If you attempt to lip synch what I am asking Barack Obama to do in this article I wrote for Swarm The Banks, it may make you chuckle, in an angry bear sort of way.
Well good on ya CoRev. You stuck to your guns, in the face of pooh poohs and personal ridicule. Blow your horn! In your face Club of Rome and all it’s lackeys.
AGW (past tense) will go down in history as one of the stupidest scientific theories ever. The reason it got such traction was the confluence of 3 recurring themes of history:
1) Man’s fear that his activities will cause the “end of the world”
2) Man’s reverence and fear of “nature’
3) Man’s desire to control others
Yes, the science was stupid, but the response to it is powerfully ingrained in people, and predictable.
Uh Oh! Keith Olbermann and MSNBC have decided to part ways. Coincidence? Just days after the NBC/Comcast merger was approved? Dunno, I didn’t watch his show. Like Beck he is too bombastic and hyperbolic.
I’ve live at the same place for 32 years, I can verify that in the summer, the garage portion no longer gets as hot as it used to. My theory is that actual heat waves are being replaced by ultraviolet heat. If you get hit by the suns rays, you are being cooked at a faster rate than at any time in history, but if you are in shade, you may actually be experiencing slightly cooler temperatures.
The two, ultraviolet vs thermal heat, are ironically canceling each other in terms of temperature, but not in terms of harmful rays to the human body.
I call it global microwaving. Stay away from the microwaving and you are probably going to be ok.
Barrack Obama is a Chicago Political Animal. We have to judge him by what he does , not says.
I, personally, give him a grade of not bad. He has had, mostly, the task of deflecting the tragectory of the Benedict Arnold republicans (who held the Presidency, House and Senate).
Paul Ryan has a BA in Basket Weaving and , I may add a squished head. THerfore he is beyond challengnable to define and make decisions on the economic welfare of the US. He once held an unlimated Beverage account at the Christian ( Halllaluah, etc) that he attended.
Never did take a shot in the face (like my FDR Father in WW2). However, it seems that someone put his poor little head in a vice and squeezed it to together. Seems he was weaving a basket at the time.
In the seventies and eighties there was the superfund to combat environmental pollution, I wonder what happened to this “fund.” And the environmentalist’s target was nuclear energy… As for global warming, last ice age ended ten thousand years ago, and weather reporting(science) really just started like two hundred years ago…
What I am saying, as soon as anyone declares science solves a problem… another soon takes it’s place… I think it is just better to aim for clean, less pollution devices other than the political jargon such as Global Warming.
Not to dispute “Global Warming” As soon as scientist declares there is warming, I guess mother earth will immediately cool down for couple of years just to make fun of man!!!
Once in a while, we have an opportunity to make our lives better by doing the right thing. This is the opportunity afforded Barack Obama, who, more than any other person on the face of God’s earth, brought nothing but walked away with unimaginable gifts.
He was nothing, but the FDR society pulled him through his mother’s desperation and despair to become the torch bearer for so many men that were tested in the defense of this country and frankly, were better than he can ever hope to be.
Once in a while, we have an opportunity to make our lives better by doing the right thing. This is the opportunity afforded Barack Obama, who, more than any other person on the face of God’s earth, brought nothing but walked away with unimaginable gifts.
He was nothing, but the FDR society pulled him through his mother’s desperation and despair to become the torch bearer for so many men that were tested in the defense of this country and frankly, were better than he can ever hope to be.
Once in a while, we have an opportunity to make our lives better by doing the right thing. This is the opportunity afforded Barack Obama, who, more than any other person on the face of God’s earth, brought nothing but walked away with unimaginable gifts.
He was nothing, but the FDR society pulled him through his mother’s desperation and despair to become the torch bearer for so many men that were tested in the defense of this country and frankly, were better than he can ever hope to be.
High_White&Handsome: Don’t quite follow what your posting about Rand Paul has to do with, but reading Wikipedia bio, his qualifications seem up there & I do like his take on the Patriot Act. That said, we shall see just how long his convictions last, as with all political animals that inhabit Washington D.C., they become corrupt by the power they aquire, along with the money bestowed upon them by the ruling elite.
The correlation between temps and co2 levels in geologic history is clear, (before the begining of the Pliocene temps were higher) with a warm optimum period in the Eocene before the earth began cooling off, a trend lasting now 50 million years. So the correlation holds but the time period of each sample is far longer than recorded history. If current sunspot trends we could be heading into another little ice age (so the cooling folks of the 70s might have been sort of right). But of course correlation does not prove causation. Anyway to have any policy response I want the following: 1 An estimate of the costs of doing nothing 2. The costs of mitigating the effects 3. The cost of reducing the emmissions rate. Then one asks does #3 ( the premium) justify taking out insurance against #1, or is just mitigating when it happens a better economic solution. Of course the true believers say I am committing heresy and killing our grandchildren. The problem is that no one can come up with #1 as they can’t agree on a discount rate so even if you could agree on what the costs might be in 2100 (when most are no longer in a position to care) we can’t agree on the Net Present value of these costs i.e. discount rate. If you had the NPV for #1 #2 and #3 then you could make a rational decision, but true believers believe a decision is made on other than economic factors.
