2012 was warmest year in U.S. history

[Burke]

Which hockey stick graph? The one that showed no MWP or the latest that now does?

What will the third or fourth amended version show?

Does the latest one jive with the tree ring data for the last 60-65 yes?

Last I heard there was a very sharp difference.

Have they put the temps for the last 16 yrs on it?

Showing very little warming, if any.

Don't worry. They will come up with some BS.

They always do.

[FrolfGator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Which hockey stick graph? The one that showed no MWP or the latest that now does?

What will the third or fourth amended version show?

Does the latest one jive with the tree ring data for the last 60-65 yes?

Last I heard there was a very sharp difference.

Have they put the temps for the last 16 yrs on it?

Showing very little warming, if any.

Don't worry. They will come up with some BS.

They always do.

Burke, I don't know where you're getting your information about climate change, but it seems rather scrambled. Whatever sources you are using, please follow their citations to the actual papers and read through those, and see if they agree with what your pundits are saying. If your sources don't cite papers, question why.

The "hockey stick" graph includes temperature reconstruction going back a thousand years. A 15-year period of only minor warming doesn't have much impact on that scale. Even the original "toe" had minor dips and levels, but the overall trend was of a sharp temperature rise in the modern age.

But yes, the temperature data has been continuously updated and the hockey stick remains.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

The funny thing about this line of reasoning is that it eliminates all possible future outcomes. Scientists would "benefit" by anthropogenic climate change, so that can't be true. Exxon would benefit if anthropogenic climate change, so that can't be true. Doctors would benefit if I one day had cancer, so that can't be true. The Florida orange growers would benefit if vitamin C was beneficial to our health, so that can't be true. John Boehner would benefit if the republicans are the right party to elect to our congress, so that can't be true.

Do you see the logic trap that you've fallen into? Of course the dairy farmers are going to tell you that milk is good for you. But that doesn't mean that it isn't. You need to use an independent method if yo
u really want to understand this.

So the government' s solutions to AGW is what? Cap and trade or a carbon tax. Since a carbon tax is not a sensible solution to AGW, I have to conclude the gov't is in it for the tax money. As others have said, we should be looking at ways to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, but that's not what is being seriously offered as an option.

[FrolfGator]

Cap and trade was the Republican alternative to across-the-board limits on greenhouse gas emissions. They wanted a market driven approach. Why is that no longer a sensible solution?

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

So the government' s solutions to AGW is what? Cap and trade or a carbon tax. Since a carbon tax is not a sensible solution to AGW, I have to conclude the gov't is in it for the tax money. As others have said, we should be looking at ways to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, but that's not what is being seriously offered as an option.

Now you are into a totally different question. Our first question is about how do we know what is true. E.g. Are humans contributing to climate change? This is a question for empirical science.

This new question wonders what are we going to do about it. E.g. How should we mitigate climate change? This is a question for economics and moral philosophy.

Make no mistake, these questions are largely independent of one another. In other words, just because you don't want a carbon tax doesn't mean that carbon emissions aren't contributing to climate change. The former is irrelevant to the latter.

So to answer your question, very poorly: the government, a multiheaded organization, has come up with several "solutions". The green energy initiative was one of them. However, economists believe, contrary to your views, that a carbon tax is a much more efficient solution. They love cap and trade. But again, this is an economic and moral argument, so there is room for multiple viewpoints. In the question of whether burning fossil fuels causes climate change, however, there is not. It either does or it does not.

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by FrolfGator

Cap and trade was the Republican alternative to across-the-board limits on greenhouse gas emissions. They wanted a market driven approach. Why is that no longer a sensible solution?

Again, follow the money. Its nothing more than a new commodity trading scheme.

[Burke]

There is something else that needs to be said along this line.

So far in this discussion, I have been accepting the temperature figures put out by the govt funded agencies supposedly collecting them, primarily the land based temps gathered by the climate research group at the East Anglia University in the UK, which is closely associated with the Met office there.

