies. Not only has Hanson not “been forced to admit that warming has stopped for well over a decade,” but neither has Trenberth.
Smarter trolls, please.
RJS, try this: “The 5 year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.” From here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf
He then goes on to try to explain the lack of warming with all kinds of excuses and still insists that it is warming.
What I cited was actual data. The only caveat is the GISP data is stylized for abetter visual effect, but it is the same data from Dr Allley’s report and represents his own graph. I don’t, and have never claimed it hasn’t warmed. That is a strawman argument too often presented by those unwilling to accept reality.
Please explain the meaning of this graph: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png It was in my first reference http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/
RJS, since this is an economics blog I believe the spending of extreme sums to study and mitigate a climate change problem for which there is little evidence of severity to be an extraordinary waste. Perhaps you think otherwise.
Joel, I’m certainly not lying, but just letting the dat5a speak. No hiatus? The why are they all working so hard to say otherwise when the data shows this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/wti/from:2000.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/plot/uah/from:2004.75
Even Hansen’s GISS data shows a hiatus.
I’m not trying to convince you of no warming, but to convince us to stop spending so much on trying to mitigate something that is quite minor.
The most definitive knockdown I’ve seen is from Muller, Curry, and others of Berkeley Earth project (in peer review), who attribute any such thing not to a cessation of warming but to the maximum (the “Tavg maximum”) of a decadal oscillation which occurred in 2005 (also in 1998). See the paper, Figure 1, and discussion in Section 2.
Decadal Variations in the Global
Atmospheric Land Temperatures
(to be published)
CoRev said: since this is an economics blog I believe the spending of extreme sums to study and mitigate a climate change problem for which there is little evidence of severity to be an extraordinary waste.
there are no climate change posts on angry bear out of the most recent 3 dozen posts; this is an open thread. it wasnt Bears who brought up climate change here, it was you & your buddy sammy…so we now know where the extraordinary waste comes from…
Concerning the GISP2 Greenland data set, I don’t get what is so exciting.
The part they are plotting with such a smooth line could be plotted with all kinds of other models, just as legitimately. That’s because the variability of observed temperature during that period is so large, it can’t be used to predict anything finer than a significant move away from that temperature median. What they did not show was that the temperature prior to 10,000 years BP was much, much colder, and that change is statistically significant.
There’s also some data selection here. They implicitly suggest temperatures before 10,000 BP are similar to those shown.
Dan, I do not intend to hijack this thread, but I comment you. With this: ” That’s because the variability of observed temperature during that period is so large, it can’t be used to predict anything finer than a significant move away from that temperature median. ” you have identified the Hockey Stick trick, patching high frequency , high variability data onto low frequency low variability smoothed data.
2ndly, the point of the GISP data is the tracking of the peaks, each represents an acknowledged warm period, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, etc. Each is lower than the previous, including today’s peak. It refutes the “unprecedented” claim.
This version of GISP, Greenland Ice Core data, does not cover the entire period of the drilling. Later versions went deeper. Vostok, Antarctic ice core data, also reflect similar results.
Data older than ~10,000 years was the last glaciation, so it clearly was colder, and the change significant in many ways. The other thing GISP shows is the shallow range of temperature variability, which belies the impact of extraneous factors.
I’m outta here. Spent enough time.
You have posted several AGW comments on open threads. AGW is a liberals wet dream: control carbon output (economic activity) in the name of saving the world.
We are on to it.
sammy, i’ve posted on melting icecaps, on increases in greenhouse gases, and on increasingly acidic oceans, and maybe i even alleged nuclear power contributes to warming….but im pretty sure i never said men are causing global warming and carbon output should be controlled…and i certainly dont fancy saving the world; i think it”s a hopeless case…
Sorry for the mischaracterization.
“Joel, I’m certainly not lying”
CoRev, you posted this:
” . . . key climate scientists (Hansen, Trenberth, and the UK Met office, etc) have been forced to admit that warming has stopped for well over a decade.”
That is a lie, as you can see from the links I posted which showed that neither Hansen nor Trenberth have admitted anything of the sort.
You are a liar, CoRev, and a liar of a particularly dull-witted and clumsy sort.
Smarter trolls, please.