Pau Ryan delivering the GOP retort to Obama’s State of the Union speech: might be interesting. The GOP gave him lots of budget power in the House now and his Roadmap may become front-and-center. Ezra Klein yesterday accurately pointed to just some of its politically controversial features: “It doesn’t just privatize Medicare, but it holds costs down by giving seniors checks that won’t keep up with the price of health care. It privatizes much of Social Security. It cuts taxes on the rich while raising them on many in the middle class.” In an interview last month, Ryan said “The third rail is not the third rail anymore.”
Lyle, I agree with the correlation, but there are studies of the glacier ice proxies that show w ~500 year lag between start of warming and CO2 increases.
So dunno, is CO2 the cart or the horse. Time will eventually tell.
Lyle, I agree with the correlation, but there are studies of the glacier ice proxies that show ~500 year lag between start of warming and CO2 increases.
So dunno, is CO2 the cart or the horse. Time will eventually tell.
That is the whole issue correlation does not prove causation. So this is why I want to treat the problem as an insurance problem, it may or may not happen so lets find the risk and the premium to insure against the risk, and make an economic decision. Assume I determine that a 100 km meteor were to hit the earth in 3412, how much would we spend today to alter its course versus watchful wating until things are more sure?
” the anti-war movement was nothing else but a hypocritical proxy issue used solely to get rid of President Bush and the Republicans.” sammy
That may score as the dumbest comment on AB ever. Hypocritical because those who protested the war were really in favor of the war? Proxy issue because thee was some better reason to vote Bush out of office? Nine years of continuous warfare and more than a trilllion dollars pissed away. That’s a proxy issue? What then is a real issue?
Who better to replace Volker as our “progressive” President’s chief economic advisor than the Chair of GE? “Obama Sends Pro-Business Signal With Adviser Choice”
You’re overthinking this, Jack. sammy is one of our little trolls. His goal is not well-thought-out analysis. His goal is try to piss off somebody. Sad, I know, but it’s lonely in his parents’ basement and his next arithmetic test isn’t until next Monday.
It looks like you need to look up the definitions of “hypocritcal” and “proxy.”
Let’s say the Lib antiwar decibel level was a”10″ when Bush was in office, and it worked – the R’s were annihilated in the 2006 midterms over the war.
Now with the new CIC, a Democrat, we are in the same wars, and have even escalated the Afghan war. And yet the Lib antiwar decibel level would now be a “1.”
If they really cared about “the war,” where’d the “outrage” go?
Let’s say the Lib antiwar decibel level was a”10″ when Bush was in office, and it worked – the R’s were annihilated in the 2006 midterms over the war.
Now with the new CIC, a Democrat, we are in the same wars, and have even escalated the Afghan war. And yet the Lib antiwar decibel level would now be a “1.”
If they really cared about “the war,” where’d the “outrage” go?
Joel, yesterday you were calling me partisan, Yes, Now you’re calling Sammy a troll. He’s been here for many years. When there is no point a liberal can make they use name calling!
I also asked yesterday why there is such a reaction to an open discussion? We realize thet you folks are disappointed in your failing president. We realize you folks are ahamed at the failures of your legislators. We realize the you folks are emabarrassed by the failure of your so oft repeated policy staements. We also can recognize the hypocrisy of anti-war, sloganeering such as “tax cuts for the rich”, and foolish name calling as a retort.
Please folks, start thinking before the silliness comes through your key boards. That reflection in the mirror with the name tag you just used is your own face not someone else.
When you are president of the United States of America. You soon discover that you still have to represent the people you might not or want to be friends with.
Democratic party and Republican party both needed a lesson in civility. They will need indepenpent voters whom do not neccessarily subscribe to either partie’s ideology- they are the key swing voters as the former congress found out.
The GE CEO have always been a Democrat, it’s not surprising the President trying to bring back the business community with a Democrat businessman. Do you think the President will appoint a Independent or Republican to do that?
CoRev, on the narrow issue of the surface temperature trends, the trend is still obvious, even with the error bars.
On the broader issue of global warming, this dataset is only one of many. Taken in isolation, one might be justified in caution. But taken together with arctic ice pack melts, greenland ice sheet reduction, global glacier retreats, increase in sea levels and acidification, rising atmospheric CO[2] and the appearance of temperate plant and animal species in increasingly higer latitudes and altitudes, the arrows all point in the same direction–global warming is real and an anthropogenic explanation is the single best explanation scientifically. The evidence of global warming doesn’t rest on a single dataset.
I understand your need to cling to right-wing orthodoxy, CoRev, and the glee you experience in mining any miniscule basis to cast doubt is evident in your posts. But your argument is just a veneer of science covering a profound ignorance of the diversity and breadth of evidence supporting AGW. Very much like the creationists, you cling desperately to tiny morsles of doubt and bleat your wishful prophecies of the retreat of science. The history of science is replete with science denial–the geocentric universe, vitalism, spontaneous generation, creationism, homeopathy–all eventually finding their places in the curio cabinet of human ignorance and superstition. The difference with global warming denial is the amount of harm this ignorance will do to the planet.
