I suppose the global warming crowd will soon become the global cooling crowd, AGAIN, and attempt to extort massive amounts of money by fear mongering the gullible public.

The global warming crowd is now the "Climate Change" crowd. Might get hotter might colder.

So what? Temperatures in the US do not equal global temperatures.

So now temperature change is the same as climate change? Brilliant. Somebody get a memo up to the polar bears.

I thought they were expected to be lower this year because it's a la nina year, and that they are supposed to pick up after that.

Okay, everybody back in the SUVs and start driving more. I'm freezing.

A lot of ignorance being expressed here about the difference between weather and climate.

Here is a collection of the world’s major temperature data sets, in graphical form:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#NCDC

Note that the oldest goes back to 1659 from England.

Be sure to read the block: A word on scale

A frequent criticism is that the land temperatures are not fully corrected for the heat island effect (it is warmer in cities than the countryside and the thermometers tend to be placed in cites which have grown over the decades.)

Satellite data is considered the moist accurate. The most accurate land based record is generally considered to be the USHCN.

Some sources of more information:

Icecap.us
Junkscience.com
ClimateAudit.org
CO2Science.org
SurfaceStations.org
ScienceAndPublicPolicy.org
Climate-skeptic.com
WorldClimateReport.com
Realclimate.org
ClimatProject.org
Junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

Thanks
JK

The unmasking of the global warming hoax perpetuated by Al Gore might partially explain this:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10094101-36.html

Perhaps he's trimming the fat because he knows the gig is up?

Temperatures have been falling world wide for almost two years now, at an astounding rate.

The basic conclusion that many scientists are coming to...despite the bullying of the global warming cartel...is that the natural cycles of the Sun have a far greater effect upon our climate than does the behavior of mankind.

Google "Sunspots" and "Global Cooling" for more.

The facts won't stop Comrade Obama's employers, the Banksters, from using said racket to further pick our pockets, though.

"Google "Sunspots" and "Global Cooling" for more."

Here are three videos of interest:
Unstoppable Solar cycles:
youtube.com/watch?v=Cl4Pz1mwBao

Blame The Sun Not SUV's:
youtube.com/watch?v=BFfCL-JPYw4&feature=related

Balance & context in the global warming debate
http://blip.tv/file/791876/
(Select mp4 for near DVD quality on the slides)

the frequency of posters confusing the concepts of "weather", "temperature", and "climate" is astounding.

Jim Karlock, with all that Googling and shouting you do, why dont you understand the difference? or did you think "climate change" actually meant "this year's temperature variance"?

some computer models are predicting that the earth is heading back into an ice age cycle. Those predictions show ice sheets covering most of the USA sometime in the next 100,000 years. Hopefully global warming can save us from the next ice age because Sam's streetcars won't be running if there is 20 feet of ice in downtown Portland.

ecohuman.com Jim Karlock, with all that Googling and shouting you do, why dont you understand the difference? or did you think "climate change" actually meant "this year's temperature variance"?
JK: What are you talking about? Some data sets show that 1998 is still the warmest year. That means that we are TEN years into a decline (since we have not equaled or exceeded the 1998 peak.) Add the projected 10 years of NO FUTURE WARMING in recent peer-reviewed journal articles, and you are 80% of the way to climate changing from warming to cooling. (Using the length of the recent warming as the length to define climate - 1975 - 1998)

Aside: It is interesting that the above link’s definition of climate is 30 years, but we were only 13 years into the current warming when Jim Hansen was sounding the alarm, to congress, about warming (1975-1988) - interestingly it is now cooler than when he spread the alarm (using the temperature record that Hansen keeps at NASA.)

By Hansen’s apparent criteria of 13 years to define climate, we are only three years away from sounding the alarm about the coming ice age. And we know that we will reach that time as a peer-reviewed journal told us so when it published a projection of ten years of coming stasis or cooling.

Since you appear to be leaning toward the warmer’s side, can you point me to the critical link in the chain of evidence that convicts mankind: The papers proving that CO2 can actually cause dangerous global warming?
(Other links might include 1)How much warming is actually occurring, 2)Proof that man is responsible for the CO2 rise, and 3) Proof that the degree of warming is worth trying to stop.)