I’m repeating myself, but I’ll do so in the name of quality restoration to the blog. This prolonged discussion with two dissemblers of reality only encourages their repetition as a means for them to get their bogus points into print in places that would not normally entertain such crap as they present. Google global warming, both proof of and evidence against. There are reams of links to proving both sides of the argument. That doesn’t make all the evidence equal, but it does mean that the average person doesn’t have a chance of determining where the truth of the issue lies. But the vast majority of the citations note repeatedly that the vast majority of informed scientists recognize the problem as just that, a serious problem. Stop encouraging the two fools to repeat their bull shit here. Nothing anyone offers as proof will challenge their ideological dishonesty. That’s the nature of a dishonest argument. It relies upon a claim of equal alternatives.
I guess these guys are full of bull shit with dishonest arguments too:
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society 
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute 
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth’s environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change 
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia
Eight of the fourteen participants in the Wannsee conference had PhD’s.
Having an advanced degree is not a guarantee of honesty, or even competence.
Science itself does not rely on the authority of experts, let alone experts in a field that sounds like it might be relevant.
Give Sammy a dictionary so he can see what’s in his plate.
I could probably round up more scientists at my university alone who would argue that anthropogenic global warming is a serious and growing problem. You lose, sammy.
Smarter trolls, please.
Not all scientists are created equal. A scientist outside of his field is often as uninformed as anyone (look in mirror).
But….. if volume is what you want:
31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects on the natural animal and plant environments of the Earth.”
To whom it may, sadly, concern
Sammy and his friend Co-Rev have been visiting us for years sharing their knowledge about global warming, which is gleaned from the pages of those paid to cast doubt on what is otherwise the consensus of climate scientists.
They have both demonstrated conclusively that they know nothing at all about even high school science, or normal human logic.
For example, Sammy above quotes me (he doesn’t remember where he heard it) that a scientist outside his own field is often as uninformed as anyone (the actual research on that question put it “thinks no better than the average sixth grader… like the rest of us”). Yet in the next comment Sammy turns around and cites “31,408 scientists”… outside their own field, only 9029 of whom have PhD’s. It is pretty rare these days to find a “scientist” without a PhD, so a normally skeptical person would question this “data.”
But the only data that Sammy questions is data that does not agree with his preferred answer, and that he “questions” by ignoring it absolutely.
In the end it doesn’t really matter what any of us believe. We will keep on driving, and voting for people paid for by the Koch’s among others, and even when we try to elect someone smarter…. well, we just get fooled again.
Sammy thinks it’s all a “liberal conspiracy.” He doesn’t seem to notice where the money is. Or the fact that “liberals” can’t conspire about where to meet for lunch.
Of course, here comes the Angry Bear Bot “coberly.”
What are coberly’s climate science credentials that lend any more weight to his belief in AGW than anyone else’s?
No creds, no links, no insight. Just insults and BLATHER
(Jack and Joel: I’m also talkin’ to YOU).
I told you and CoRev before that I don’t claim to know any more about global warming than you do. But I do know something about liars and human competence or the lack of it, and about “science” in general.
I said at that time that realizing that I didn’t know enough about global warming to deserve to have an opinion I read everything i could find in the popular literature. What struck me then, and continues to strike me, is that the “pro warming” people for the most part sounded like scientists as i have come to know them. the “anti warming” people sounded like liars as I have come to know them.
except those who sound like complete idiots fooled by the liars.
“What struck me then, and continues to strike me, is that the “pro warming” people for the most part sounded like scientists as i have come to know them. the “anti warming” people sounded like liars as I have come to know them.”
You need more rigor in your analysis.
Point was only to provide graphic of post-WWII credit money creation and tremendous amt. created in concert w/ Long Slowing and b. turn to finance.
thanks. i am probably not smart enough to understand your point.
the tragedy here is that you can’t even tell when I am trying to be nice to you.
you are wasting your life playing this stupid game.
please, try to find something else to do.
I cam back and tomy surprise find the discussion still ongoing. For all the comments the data trumps all your all of the opinions, angst, and poor references. Several internet tools have been developed graph and/all of the available OFFICIAL data sets. This is one showing the best data (satellites) with the CO2 offset to the same start data: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/uah/from:1997.9/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/detrend:-0.0735/offset:-0.080/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
and this one shows the length of time of the current hiatus of each OFFICIAL data set: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.0/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/wti/from:2000.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/plot/uah/from:2004.75
I do not include the BEST data since it is land only, uses an unproven, non-peer reviewed approach, and is still unpublished in a journal.
If you wish to argue, argue the validity of the OFFICIAL data. If you wish to argue whether scientists have accepted this hiatus, then use their own words in a scientific paper. If you wish to argue your own views, then at least clearly state that.