Ira Glickstein, PhD System (science) Engineer should go back to specifying skip jets to go along with surfing Bradley fighting vehicles to the USMC.
What has a EE turned ‘system (engineer) sciences major’, at IBM, LOCKHEED (!!!!!!), etc Assoc Prof UMd, got to do with Global warming?
What is system engineering? I know a lot about system engineers, nothing good, but almost nothing about where they come from. I can tell you all the horror stories about failed weapons and Taiwan 33% failure rate on missiles shots are rooted in system engineers, but then you would say: “my one trick pony don’t count”.
What does a PhD (in humbug) from Bingham(p)ton (is that in New York or UK?)or what in system science……..
In my long ‘one trick’ experience, systems engineering and systems science, especially at places like LOCKHEED is humbug. These are the folk which are supposed to map a system to “requirements”. These are the folk who build expeditionary fighting vehicle technical specs to not be achieved and who preside over plans (statisticall anomally if the spec not met) to test them so that a fail is a pass. They do work with figures.
You may get more or less mileage with this old saw: “Figures lie and …….”.
Assuming there is a probablity AGW is real what are the costs and what are the costs of mitigation? If the costs are less than the costs of mitigation we should just live with it (or our descendants should) If one looks at temp trends of the Pliestocene, it does look like its about time to plunge back into another ice advance period (time constant 1000 to 5000 years to happen). So the question is if there is AGW will it just prevent the ice advance period. According to Wikipedia interglacial periods tend to run 10k years others say 15 to 20k and we are 11k into this one. So it is possible another ice advance period could be upon us. More likley in the 100 to 500 year period is another little ice age. We know very little but have lots of theories about the causes of the natural variation in the climate, and its not clear that the assumptions made in making the AGW models have included this variation. As a result we have to treat the problem as one of insurance, there is some risk (between 0 and 100%), it will lead to some cost that has an NPV and compare this with the costs to mitigate. Its a decision just like deciding if you want to buy collision or comprehensive on a car that is paid for.
The trend in the US is to tax the next generation, why expect the US to do anything to help the next generation?
Besides as the post from CoRev shows the debate is between the carbon sellers, and the supporting carbon sellers’ war machine (militray industrial complex paid by the futrue tax payers of the US) who conquer and defend the oil and coal fields.
If the cost of the running the US empire for the carbon interests were placed on imported oil, there would be no foreign oil burning in the US.
And no peak oil and all kinds of alternatives.
The MIC and the carbon sellers are pillaging the US tax payer and humbug factory fallacious factoids about AGW is a way to keep the plunderers in business.
The is business diversity when the war machine humbug factories find clients in the carbon seller cabals.
Wait for the humbug factories’ outcry over this one:
Such a dangerous world the US needs to send Iraq, Karzai, NATO Stars Wars, new aircraft carriers, unprecidented at hundreds of millions a pop littoral ships, F-35 skip jets and a trillion a year worth of others blank checks with no expectation of performance and no end date……………
The tea party ain’t buying the military industrial complex idea of perpetaul warprofiteering.
I think Dr. Glickstein needs to write a chart correlating declining military industrial complex spending with Pearl Harbor, Task Force Smith, and boxcutter wielding terrorists*, so that the trillion a year for the war machine and empire is not pared.
The Humbug coalition in the beltway now has 3 axes of phoney analysis: war fears, anti global warming, and defending the medical insurance cartels’ pillaging systems.
Pretty soon the intersates will crumble and the trains will not run on time, because ‘systems scientists’ are becoming employed by humbug factries.
*Correlation is coincidence, and the meme of cutting the war machine ignores the other factors associated with these events traditionally used to sell the MIC.
I would suggest that “costs” should not be evaluated in terms of money. There really are better values to base your life on. In particular NPV is a poor way to measure these costs. NPV works for one person using his own estimates of risks to compare one investment to another. It works for two parties, each with his own estimate of risks, to arrive at a “selling price” for an investment.
It could even work for the SSA to try to present a consistent cost estimate for future SS costs, but even there it breaks down badly over differing people’s estimate of risks, and the importance of those risks. It also obscures the trade offs between insurance and investment, and the significnce of a couple of decimal places between different “investments” as compared to say, the “cost” of finding yourself a dollar short on your food budget when you have no source of income.
For global warming there is no way on earth to evaluate any of the supposed trade offs. We do have a moral responsibility… remember that?… to leave the earth in as good a shape as we found it. None of the investments required to head off global warming will “cost” any of us anything. Unless of course you consider your right to drive a big car back and forth to work a god given right.
As a result we have to treat the problem as one of insurance
This is an excellent way to look at this. The insurance equation, as you describe, is:
(Probability of Loss) x Loss = Premium
Let’s try attempt to assign some numbers here:
Probability of Loss – what are the odds that man-made CO2 overwhems all other climate factors? Given the current state of the scientific debate, I will be overly generous and assign a probability of 25%.
Loss – what is the downside to having slightly higher temperatures vs. lower temperatures? Given that life on Earth tends to thrive in at warmer temperatures than colder, and the experience of mankind during the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age the cost of higher temps might even be POSITIVE. Loss minimal.