Thanks
JK

Jack, don't tell me you're losing your religion :D

JK: What are you talking about? Some data sets show that 1998 is still the warmest year. That means that we are TEN years into a decline (since we have not equaled or exceeded the 1998 peak.)

Jim, now I realize that you actually don't understand what climate change is. I'm sorry. In fact, you've misunderstood it almost entirely, if for no other reason than you're focused on the pop culture phenomenon of "global warming".

Since you appear to be leaning toward the warmer’s side
No Jim, I'm not. and that's why I'm saying you don't actually understand climate change. I didn't realize that until reading your last post.

"you don't actually understand climate change."
If the issue is length of time to call it climate, then 13 years makes climate because that is the length of time that warming was going on when Hansen sounded the alarm.

Before that he was associated with people warning us about the coming ice age and telling us to quit using fossil fuels to stop said ice age. (S. I. Rasool; S. H. Schneider, Science, Vol. 173, No. 3992, pp. 138-141.)

So how long does it take? Or are you going to claim climate change started in 1850 as the little ice age ended? But you have no CO2 to blame back then, so you must choose a later start date. Since there was little CO2 to blame, most warmers choose around 1970 when CO2 emissions got fairly large.

BTW, where do I find that per-reviewed paper showing that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming?

Thanks
JK

I like to have my cake and eat it, too. Lets assume for the sake of argument that there is data supporting the idea of anthropogenic "climate change."

If that is true, it still doesn't matter, if our climate is almost entirely dependent on solar cycles, and sunspots are the "canary in the coal mine." Sun big; mankind small.

These same scientists who are sounding the alarm concerning the rapid cool-down we are currently experiencing...snow in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years, record cold in South America, record cold in the USA, and so forth...are also referencing the Little Ice Age. That period was the last time we saw such extreme abnormalities in the sunspot records.

One Russian gentleman quipped that we should all stock up on fur coats for the next 30-50 years, and it was *cold* in Russia, before the cool-down.

Again, google "Sunspots," "Global," and "Cooling," folks.

Jim Karlock keeps asking:
> where do I find that per-reviewed paper
> showing that CO2 can actually cause
> dangerous warming?

Jim, there isn't such a paper, and there can never be. "Dangerous" not a scientific term, it is one of values. Climate change you consider "safe" might well be considered "dangerous" by someone living in Africa. Or by someone living in the Arctic, or by someone in Bangladesh, or by a frog species being squeezed off the top of a mountain in central America, or by someone living 100 years in the future.

Is it worth altering our lifestyle to save these animals and plants? That is a question of morals, not one of science.

Jim Karlock wrote:
> A frequent criticism is that the land
> temperatures are not fully corrected for > the heat island effect (it is warmer in
> cities than the countryside and the
> thermometers tend to be placed in cites
> which have grown over the decades.)

Jim, numerous studies have been done on the "urban heat island effect" and have not found it consistent or significant. See, for example, Parker (2004), "Large-scale warming is not urban", Nature 432(7015): 290-290 or any of several other papers on the subject. Also, as the IPCC has documented, the UHI effect would have little impact on temperature variations and temperature trends.

Jim, there isn't such a paper, and there can never be. "Dangerous" not a scientific term, it is one of values.

yes. Jim doesn't seem to understand this, or the idea of climate change in general. Google+conspiracy theories are an odd way to dispute recognized problems.

Is it worth altering our lifestyle to save these animals and plants? That is a question of morals, not one of science.

exactly. i would add "and to save ourselves." but be prepared--this way of thinking largely remains a mystery to those looking for spreadsheet answers to three-dimensional problems.

Mankind jumps off a 50-story building falling toward a pit of fire.

News FLASH: Passing the 25th floor, reports say the rushing wind is getting chilly and so far so good, what could go wrong?

---
Maybe we google the results we like. In the homes of the brave, try one like this: 'why I am wrong to deny global warming'

---
Bean counters could compare familiar compound-interest schedules with exotic warming warming rates. Ya' figure?

Here's some more fuel for the fire (so to speak).

Jim Karlock keeps asking:
> where do I find that per-reviewed paper showing that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming?
David: Jim, there isn't such a paper, and there can never be.
JK: Thanks for the admission.

David: "Dangerous" not a scientific term, it is one of values...
JK: Nice dodge of the question. Pick a reasonable value and then answer the question. Of course you still can’t. Prove me wrong, David.