If you are going to argue that warming is occurring explain which period for which you are judging. I have shown graphs for three time periods. Please do the same so that your views/science can be confirmed. Why? Clearly time frames are important, just as clearly, climate is cyclical. The most prominent cycle is glaciations. There are multiple cycles within these major periods, and too often we are discussing just a portion of one of them.
Worse, many of these intra-glacial cycles are just being discovered. Their impacts just being defined, and accordingly have been incompletely implemented within the models. This flies in the face of the consensus and the “settled science” arguments.
” (Jack and Joel: I’m also talkin’ to YOU).”
As, little sammy,
Please point out which scientists you named who have published refereed articles on climate science.
What you have listed is (mostly) people who are scientists and who share your beliefs. Well, sammy, you’re not a scientist, so you have no credibility by your reasoning. I am a scientist, and I don’t share your beliefs. Of course, I’m not a climate scientist, just like most or all of your list of names, but according to you, being a scientist is sufficient. Now have I changed your “mind?”
“No creds, no links, no insight. Just insults and BLATHER”
Actually, sammy, I *have* posted links on this thread. And I *do* have credentials as a scientist–as relevant as most or all of the ones you cited. As for insight, I’ve provided at least as much as your trolling this thread has.
Smarter trolls, please.
Sammy offers us a review of climate change literature published in 2007 in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. On the page entitled: “Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research” check the very bottom of the reprinted graph: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php. The lead author of this review of literature is Arthur B. Robinson, a research scientist with an interesting background as an active supporter of conservative causes and a sometimes Republican candidate for office in Oregon. Here is a synopsis of how his association with the Linus Pauling Institute came to an abrupt end, from Wiki.
“Robinson was the president, director and a research professor with tenure at the institute.
In June 1978, Robinson had been asked to consult with the Executive Committee of the Linus Pauling Institute before making important decisions regarding the Institute. The members of the Executive Committee included Robinson, Pauling, and Executive Vice President Richard Hicks. The same day this request was asked of Robinson, he dismissed Hicks by terminating the fund raising services agreement employing Hicks, claiming that Hicks had failed to generate the substantial donations expected of him. Pauling was very disturbed by Robinson’s swift actions against Hicks and expressed that he felt he no longer had “trust and confidence in [Robinson]”.
After the abrupt termination of Hicks, Pauling asked Robinson to immediately resign. Robinson requested thirty days to consider the resignation and ultimately refused. Pauling called a meeting of the Board of Trustees for the Linus Pauling Institute regarding Robinson’s refusal to leave the Institute. As a result, the board granted a leave of absence for Robinson and passed all executive authority to Pauling, going on to elect him as the President and Director of the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine. Robinson responded to the dismissal by filing a lawsuit against the Institute for $25.5 million, finally settling for $575,000.
Robinson responded to the dismissal by charging that he, not Pauling, had done the experimental work at the institute, and that “Linus has not personally contributed significant research work on vitamin C and human health.
Robinson later moved to Oregon and founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine there in 1980.
It seems that Arthur Robinson and his Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a long history of providing references to studies that are claimed to be critical of the concept of global warming as a function of human activity. Here is an interesting review of Robinson’s efforts: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM
As I said up stream, about fifteen comments past, this is a huge waste of site space and band width. Sammy is posting crap that has little firm basis as science. His lead scientist is a man who has spent a long time supporting reactionary ideas. We should stop allowing Sammy and CoRev to high jack this site for their own reactionary purposes. Their postings are made of bull shit science.
It’s even worse than I thought. It turns out that the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Journal that published Robinson’s 2007 review of evidence critical of global warming is a house organ for the “Association of American Physicians and Surgeons which is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to “fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine. The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 3,000 in 2011”, Wikipedia. Notable amongst that shrinking group of members is Ron Paul. It’s executive director is Jane Orient, a member of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. A bit incestuous, no?
This is the organization that Sammy is sourcing his data from. Check its pedigree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
Of course PetitionProject doesn’t believe in AGW. Why else would they undertake the project?
Do you have any substantive criticisms?
What about the list of other, eminent, scientists who don’t believe in AGW. Go ahead, character assassinate them one by one also.
thanks for looking it up.
“What about the list of other, eminent, scientists who don’t believe in AGW. Go ahead, character assassinate them one by one also.”