Premium – reducing our CO2 output to circa 1900 levels has ginormous cost. You must include in this cost the cost of forcing China and India to join us in this seppuku, without which the insurance will be worthless.
So let’s put this into the equation (Prob X Loss = Premium):
(.25) x (Small loss, if any) = (Ginormous Cost)
In this case the obvious conclusion is TO DO NOTHING, and it is very difficult to find any set of numbers that you could plug in to arrive at any other conclusion. So the current effort to mitigate man-made CO2 is about POWER.
Joel, who said there was no warming is a flawed perception. Your understanding: “The evidence of global warming doesn’t rest on a single dataset.” isn’t a whole lot better. Even thought there are multiple datasets of processed/folded/mutilated data the data sources are essentially the same stations around the world. some select mnore than others, but the raw data is the same. since I’m on that subject, did you know that the rqw data is not readily available out side the closed community? Independent verification is not possible.
What most skeptics object to is the catastrophic predictions. Mankind has a history, as Sammy pointed out, of actually having accelerated, improving conditions during times of warmth.
thus perfectly illustrating the perils of lyle’s approach. when an ignorant person assigns imaginary probabilities… and risks… to things he knows nothing about, he can convince himself he is doing something scientific.
well jskit has defeated me. the comment above “perfectly illustrating” was meant to follow sammy’s comment assigning probabilites to global warming based on sticking his finger in the air, and his certain knowledge that warmer is better, based on a day at the beach.
Please define an objective approach. Note that I would put the probability at around 60%. But the second question is what are the costs of living with the change and mitigating the impacts versus agressive action. Discussions of morality etc. are all well and good, but not objective, and can not get to the point where enough people are convinced to change the trend. (At least not people in the right places, after all if you are going to take my job away, I want very good reasons, so W Va ,Il,In,Ky,ND,MT,Wy,Ks and Va to some extent are going to have regional job lossess. Add to that Oil states and it quickly its to 20 states, and you are gone. Only if you can show with hard numbers that the cost of fixing the problem is less than the cost of living with it, will you have any hope of convincing them. A lot of people in the middle of the country feel this is just another one of the pointy headed elites telling them what is good for them. Just like they felt in 1896 about the eastern types and gold. However to say that the odds are 100% that the theory is right ignores a lot of information we don’t have, such as what would happen to the climate if humans were not here. I content that sometime in the next 10k years we would have another ice extension period. In fact I was reading that some of the cold weather may be due to excessive Snow and Ice accumulation in Siberia. Guess what, if it makes it thru a summer hellow expanding glaciers.
Lyle that was the most convoluted comment on ?A?GW/GW/CC that I have read in a long time. Let’s start from the beginning. You said: “Note that I would put the probability at around 60%.” Probablility of what? That there is ?A?GW/GW/CC? That probability is 100%. We have an entire science to study it.
The probability that warming is actually detrimental to mankind is nearly zero. The probability that we will see the IPCC estimated average temperature increase is near zero. The probabibility that the average temperature increase is only due to CO2 is zero.
So when you make probability statements it helps to define what you are measuring.
As most novices you then go into some anecdotal weather story telling with this: “In fact I was reading that some of the cold weather may be due to excessive Snow and Ice accumulation in Siberia. Guess what, if it makes it thru a summer hellow expanding glaciers.”
ILSM, that is far from an alternative view of anything. It is, however, a rant on the Dem failure to pass even more horrid legislation, The Cap & Trade TAX revenue bill. Tax revenue is the only thing that would have changed. climate would have been untouched.
coberly, thus perfectly illustrating the perils of lyle’s approach. Of course you don’t like the approach. It offers a structured and logical way to look at the problem. You prefer free-form idiocy and moral preening that leads to inane ideas, like “let’s just require little slow electric cars in the city.”
i was fairly far along in studying human intelligence, or the lack of it, when i realized that “logical” just means “words that i like,” or better, “free associations made by random synaptic connections.”
of course that makes it difficult to teach anyone anything.
what is sad is that your experience leaves you with no concept of morality except short term profit. it would be even sadder that your “structured and logical” way of calculating short term profits is… ah…. somewhat blind to variables you never even consider.
maybe you should begin by reading the story of King Midas.
If you attempt to lip synch what I am asking Barack Obama to do in this article I wrote for Swarm The Banks, it may make you chuckle, in an angry bear sort of way.
http://swarmthebanks.blogspot.com/2011/01/barack-obama-could-recycle-his-absent.html
Well good on ya CoRev. You stuck to your guns, in the face of pooh poohs and personal ridicule. Blow your horn! In your face Club of Rome and all it’s lackeys.
Co Rev,
AGW (past tense) will go down in history as one of the stupidest scientific theories ever. The reason it got such traction was the confluence of 3 recurring themes of history:
1) Man’s fear that his activities will cause the “end of the world”
2) Man’s reverence and fear of “nature’
3) Man’s desire to control others
Yes, the science was stupid, but the response to it is powerfully ingrained in people, and predictable.