These are the same people who were deeply involved in the Climategate scandal. Last I heard, they had "lost" all or nearly all of the original data they based their conclusions on.

I put their figures in the same category as I put govt unemployment figures, inflation figures, and things like that.

In other words, they are doing a lot of lying about the temps and STILL can't prove their claims.

[Burke]

Frolf,

I can tell you where I don't get my info:

From RealClimate.Org

One of the first things I figured out was that it is just an AGW propaganda site.

[FrolfGator]

Originally Posted by Burke

One of the first things I figured out was that it is just an AGW propaganda site.

What led you to believe that?

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by g8trjax

Again, follow the money. Its nothing more than a new commodity trading scheme.

Again, this "follow the money" mantra is not only overly simplistic, it isn't even internally logically consistent.

Have you ever heard of an political model called "bootleggers and baptists"? It basically says that groups of completely different moral standing often share political aims. Why might this be? Part of the story is often your "follow the money" model, but this model falls quite short in other arenas. Let's see how this works by using the story that gives bootleggers and baptists it's name:

Many southern preachers have historically argued against allowing liquor sales on Sundays (Indeed, we still cannot purchase spirits until 11 am on Sundays here in Tampa to this day). Their argument was simple: Sunday is a holy day, and liquor is an unholy substance. Ah, but there was another group that favored this Sunday regulation: the bootleggers, a group hardly known for their moral turpitude. But as you've not doubt already surmised, this group's interests were not moral, but instead financial. And yet here they both were, bootleggers and baptists, in the same boat.

Now let's take your "follow the money" model to its logical conclusion: The preachers clearly invented this God story to sell booze at higher prices. Following your model, these people would have been advised to storm the churches, screaming "Sunday is not a holy day, follow the money!!!" Of course, you would never advise that. And yet here you are, calling the scientists bootleggers, with it never once occurring to you that these people just might be the baptists. In fact, it probably hasn't occurred to you that almost every "scientist's" name mentioned in this thread wasn't an actual scientist. The bootleggers are most certainly out there on this issue, but I wouldn't be so sure that you've correctly identified them.

[Burke]

I'm old enough to remember when the Apollo program was ended. A lot of people around here worked on it, and their lives became very difficult. People with PhDs were getting jobs pumping gas and selling insurance. Their wives were dumping them, etc.

If the AGW crowd were to admit that CO2 was not causing warming, the whole "climate science" industry would come crashing down. And their cushy taxpayer supported jobs would disappear.

And you can bet your last buck they damn well know it.

[FrolfGator]

Originally Posted by Burke

If the AGW crowd were to admit that CO2 was not causing warming

The fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas doesn't come from climate science, it comes from pure physics and chemistry.

[Juggernautz]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

Again, this "follow the money" mantra is not only overly simplistic, it isn't even internally logically consistent.

Have you ever heard of an political model called "bootleggers and baptists"? It basically says that groups of completely different moral standing often share political aims. Why might this be? Part of the story is often your "follow the money" model, but this model falls quite short in other arenas. Let's see how this works by using the story that gives bootleggers and baptists it's name:

Many southern preachers have historically argued against allowing liquor sales on Sundays (Indeed, we still cannot purchase spirits until 11 am on Sundays here in Tampa to this day). Their argument was simple: Sunday is a holy day, and liquor is an unholy substance. Ah, but there was another group that favored this Sunday regulation: the bootleggers, a group hardly known for their moral turpitude. But as you've not doubt already surmised, this group's interests were not moral, but instead financial. And yet here they both were, bootleggers and baptists, in the same boat.

Now let's take your "follow the money" model to its logical conclusion: The preachers clearly invented this God story to sell booze at higher prices. Following your model, these people would have been advised to storm the churches, screaming "Sunday is not a holy day, follow the money!!!" Of course, you would never advise that. And yet here you are, calling the scientists bootleggers, with it never once occurring to you that these people just might be the baptists. In fact, it probably hasn't occurred to you that almost every "scientist's" name mentioned in this thread wasn't an actual scientist. The bootleggers are most certainly out there on this issue, but I wouldn't be so sure that you've correctly identified them.