Aside to the casual reader: it is widely recognized that CO2's warming effect is logarithmic, and we are on the plateau where most of all possible effect has already happened. A doubling of CO2 will have very little effect on temperature. Unless you add some purely speculative amplifier. It is widely recognized that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas and that water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, so the alarmists (including IPCC) speculate that water vapor “amplifies” the minor warming due to CO2 in order to get scary scenarios. It is also widely recognized that throughout the 50s,60s and 70s CO2 increased but temperature did not. The same has been happening recently. This is a major embarrassment to the warmer’s.

Here is the ultimate embarrassment to the warmer’s: the ups and downs of the sun’s activity fit climate better than CO2 throughout the abovementioned periods. Further, one can go back millions of years and find the same close fit between sun and climate throughout history. The criticism is that ths sun’s energy output change is insufficient to cause these climate changes (like CO2 without the postulated amplifier.) The deceit here is that the warmer’s apply an amplifier to their favorite cause, but won’t allow a similar amplifier to the competing solar theory.

A number of solar scientists have noticed that our current spotless sun and activity patterns resemble those of the sun a few centuries ago, as we were about to enter the “little ice age”. Obviously this is somewhat speculative, but at least it is realty based, unlike the warmer’s fantasy which ignores the periods of contra relationship between CO2 and climate and requires an amplifier to be scarey.

Let me end with an Al Gore quote:
”I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...”; Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added.
BTW: Al Gore heads a mutual fund for green investments and is a partner is a vulture capital firm that specializes in green investments.

David Appell: Is it worth altering our lifestyle to save these animals and plants? That is a question of morals, not one of science.
JK: Doesn’t that depend on how many people you hurt by how much? Or do you value animals higher than people?

Worldwide cap & Trade will literally kill millions of people, keep millions more in poverty and drive many present, low income people, into poverty. Maybe the biggest lie coming from the warmers is that there exists a substitute energy source. There is no utility scale alternative energy. It does not exist, they only hope it will magically appear if we spend a few billion dollars on their friends’ pet projects.

Of course nuclear would substitute for coal, but the greens forbid this option.

Thanks
JK

Jim Karlock wrote:
> A frequent criticism is that the land temperatures are not fully corrected for the heat island effect ..
David Appell: Jim, numerous studies have been done on the "urban heat island effect" and have not found it consistent or significant...
JK: You are claiming that placing official weather thermometers on parking lots, next to air conditioners, on airport runways and on roofs give the same result as thermometers places in the middle of a grassy field (as required by standards)

Laughable, David, just plain laughable.

See http://surfacestations.org/ for the pictures - only a small minority of stations are ups to standard and, guess what? - they show a lot less warming.

Of course you failed to mention this paper:
“The hypothesis is strongly rejected (P=7.1E-14), indicating that extraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries, and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing”
McKitrick, R.R. and P.J. Michaels (2007), Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465

Thanks
JK

ecohuman.com : yes. Jim doesn't seem to understand this, or the idea of climate change in general.
JK: Just what do I not understand? Please be specific.

Thanks
JK

David Appell: Is it worth altering our lifestyle to save these animals and plants? That is a question of morals, not one of science.
JK: Doesn’t that depend on how many people you hurt by how much? Or do you value animals higher than people?

Jim, if your philosophy is "things are bad only if they hurt human beings, and even then it depends on how many", I'm disappointed in you.

and believing in the supremacy of humans just might be a root cause of the insanity that is global ecological destruction.

in other words, Jim: we are one of the animals.

and soon, we'll be part of the plants.

Here is a nice overview:
The Futile Quest for Climate Control, Robert M. Carter
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/451/the-futile-quest-for-climate-control/page:printable

thanks
JK

ooh, the Quadrant. I'm shocked that you'd link to a neoconservative, right-wing, mystery-funding source magazine, Jim. you're smarter than that--aren't you?

ecohuman.com ooh, the Quadrant. I'm shocked that you'd link to a neoconservative, right-wing, mystery-funding source magazine, Jim. you're smarter than that--aren't you?
JK: Sorry, I forgot that you are totally unprepared to judge an article, other than by where it appears.

Thanks
JK

JK: Sorry, I forgot that you are totally unprepared to judge an article, other than by where it appears.

judging from your repeated, almost exclusive use of these sorts of sources (explicitly right-wing, overtly neoconservative, dismissive and name-calling), I'd say you've judged things exactly as you're decrying, Jim.