Uh Oh! Keith Olbermann and MSNBC have decided to part ways. Coincidence? Just days after the NBC/Comcast merger was approved? Dunno, I didn’t watch his show. Like Beck he is too bombastic and hyperbolic.
Well. I have no dog in the fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS7deZ_wn0s
Well. I have no dog in the fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS7deZ_wn0s
Well. I have no dog in the fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS7deZ_wn0s
I’ve live at the same place for 32 years, I can verify that in the summer, the garage portion no longer gets as hot as it used to. My theory is that actual heat waves are being replaced by ultraviolet heat. If you get hit by the suns rays, you are being cooked at a faster rate than at any time in history, but if you are in shade, you may actually be experiencing slightly cooler temperatures.
The two, ultraviolet vs thermal heat, are ironically canceling each other in terms of temperature, but not in terms of harmful rays to the human body.
I call it global microwaving. Stay away from the microwaving and you are probably going to be ok.
I swear I put a d on the end of live. “I’ve lived”…
Barrack Obama is a Chicago Political Animal. We have to judge him by what he does , not says.
I, personally, give him a grade of not bad. He has had, mostly, the task of deflecting the tragectory of the Benedict Arnold republicans (who held the Presidency, House and Senate).
Paul Ryan has a BA in Basket Weaving and , I may add a squished head. THerfore he is beyond challengnable to define and make decisions on the economic welfare of the US. He once held an unlimated Beverage account at the Christian ( Halllaluah, etc) that he attended.
Never did take a shot in the face (like my FDR Father in WW2). However, it seems that someone put his poor little head in a vice and squeezed it to together. Seems he was weaving a basket at the time.
In the seventies and eighties there was the superfund to combat environmental pollution, I wonder what happened to this “fund.” And the environmentalist’s target was nuclear energy… As for global warming, last ice age ended ten thousand years ago, and weather reporting(science) really just started like two hundred years ago…
What I am saying, as soon as anyone declares science solves a problem… another soon takes it’s place… I think it is just better to aim for clean, less pollution devices other than the political jargon such as Global Warming.
Not to dispute “Global Warming” As soon as scientist declares there is warming, I guess mother earth will immediately cool down for couple of years just to make fun of man!!!
Once in a while, we have an opportunity to make our lives better by doing the right thing. This is the opportunity afforded Barack Obama, who, more than any other person on the face of God’s earth, brought nothing but walked away with unimaginable gifts.
He was nothing, but the FDR society pulled him through his mother’s desperation and despair to become the torch bearer for so many men that were tested in the defense of this country and frankly, were better than he can ever hope to be.
Once in a while, we have an opportunity to make our lives better by doing the right thing. This is the opportunity afforded Barack Obama, who, more than any other person on the face of God’s earth, brought nothing but walked away with unimaginable gifts.
He was nothing, but the FDR society pulled him through his mother’s desperation and despair to become the torch bearer for so many men that were tested in the defense of this country and frankly, were better than he can ever hope to be.
Once in a while, we have an opportunity to make our lives better by doing the right thing. This is the opportunity afforded Barack Obama, who, more than any other person on the face of God’s earth, brought nothing but walked away with unimaginable gifts.
He was nothing, but the FDR society pulled him through his mother’s desperation and despair to become the torch bearer for so many men that were tested in the defense of this country and frankly, were better than he can ever hope to be.
Rand Paul is a Medical doctor. Get your facts straight, and stop double posting.
High_White&Handsome: Don’t quite follow what your posting about Rand Paul has to do with, but reading Wikipedia bio, his qualifications seem up there & I do like his take on the Patriot Act. That said, we shall see just how long his convictions last, as with all political animals that inhabit Washington D.C., they become corrupt by the power they aquire, along with the money bestowed upon them by the ruling elite.
The correlation between temps and co2 levels in geologic history is clear, (before the begining of the Pliocene temps were higher) with a warm optimum period in the Eocene before the earth began cooling off, a trend lasting now 50 million years. So the correlation holds but the time period of each sample is far longer than recorded history.
If current sunspot trends we could be heading into another little ice age (so the cooling folks of the 70s might have been sort of right).
But of course correlation does not prove causation.
Anyway to have any policy response I want the following: 1 An estimate of the costs of doing nothing 2. The costs of mitigating the effects 3. The cost of reducing the emmissions rate. Then one asks does #3 ( the premium) justify taking out insurance against #1, or is just mitigating when it happens a better economic solution. Of course the true believers say I am committing heresy and killing our grandchildren.
The problem is that no one can come up with #1 as they can’t agree on a discount rate so even if you could agree on what the costs might be in 2100 (when most are no longer in a position to care) we can’t agree on the Net Present value of these costs i.e. discount rate. If you had the NPV for #1 #2 and #3 then you could make a rational decision, but true believers believe a decision is made on other than economic factors.
Pau Ryan delivering the GOP retort to Obama’s State of the Union speech: might be interesting. The GOP gave him lots of budget power in the House now and his Roadmap may become front-and-center. Ezra Klein yesterday accurately pointed to just some of its politically controversial features: “It doesn’t just privatize Medicare, but it holds costs down by giving seniors checks that won’t keep up with the price of health care. It privatizes much of Social Security. It cuts taxes on the rich while raising them on many in the middle class.” In an interview last month, Ryan said “The third rail is not the third rail anymore.”