What about them, sammy? With what authority do they speak on climate change? What pee-reviewed research have they contributed to our fund of knowledge? Go ahead, validate them one by one.
Jack is no sleuth. My link clearly states, with one click:
“Mr. Gore and his supporters at the United Nations and elsewhere have claimed that the “science is settled” – that an overwhelming “consensus” of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement.
Moreover, for more than 10 years these proponents of world energy rationing have consistently argued that, in view of this claimed scientific “consensus,” no further discussion of the science involved in this issue is warranted before legislative action is taken to heavily tax, regulate, and ration hydrocarbon energy.
Since, however, these claims were not successful in convincing the United States government to initiate energy rationing, the United Nations has held a series of international meetings attended by a central group of about 600 scientists, some additional scientists outside of this group, and a large number of political and bureaucratic representatives – approximately 2,000 in all. The United Nations has also hosted larger meetings, including many non-scientist participants from environmental, business, and political organizations.
During and after each of these meetings, there have been further publicity campaigns claiming that the “science is settled” – that the “consensus” of scientists in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is so overwhelming that further examination of the science is unnecessary.”
You, Jack, and Joel are witless dupes in this PR campaign. Just marginalize and insult anyone not signed on to the CO2 theory as uneducated, uninformed, rubes. Commence with the carbon rationing post haste.
Mandate slow electric cars (aka. “the coberly solution”) or whatever joel, the uber scientist and jack have in mind. Which I’m sure will involve some bigger government involvement.
“Go ahead, validate them one by one.”
I will just assert that their titles speak for themselves. YMMV.
Coberly, I thought you had mentioned something with regard to consumers’ purchasing ability in another comment hence simply wanted to provide a long term graphic image of the extreme expansion in the post-WWII mass of consumer credit outstanding and its rates of increase — which -seem- to be articulated to a.. the sharp fall in rate of nonfinancial profit and b. associated long decline in nonsupervisory workers’ real wages, among other things,,,so, a greater and more direct transfer to loan capital…….which did little direct investment in U.S. production but the contrary.
Yes, not so short [but too short] and -Yes- you are more than smart enough to understand [The ‘I’m probably not smart enough’ line is Really old]
sorry. the fact is that – i – am really old and no longer smart enough etc.
i knew you were responding to something i had said, but i had lost the train of thought and couldn’t make the connection.
I needed you to make the connection in a few words. It is probably because of my own limited knowledge and abilities but i frequently find it frustrating that writers just assume that i know something i don’t. and that i will fill in the blanks the same way they do.
this isn’t terribly important in a blog, perhaps, but sometimes it seems to me that it IS an important reason why people don’t understand each other. not only can they not read the other guy’s mind, but often they are completely unaware of the logical leaps in their own thinking.
and at the risk of being old again, you are one of the better commenters here and for the most part i think i agree with you. though there are some things that i think are essentially unimportant that i don’t agree about… i am afraid you might think those are the essentials.
i was fine with pee reviewed.
there is a huge difference between “science” and “politics.”
i think i am the last person to sign on to government mandates. but i also think the science is clear enough to argue for “voluntary” or at least semi voluntary (we get to vote) changes in behavior.
you… and i hate to have to keep saying this… have demonstrated over and over that you do not understand the basic facts, and your reasoning is highly unreliable. i tried in the beginning to help you and co-rev see though some of the bogus “science” your political friends were telling you, but all i got was , well, rhetoric. and i got sick of it. and i don’t want to waste my time playing with you. and i am much sorrier about that than you are.
We are wasting time debating with a troll of the most blatant kind. To state that Robinson et al, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons or the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has anything to do with peer reviewed science is absurd on its face. To suggest that the “Project” is anything more than a sub-category of Robinson’s work for whom ever it is that is funding him and his bogus organization and journal is nonsense of the kind that Sammy is well known for.
actually whether there was global warming or not, i can’t see the downside to promoting cheaper transportation.
you act as if the gas guzzler was a creation of private enterprise. the gas guzzler would not exist without government subsidies… the interstate highway system, the local roads, the defense of oil resources, the bailing out of chrysler and general motors… etc
a few small changes in local traffic laws and taxes that encouraged the use of small, “slow”, cheap electric cars in cities would inconvenience no one.. except the morons who cannot imagine life without a big expensive car… save money, and make the air nicer to breathe.
those are things the people ought to be able to use their government to bring about.
what is there about saving money you don’t like? or is it just the idea that breathing cleaner air is some kind of communist plot?