JK: Didn’t you like Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S09, doi:10.1029/2007JD008465

Thanks
JK

you're lost in the wilderness, Jim. be careful out there.

"you're lost in the wilderness, Jim. be careful out there."
JK: Don't you like those peer reviewed journals?

Maybe you'' like something from Europe better:

Over the last few years, however, diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Although this remains a mystery, observations suggest that cloud cover may be influenced by cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind and, on longer time scales, by the geomagnetic field and by the galactic environment of Earth. Two different classes of microphysical mechanisms have been proposed to connect cosmic rays with clouds: firstly, an influence of cosmic rays on the production of cloud condensation nuclei and, secondly, an influence of cosmic rays on the global electrical circuit in the atmosphere and, in turn, on ice nucleation and other cloud microphysical processes. Bold Added, EUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH, CERN-PH-EP/2008-005, 26 March 2008

Notice the lack of CO2 in the list of climate causes. Thus there is no reason to hurt millions of people to control that which man cannot control. Sorry about your dreams of a new society based on making the local condo whores, streetcar hucksters and Al Gore rich.

Thanks
JK

The real tell to the story is to remember that Gore just declined the offer to become Obama's "climate czar." His priority must be to soak up as much in carbon offset profits and other environmental feel-goods before the world realizes he is just another crook / politician / snake oil salesman looking out for Number One. Or is he working for the Planet Earth for free?

Don't worry, Comrade Obama will find some other con artist for the job. The facts concerning natural climate cycles are of no importance here....his masters, the European Banking cartels, with their carbon tax schemes, will not be denied their filthy lucre.

It's gonna be real funny as the Earth continues to cool down, freezing in our homes as our economy is further looted by the servants of the Usurers in the name of global warming.

These criminal dynasties laugh and laugh at your naivete.

Don't worry, Comrade Obama will find some other con artist for the job. The facts concerning natural climate cycles are of no importance here....his masters, the European Banking cartels, with their carbon tax schemes, will not be denied their filthy lucre.

i like it. let's substitute a few words:

Don't worry, Emperor Bush will find some other con artist for the job. The facts concerning natural climate cycles are of no importance here....his masters, the American Oil cartels, with their resource control schemes, will not be denied their filthy lucre.

so far, Obama has been accused of being a Muslim, a terrorist, a terrorist sympathizer, a servant of the Illuminati, an America-hater bent on destroying the country, a Communist, a Marxist, a Socialist, a Pro-Abortionist(!), a freedom hater (!), anti-Jew, pro-Jew, the second coming of Malcolm X, and a womanizer. surely I left something out.

readers, there are two general ways to look at the world right now: a place of fear and hate best met with pre-emptive aggression and dismissive rhetoric; or, that it's a place of possibility best met with hope, a critical and open mind, and the use of force as a last resort. not first; last.

you might notice which view won over voters in the recent Presidential race.

Lincoln did not say "To kill an enemy is to get peace"; he said "The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend." Jefferson did not say "The planet is our for the taking"; he said "This land is not our bank account, it is our beloved sister and brother."

Jim Karlock wrote:
>> David: "Dangerous" not a scientific
>> term, it is one of values...
> JK: Nice dodge of the question. Pick a
> reasonable value and then answer the
> question. Of course you still can’t.
> Prove me wrong, David.

Jim, you are still asking science to answer a nonscientific question. This isn't a dodge, just basic epistemology. "Reasonable" is a value-laden term, not a scientific one. Until you define exactly what you mean by it, it cannot possibly begin to be translated into the scientific realm.

Jim Karlock wrote:
>> David Appell: Is it worth altering
>> our lifestyle to save these animals
>> and plants? That is a question of
>> morals, not one of science.
> JK: Doesn’t that depend on how many
> people you hurt by how much? Or do you
> value animals higher than people?

First of all, people are animals.

As a human I do inherently and perhaps automatically value members of my own species above other species. In a moral sense this is wrong, but probably inescapable. Ideally I want all animals and plants to have as much opportunity to live out their lives as I do, and I advocate that we try to live our lives and develop our environment with this in mind. And I also know that our relative disregard for these plants and other animals inherently effects us, and will effect us even more as we continue to devalue and destroy nature. Human cannot live without healthy and functioning ecosystems. We destroy them at our peril.