Lyle, I agree with the correlation, but there are studies of the glacier ice proxies that show w ~500 year lag between start of warming and CO2 increases.
So dunno, is CO2 the cart or the horse. Time will eventually tell.
Lyle, I agree with the correlation, but there are studies of the glacier ice proxies that show ~500 year lag between start of warming and CO2 increases.
So dunno, is CO2 the cart or the horse. Time will eventually tell.
Ah, sammy,
Posting a little wingnut propaganda, I see. Predictable, as always.
Joel,
The truth hurts sometimes, doesn’t it?
That is the whole issue correlation does not prove causation. So this is why I want to treat the problem as an insurance problem, it may or may not happen so lets find the risk and the premium to insure against the risk, and make an economic decision. Assume I determine that a 100 km meteor were to hit the earth in 3412, how much would we spend today to alter its course versus watchful wating until things are more sure?
” the anti-war movement was nothing else but a hypocritical proxy issue used solely to get rid of President Bush and the Republicans.” sammy
That may score as the dumbest comment on AB ever. Hypocritical because those who protested the war were really in favor of the war? Proxy issue because thee was some better reason to vote Bush out of office? Nine years of continuous warfare and more than a trilllion dollars pissed away. That’s a proxy issue? What then is a real issue?
Who better to replace Volker as our “progressive” President’s chief economic advisor than the Chair of GE?
“Obama Sends Pro-Business Signal With Adviser Choice”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/business/economy/22obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Can Obama be any more right of the center? Socialist? Progressive? Liberal? How about DLC scum bag?
Heh.
Ah, sammy,
well, truthiness, anyway.
Nah, sammy, rightwing propaganda only hurts the fools and dupes who fall for it.
You’re overthinking this, Jack. sammy is one of our little trolls. His goal is not well-thought-out analysis. His goal is try to piss off somebody. Sad, I know, but it’s lonely in his parents’ basement and his next arithmetic test isn’t until next Monday.
Jack,
It looks like you need to look up the definitions of “hypocritcal” and “proxy.”
Let’s say the Lib antiwar decibel level was a”10″ when Bush was in office, and it worked – the R’s were annihilated in the 2006 midterms over the war.
Now with the new CIC, a Democrat, we are in the same wars, and have even escalated the Afghan war. And yet the Lib antiwar decibel level would now be a “1.”
If they really cared about “the war,” where’d the “outrage” go?
Jack,
Let’s say the Lib antiwar decibel level was a”10″ when Bush was in office, and it worked – the R’s were annihilated in the 2006 midterms over the war.
Now with the new CIC, a Democrat, we are in the same wars, and have even escalated the Afghan war. And yet the Lib antiwar decibel level would now be a “1.”
If they really cared about “the war,” where’d the “outrage” go?
Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
Joel, yesterday you were calling me partisan, Yes, Now you’re calling Sammy a troll. He’s been here for many years. When there is no point a liberal can make they use name calling!
I also asked yesterday why there is such a reaction to an open discussion? We realize thet you folks are disappointed in your failing president. We realize you folks are ahamed at the failures of your legislators. We realize the you folks are emabarrassed by the failure of your so oft repeated policy staements. We also can recognize the hypocrisy of anti-war, sloganeering such as “tax cuts for the rich”, and foolish name calling as a retort.
Please folks, start thinking before the silliness comes through your key boards. That reflection in the mirror with the name tag you just used is your own face not someone else.
Joel,
It’s just discussion and debate. If you have a better explanation, put it forth!
Jack:
When you are president of the United States of America. You soon discover that you still have to represent the people you might not or want to be friends with.
Democratic party and Republican party both needed a lesson in civility. They will need indepenpent voters whom do not neccessarily subscribe to either partie’s ideology- they are the key swing voters as the former congress found out.
The GE CEO have always been a Democrat, it’s not surprising the President trying to bring back the business community with a Democrat businessman. Do you think the President will appoint a Independent or Republican to do that?
LOL!
CoRev, on the narrow issue of the surface temperature trends, the trend is still obvious, even with the error bars.
On the broader issue of global warming, this dataset is only one of many. Taken in isolation, one might be justified in caution. But taken together with arctic ice pack melts, greenland ice sheet reduction, global glacier retreats, increase in sea levels and acidification, rising atmospheric CO[2] and the appearance of temperate plant and animal species in increasingly higer latitudes and altitudes, the arrows all point in the same direction–global warming is real and an anthropogenic explanation is the single best explanation scientifically. The evidence of global warming doesn’t rest on a single dataset.
I understand your need to cling to right-wing orthodoxy, CoRev, and the glee you experience in mining any miniscule basis to cast doubt is evident in your posts. But your argument is just a veneer of science covering a profound ignorance of the diversity and breadth of evidence supporting AGW. Very much like the creationists, you cling desperately to tiny morsles of doubt and bleat your wishful prophecies of the retreat of science. The history of science is replete with science denial–the geocentric universe, vitalism, spontaneous generation, creationism, homeopathy–all eventually finding their places in the curio cabinet of human ignorance and superstition. The difference with global warming denial is the amount of harm this ignorance will do to the planet.