No question...

[ChartsandGrafs]

AGW movement = Eugenics movement 2.0

Just another Rockefeller-funded scam.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

AGW movement = Eugenics movement 2.0

Just another Rockefeller-funded scam.

I go back to my original statement about tune outs.

The stakes are just too high anymore.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

I go back to my original statement about tune outs.

The stakes are just too high anymore.

That's the same thing Hitler said.

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

Again, this "follow the money" mantra is not only overly simplistic, it isn't even internally logically consistent.

Have you ever heard of an political model called "bootleggers and baptists"? It basically says that groups of completely different moral standing often share political aims. Why might this be? Part of the story is often your "follow the money" model, but this model falls quite short in other arenas. Let's see how this works by using the story that gives bootleggers and baptists it's name:

Many southern preachers have historically argued against allowing liquor sales on Sundays (Indeed, we still cannot purchase spirits until 11 am on Sundays here in Tampa to this day). Their argument was simple: Sunday is a holy day, and liquor is an unholy substance. Ah, but there was another group that favored this Sunday regulation: the bootleggers, a group hardly known for their moral turpitude. But as you've not doubt already surmised, this group's interests were not moral, but instead financial. And yet here they both were, bootleggers and baptists, in the same boat.

Now let's take your "follow the money" model to its logical conclusion: The preachers clearly invented this God story to sell booze at higher prices. Following your model, these people would have been advised to storm the churches, screaming "Sunday is not a holy day, follow the money!!!" Of course, you would never advise that. And yet here you are, calling the scientists bootleggers, with it never once occurring to you that these people just might be the baptists. In fact, it probably hasn't occurred to you that almost every "scientist's" name mentioned in this thread wasn't an actual scientist. The bootleggers are most certainly out there on this issue, but I wouldn't be so sure that you've correctly identified them.

Sorry, you're dissecting this way too much. You believe that AGW scientists can't possibly be wrong, and that politicians just have our best interest at heart, and we are all going to die, unless some sort of new tax and money making scheme is enacted. That's fine I suppose. From where I sit, we have a government full of representatives that are bought by the highest contributors, and this one is telling them they want a new way to make a gozillion dollars on the commodities market. If only we could trade carbon credits. If I really believed that AGW was a concrete solid scientific fact, I damn sure would be looking at other ways to reduce our carbon footprint than making a bunch of bankers wet dreams come true. If the govt wants to start converting all vehicle to NG or hydrogen or something along those lines, well count me in. Otherwise the politicians are doing nothing but increasing our CO2 problem every time they open their mouths on this issue.

[Burke]

"The stakes are too high" is just another Judgment Day-style terror cliche.

The enemy at the gate has always been an excuse for govt power grabs.

The truth is that warming has been good in the past. During the MWP crops flourished and populations grew. When we entered the Little Ice Age, starvation, disease and death ensued. In fact, lefties were claiming in the '70's that industrial pollution was taking us into another ice age, historically the real threat to mankind.

It's quite possible that the worst mass murderer in history was Rachel Carson, often regarded as the originator of the modern environmental movement.

And her deadly legacy is growing and maybe even accelerating.

They are beginning to call it Green Death.

One of the founders of Greenpeace got out of it after a few years saying that it had become "anti-human."

[The_Graygator]

... and that politicians just have our best interest at heart,

jax

No, there's no dissecting necessary. That's EXACTLY what GW and CC is all about... money, power, and control. Pretty much the same as Obamacare.

[Burke]

I might add that the "follow the money" dictum is most often used by leftists to blame "big oil" or "corporations" for all dissent on AGW.

Recently, I had a local professor who was a guest on a local talk radio show tell me just that when I called in, as an explanation for my questions about who was putting out some climate data that was not favorable to his views.