PS: Yes, the actions we take regarding AGW do depend on how many people (and plants, and other animals) you want to hurt, and by how much. So how much *do* you want to harm them?

Jim Karlock:
> Worldwide cap & Trade will literally
> kill millions of people, keep millions
> more in poverty and drive many present,
> low income people, into poverty.

If done incorrectly, yes, it could negatively impact a lot of people. (It's by no means obvious is will "kill" any of them, at least many more than modern industry and today's fossil fuel technologies do already.)

But if done correctly it would be quite benign. For example, all citizens could get back a healthy percentage of what C&T costs industries and consumers. (See Bill McKibben's article in the recent Mother Jones.) And some of that money can go to R&D of alternative technologies, that would save those who adopt them, and could well _save_ the lives of millions who are currently unable to participate in the fossil fuel-driven economy.

Mike wrote:
> The real tell to the story is to
> remember that Gore just declined
> the offer to become Obama's "climate
> czar." His priority must be to soak up as > much in carbon offset profits and other
> environmental feel-goods before the world > realizes he is just another crook

Yes, because surely the only reason a man who has spent most of his adult life in the bright lights of government and who may well be happier in his new career as a leading advocate for an important cause would turn down yet another government position is because he is a selfish, money-grubbing, manipulative liar looking only to profit from his misdirections before we all realize his fraud. Of course.

And Mike, if carbon offset are so "profitable," why don't you show some initiative, jump into the field and start your own offsetting business? You'll clean up, right?

David Appell: PS: Yes, the actions we take regarding AGW do depend on how many people (and plants, and other animals) you want to hurt, and by how much. So how much *do* you want to harm them?
JK: First YOU have to show the harm that the proposed solutions can mitigate. YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT. Instead you rush into proposed solutions that WILL harm people.

Lets review basic logic for the casual follower and the occasional PHD that needs review:
TO prove that cutting CO2 will help, we must prove:

1. Our recent climate is unusually warm (on a geological scale, not the last 100 years).
2. CO2 is a) the cause AND b) increased CO2 will cause more warming.
3. Man is responsible for that increase in CO2.
4. The CO2 caused increase in temperature is a net harm.
5. Any proposed cure is better than “living with” the effects.

Your side has not proven even one of the above points.

To be clear, as the NAS said, the last decade of the twentieth century is almost certainly warmer than any decade in the last 400 years. They also said that the earth was in a “little ice age” 400 years ago.

To flagrantly violate the precautionary principle by re-arranging society without both proof of harm of the current path AND proof that the chosen path will NOT BE harmful is pure folly.

David Appell: Jim, you are still asking science to answer a nonscientific question. This isn't a dodge, just basic epistemology.
JK: It is NOT a dodge and you know it. Any self respecting Phd would simply choose a few temperature increases and prove the case for each. For instance you could prove that CO2 can cause 1 degree, 2 degree, 4 degree and 8 degrees of future warming at some level of CO2 increase. Then you could go on to prove that those temperature increases will cause more harm than good.

But you choose not to. Why?

OOPS!!
that should be:
It is a dodge and you know it.
Thanks
JK

Jim, all these items have been scientifically proven, as you well know. They have been catalogued to exhaustion in the IPCC reports, and in the scientific literature of the last 25 years, and all over the Web. I'm certainly not going to waste my time going over them again. You can read.

Do you honestly think that the majority of the world's climate scientists, all august scientific bodies in the world, and all administrations (including the Bush administration) somehow believe a fiction of massive proportions? Believe the AGW has been amply demonstrated when it has not? Are involved in a vast conspiracy of lies and fraud just because they don't like oil companies? That they're all Marxists who want nothing than to control all your life and ensure that you can't travel, or heat your house, or eat meat, but must live in a squalid apartment and go to an assembly line office job, like this is "1984" starring John Hurt? What would that conspiracy involve, 10,000 - 100,000 people, at least? All these people, writing publications in which they make up data, lying to journalists, lying before Congress? Do they take their orders from some small group of centralized liberals who live in a hollowed out mountain in Switzerland? Is that how you explain this AGW issue?

PS: Your #3 is the easiest of all: oxygen isotope ratios in the atmosphere show it clearly.