CoRev,
My mileage varied wildly on this one.
Ira Glickstein, PhD System (science) Engineer should go back to specifying skip jets to go along with surfing Bradley fighting vehicles to the USMC.
What has a EE turned ‘system (engineer) sciences major’, at IBM, LOCKHEED (!!!!!!), etc Assoc Prof UMd, got to do with Global warming?
What is system engineering? I know a lot about system engineers, nothing good, but almost nothing about where they come from. I can tell you all the horror stories about failed weapons and Taiwan 33% failure rate on missiles shots are rooted in system engineers, but then you would say: “my one trick pony don’t count”.
What does a PhD (in humbug) from Bingham(p)ton (is that in New York or UK?)or what in system science……..
In my long ‘one trick’ experience, systems engineering and systems science, especially at places like LOCKHEED is humbug. These are the folk which are supposed to map a system to “requirements”. These are the folk who build expeditionary fighting vehicle technical specs to not be achieved and who preside over plans (statisticall anomally if the spec not met) to test them so that a fail is a pass. They do work with figures.
You may get more or less mileage with this old saw: “Figures lie and …….”.
Correlation is coincidence?
Assuming there is a probablity AGW is real what are the costs and what are the costs of mitigation? If the costs are less than the costs of mitigation we should just live with it (or our descendants should) If one looks at temp trends of the Pliestocene, it does look like its about time to plunge back into another ice advance period (time constant 1000 to 5000 years to happen). So the question is if there is AGW will it just prevent the ice advance period. According to Wikipedia interglacial periods tend to run 10k years others say 15 to 20k and we are 11k into this one. So it is possible another ice advance period could be upon us. More likley in the 100 to 500 year period is another little ice age. We know very little but have lots of theories about the causes of the natural variation in the climate, and its not clear that the assumptions made in making the AGW models have included this variation.
As a result we have to treat the problem as one of insurance, there is some risk (between 0 and 100%), it will lead to some cost that has an NPV and compare this with the costs to mitigate. Its a decision just like deciding if you want to buy collision or comprehensive on a car that is paid for.
The trend in the US is to tax the next generation, why expect the US to do anything to help the next generation?
Besides as the post from CoRev shows the debate is between the carbon sellers, and the supporting carbon sellers’ war machine (militray industrial complex paid by the futrue tax payers of the US) who conquer and defend the oil and coal fields.
If the cost of the running the US empire for the carbon interests were placed on imported oil, there would be no foreign oil burning in the US.
And no peak oil and all kinds of alternatives.
The MIC and the carbon sellers are pillaging the US tax payer and humbug factory fallacious factoids about AGW is a way to keep the plunderers in business.
The is business diversity when the war machine humbug factories find clients in the carbon seller cabals.
Wait for the humbug factories’ outcry over this one:
Such a dangerous world the US needs to send Iraq, Karzai, NATO Stars Wars, new aircraft carriers, unprecidented at hundreds of millions a pop littoral ships, F-35 skip jets and a trillion a year worth of others blank checks with no expectation of performance and no end date……………
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_defense_cuts
The tea party ain’t buying the military industrial complex idea of perpetaul warprofiteering.
I think Dr. Glickstein needs to write a chart correlating declining military industrial complex spending with Pearl Harbor, Task Force Smith, and boxcutter wielding terrorists*, so that the trillion a year for the war machine and empire is not pared.
The Humbug coalition in the beltway now has 3 axes of phoney analysis: war fears, anti global warming, and defending the medical insurance cartels’ pillaging systems.
Pretty soon the intersates will crumble and the trains will not run on time, because ‘systems scientists’ are becoming employed by humbug factries.
*Correlation is coincidence, and the meme of cutting the war machine ignores the other factors associated with these events traditionally used to sell the MIC.
Lyle
I would suggest that “costs” should not be evaluated in terms of money. There really are better values to base your life on. In particular NPV is a poor way to measure these costs. NPV works for one person using his own estimates of risks to compare one investment to another. It works for two parties, each with his own estimate of risks, to arrive at a “selling price” for an investment.
It could even work for the SSA to try to present a consistent cost estimate for future SS costs, but even there it breaks down badly over differing people’s estimate of risks, and the importance of those risks. It also obscures the trade offs between insurance and investment, and the significnce of a couple of decimal places between different “investments” as compared to say, the “cost” of finding yourself a dollar short on your food budget when you have no source of income.
For global warming there is no way on earth to evaluate any of the supposed trade offs. We do have a moral responsibility… remember that?… to leave the earth in as good a shape as we found it. None of the investments required to head off global warming will “cost” any of us anything. Unless of course you consider your right to drive a big car back and forth to work a god given right.
Michigan update:
As reported today, people in Michigan (those who haven’t left) are feeling so poor they are not making as many babies as the historical trend.
People have to feel really, really poor to slow down the baby making activity.