"ecohuman"- In elementary Logic courses, they teach us that A is not B. When have I ever, ever, ever, ever, ever come out in support of Bush or McCain the Neo-Cons ?

Your new smiley-face happy-speak totalitarian works for the same evil criminals as does our current regime, was my point.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The new guy has you mesmerized as only a very skilled rhetorician...IMHO, the best since Adolf Hitler....is able to. Anyone familiar with lying salesman or con-artists can see through empty promises of "Hope" and "Change" in a New York minute.

It's so nice to see Hegel's brilliant ideas still at work, manipulating your eager minds with false left/right, Democrat/Republican paradigms, while the the real rulers, the Banksters, just laugh and laugh, looting our treasury.

The scam of AGW or man-made "climate change" or whatever you are calling it this week is but one example of how the Usury Dynasties seek to increase and consolidate their control and power over our everyday lives.

As hardened cynics such as myself are wont to say, Follow the Money.

David, Jim's answer is and always shall be: "but, some other guys over here say otherwise!"

which for him renders irrelevant every conclusion of just about every scientific organization and governmental body on the planet.

in other words, Jim's lost in the wilderness. he'll post links to anything he can find that doesn't agree, which for him is a "discussion" and proof of "folly."

David Appell I'm certainly not going to waste my time going over them again. You can read.
JK: Because they don't actually exist and you know it.

David Appell Do you honestly think that the majority of the world's climate scientists,
JK: There you go arguing everything except the facts. I would expect better from a "science writer" especially one that claims a PhD. Please show me the facts: A few peer reviewed papers that prove that CO2 can cause dangerous global warming.

David Appell Your #3 is the easiest of all: oxygen isotope ratios in the atmosphere show it clearly.
JK: That only leaves four more necessary steps before your case is made, assuming you are correct (a dubious assumption given your track record.) Do you happen to have a reference handy, since you undoubtedly have studied that particular paper(s)?

I'll not waste my time with the rest of your blather except to remind you that the Czech republic is definitely not as you descried.

Thanks
JK

"ecohuman"- In elementary Logic courses, they teach us that A is not B.

actually, it's a simple thing in logic to prove that very thing. Google some more.

Your new smiley-face happy-speak totalitarian works for the same evil criminals as does our current regime, was my point.

excellent. we can add "totalitarian" to the list of Obama secret agendas. it doesn't fit with "Communist", but hey, as long as the trains run on time.

The new guy has you mesmerized as only a very skilled rhetorician...IMHO, the best since Adolf Hitler....is able to.

good one. you're trying conect Obama to Hitler.

It's so nice to see Hegel's brilliant ideas still at work, manipulating your eager minds with false left/right, Democrat/Republican paradigms

Cabbie, you like to brag of knowledge of Hegel quite often. the problem is, you don't seem to know Hegel at all, or you'd know that what you just said is nonsensical.

The scam of AGW or man-made "climate change" or whatever you are calling it this week is but one example of how the Usury Dynasties seek to increase and consolidate their control and power over our everyday lives.

ooh, more Illuminati Hermetical Esoteric Masonic Mysteries! myself, I bet Obama is connected to ancient astronauts. it's all a massive effort at intergalactic control. or a cabal of [insert your organization here].

we can add "totalitarian" to the list of Obama secret agendas. it doesn't fit with "Communist"

That has to be the funniest thing I've read all year.

Does the Comintern pay that much these days, or do you actually believe that ?

the problem is, you don't seem to know Hegel at all

The most brilliant machination of the Dialectic, in my honest opinion, seems to be that most of the victims of it's thesis-antithesis-synthesis brainwash are unaware of, or in your case, because you aren't stupid, unwilling to look at how their minds have been molded. Look at the Wiki entry on Hegel, for example.

"People are living in a snarled-up subset of Marx's thinking, and do not know it. They twist logic to get to conclusions that will suit the current prejudices. They garnish it with a little Christianity or mysticism or whatever, though these play no important part in their world outlook." TRUTH OVERLOOKED: THE LEGACY OF LIST by Gwydion M. Williams (also available via Cal State LA-POLS 426 online reading list.)

"The Socialist Alliance programme is the foundation upon which everything else is built, including in time our exact organisational forms and constantly shifting tactics. The programme links our continuous and what should be all-encompassing agitational work with our ultimate aim of a communitarian, or communist, system. Our programme thus establishes the basis for agreed action and is the lodestar, the point of reference, around which the voluntary unity of the Socialist Alliance is built and concretised. Put another way, the programme represents the dialectical unity between theory and practice." Posted by Weekly Worker 368, January 25 2001. See also: "The transition to the communitarian system" in the same issue of the American Communist Party's Weekly Worker.

As an aside, for those of you whose critical faculties haven't yet been ruined by Marxist doublespeak, here is a fascinating "conspiracy"-oriented article I recently stumbled across, about Hegelian manipulation and the engineering of Race War:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/RaceWar.htm

From that article, and this is actually germane to "ecohuman's" wily dismissal of the very subject at hand:

Herein is the second oddity suggesting Hegelian manipulation. It should not be lost upon the astute reader that the NSM demonstration and its counter-demonstration rival both represent some variety of socialism. The NSM represents national socialism or, more succinctly, fascism. The International Socialist Organization represents a more traditional variety of Marxism, something more akin to communism. The distinctions, however, are superficial. This becomes clear when one contemplates the etymology of "communism" and "fascism." The appellation of "communism" comes from the Latin root communis, which means "group" living. Fascism is a derivation of the Italian word fascio, which is translated as "bundle" or "group." Both fascism and communism are forms of coercive group living, or more succinctly, collectivism. The only substantial difference between the two is fascism's limited observance of private property rights, which is ostensible at best given its susceptibility to rigid government regulation. In 1933, Hitler candidly admitted to Hermann Rauschning that: "the whole of National Socialism is based on Marx" (Martin 239). Nazism (a variant of fascism) is derivative of Marxism. The historical conflicts between communism and fascism were merely feuds between two socialist totalitarian camps, not two dichotomously related forces.

Further clarification, found of all places halfway through the biased Wiki article on Hegel:

Believing that the traditional description of Hegel's philosophy in terms of thesis-antithesis-synthesis was mistaken, a few scholars, like Raya Dunayevskaya, a devout Marxist who was once Leon Trotsky's secretary, have attempted to discard the triadic approach altogether. According to their argument, although Hegel refers to "the two elemental considerations: first, the idea of freedom as the absolute and final aim; secondly, the means for realising it, i.e. the subjective side of knowledge and will, with its life, movement, and activity" (thesis and antithesis) he doesn't use "synthesis" but instead speaks of the "Whole": "We then recognised the State as the moral Whole and the Reality of Freedom, and consequently as the objective unity of these two elements." Furthermore, in Hegel's language, the "dialectical" aspect or "moment" of thought and reality, by which things or thoughts turn into their opposites or have their inner contradictions brought to the surface, what he called "aufhebung", is only preliminary to the "speculative" (and not "synthesizing") aspect or "moment", which grasps the unity of these opposites or contradiction. Thus for Hegel, reason is ultimately "speculative", not "dialectical".

Oh, and before I go off to bed, and vacate this thread so JK can resume pummeling these liars, I remembered something from my own mis-spent Marxist youth. "ecohuman" is most likely going to reply, as all good Marxists do, that the CCCP, as well as every other example of the Realpolitik implementation of Marxist ideology that history provides us with, wasn't really "True Communism."

Real Marxism or Communism, the busy modern-day worker bees of the Comintern will tell you, has nothing to do with totalitarianism whatsoever !

All I can reply with, is a quote from the great Hegel himself, father of Dialectical Materialism:

It must be understood that the State is the realization of Freedom, i.e. of the absolute final aim, and that it exists for its own sake. It must further be understood that all the worth which the human being possesses - all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State. ... For Truth is the Unity of the universal and subjective Will; and The Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of History in a more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains objectivity, and lives in the enjoyment of this objectivity. ... When the State of our country constitutes a community of existence; when the subjective will of man submits to laws, the contradiction between Liberty and Necessity vanishes. The Rational has necessary existence, as being the reality and substance of things, and we are free in recognizing it as law, and following it as the substance of our own being. The objective and subjective will are then reconciled, and present one identical homogenized whole."

From G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of History in Jacob Loewenberg (ed.), egel: Selections (New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1929), pp. 388-89.

Hey, but what do I know, right ?