Lyle,
As a result we have to treat the problem as one of insurance
This is an excellent way to look at this. The insurance equation, as you describe, is:
(Probability of Loss) x Loss = Premium
Let’s try attempt to assign some numbers here:
Probability of Loss – what are the odds that man-made CO2 overwhems all other climate factors? Given the current state of the scientific debate, I will be overly generous and assign a probability of 25%.
Loss – what is the downside to having slightly higher temperatures vs. lower temperatures? Given that life on Earth tends to thrive in at warmer temperatures than colder, and the experience of mankind during the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age the cost of higher temps might even be POSITIVE. Loss minimal.
Premium – reducing our CO2 output to circa 1900 levels has ginormous cost. You must include in this cost the cost of forcing China and India to join us in this seppuku, without which the insurance will be worthless.
So let’s put this into the equation (Prob X Loss = Premium):
(.25) x (Small loss, if any) = (Ginormous Cost)
In this case the obvious conclusion is TO DO NOTHING, and it is very difficult to find any set of numbers that you could plug in to arrive at any other conclusion. So the current effort to mitigate man-made CO2 is about POWER.
Joel, who said there was no warming is a flawed perception. Your understanding: “The evidence of global warming doesn’t rest on a single dataset.” isn’t a whole lot better. Even thought there are multiple datasets of processed/folded/mutilated data the data sources are essentially the same stations around the world. some select mnore than others, but the raw data is the same. since I’m on that subject, did you know that the rqw data is not readily available out side the closed community? Independent verification is not possible.
What most skeptics object to is the catastrophic predictions. Mankind has a history, as Sammy pointed out, of actually having accelerated, improving conditions during times of warmth.
BTW, a recent study hasproven: “…the appearance of temperate plant and animal species in increasingly higer latitudes and altitudes,…” to actually be different. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/20/another-ipcc-claim-contradicted-with-new-science/
There’s so much more wrong with your views, but why pick nits with a “true beleiver” that’s the waarming is all due to man?
thus perfectly illustrating the perils of lyle’s approach. when an ignorant person assigns imaginary probabilities… and risks… to things he knows nothing about, he can convince himself he is doing something scientific.
well jskit has defeated me. the comment above “perfectly illustrating” was meant to follow sammy’s comment assigning probabilites to global warming based on sticking his finger in the air, and his certain knowledge that warmer is better, based on a day at the beach.
Please define an objective approach. Note that I would put the probability at around 60%. But the second question is what are the costs of living with the change and mitigating the impacts versus agressive action. Discussions of morality etc. are all well and good, but not objective, and can not get to the point where enough people are convinced to change the trend. (At least not people in the right places, after all if you are going to take my job away, I want very good reasons, so W Va ,Il,In,Ky,ND,MT,Wy,Ks and Va to some extent are going to have regional job lossess. Add to that Oil states and it quickly its to 20 states, and you are gone. Only if you can show with hard numbers that the cost of fixing the problem is less than the cost of living with it, will you have any hope of convincing them. A lot of people in the middle of the country feel this is just another one of the pointy headed elites telling them what is good for them. Just like they felt in 1896 about the eastern types and gold.
However to say that the odds are 100% that the theory is right ignores a lot of information we don’t have, such as what would happen to the climate if humans were not here. I content that sometime in the next 10k years we would have another ice extension period. In fact I was reading that some of the cold weather may be due to excessive Snow and Ice accumulation in Siberia. Guess what, if it makes it thru a summer hellow expanding glaciers.
Lyle that was the most convoluted comment on ?A?GW/GW/CC that I have read in a long time. Let’s start from the beginning. You said: “Note that I would put the probability at around 60%.” Probablility of what? That there is ?A?GW/GW/CC? That probability is 100%. We have an entire science to study it.
The probability that warming is actually detrimental to mankind is nearly zero. The probability that we will see the IPCC estimated average temperature increase is near zero. The probabibility that the average temperature increase is only due to CO2 is zero.
So when you make probability statements it helps to define what you are measuring.
As most novices you then go into some anecdotal weather story telling with this: “In fact I was reading that some of the cold weather may be due to excessive Snow and Ice accumulation in Siberia. Guess what, if it makes it thru a summer hellow expanding glaciers.”
So what are your views?
ILSM, that is far from an alternative view of anything. It is, however, a rant on the Dem failure to pass even more horrid legislation, The Cap & Trade TAX revenue bill. Tax revenue is the only thing that would have changed. climate would have been untouched.
lyle
your “hard numbers” are self delusion. the science is as good as it gets. you can’t avoid moral questions. you can only settle for immoral answers.
coberly,
thus perfectly illustrating the perils of lyle’s approach.
Of course you don’t like the approach. It offers a structured and logical way to look at the problem. You prefer free-form idiocy and moral preening that leads to inane ideas, like “let’s just require little slow electric cars in the city.”
sammy
i was fairly far along in studying human intelligence, or the lack of it, when i realized that “logical” just means “words that i like,” or better, “free associations made by random synaptic connections.”
of course that makes it difficult to teach anyone anything.
what is sad is that your experience leaves you with no concept of morality except short term profit.
it would be even sadder that your “structured and logical” way of calculating short term profits is… ah…. somewhat blind to variables you never even consider.
maybe you should begin by reading the story of King Midas.