"Hegel himself, father of Dialectical" -should have been "Grandfather of" -sorry, typo

Cabbie, congratulations. you've just become Tenskwatawa, but without the clarity(!).

you don't actually think that you're the only one that ever read a book or formed a thought about philosophy and government? do you?

Hey, but what do I know, right ?

reading your comments this past year, I'd say you believe you know all there is to know about philosophy and government.

To Cabbie:
Here is a pretty good overview of the Davids & ecohumans of the world:

http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_06/jason-pomo.html

ecohuman.com
reading your comments this past year, I'd say you believe you know all there is to know about philosophy and government.
JK: We know all we need to know about your philosophy: it is founded in superstition, denial of the real world and advocates a return to a repeatedly failed system of governance. A system that has impoverished hundreds of millions and murdered tens of millions. It gave us WWII, the gulags, the great leap forward and despots like Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot.

Why do you advocate policies that amount to a return to these failed socialist systems? (Yes Nazi was socialist, left wing, not right wing.)

thanks
jk

Here is a pretty good overview of the Davids & ecohumans of the world:

cool. now I'm a Socialist, just like Obama. i'm still trying to figure out why "Socialists" are bad and "Capitalists" are good, but perhaps cabbie can explain (using Hegel).

We know all we need to know about your philosophy: it is founded in superstition, denial of the real world and advocates a return to a repeatedly failed system of governance.

yes, Jim, I subsist entirely on Fantasy and Socialism, the cornerstones of my life. when those get boring, I listen to Cabbie quote at length the wisdom of Hegel and all that he has wrought.

speaking of fantasy--how's that Socialist wealth redistribution called "taxes" and "public works" working out for you?

There you have it. "ecohuman" was curious what I was getting at, I explained it to him, and yet he persists with what he does best...endless ad hominems in lieu of an actual reply. See, I insult entire failed belief systems, as I make a genuine effort to try to understand them a little bit better than some of their victims do, having been terribly lost in that thought stream once myself, and he just attacks people like me personally, over and over again.

Since he seems to be so fond of insulting those he disagree with, I suppose all I can do is sink to his level, and reply in kind, with my favorite "ecohuman" quote of all kind, from his highly entertaining blog. It neatly encapsulates his entire insane hyper-Luddite philosophy:

"The only perfect building, environmentally speaking, is no building at all."

Fascinating.

Does this mean that you sleep in the mud every day, like the third worlders you seek to drag us all to the level of, or that you are merely full of horse manure ?

Son, when you are done camping out back, don't worry, we'll leave the door unlocked and the heat on. It's going to be cold out.

"The only perfect building, environmentally speaking, is no building at all."

JK: Do you suppose he is one of those that wish man would disappear to help the environment?

Perhaps he could start with himself.

PS: Did you see David’s OPED in the big O (09/25/2008) - he said he was having “financial difficulties” - I’d guess that the reason is that he is incapable of doing real work in the real word, preferring instead a fantasy world where feelings trump rational evidence.

Thanks
RationalHuman

"The only perfect building, environmentally speaking, is no building at all."

Fascinating.

Does this mean that you sleep in the mud every day, like the third worlders you seek to drag us all to the level of, or that you are merely full of horse manure ?

Cabbie, do you actually not understand the difference between "perfect building" and "building"?

Son, when you are done camping out back, don't worry, we'll leave the door unlocked and the heat on. It's going to be cold out.

Son, when you're done kvetching and looking for a vehicle to express your magnificence, come on in.

"The only perfect building, environmentally speaking, is no building at all."

JK: Do you suppose he is one of those that wish man would disappear to help the environment?

How could I? I'm too busy subsisting on Fantasy and Socialism--remember? you can't have it both ways, Jim--I can't simultaneously be a Fantasist, a Socialist, and a Primitive Anarchist. you've got to choose.

Jim Karlock wrote:
>> David Appell Your #3 is the easiest
>> of all: oxygen isotope ratios in
>> the atmosphere show it clearly.
> JK: That only leaves four more
> necessary steps before your case is
> made, assuming you are correct (a
> dubious assumption given your track
> record.) Do you happen to have a
> reference handy, since you undoubtedly
> have studied that particular paper(s)?

Jim, I could certainly document this, but a little blog comment is not the place to do it. Nor will I waste my time going over well-established science that you can certainly look-up and learn if you took a little bit of time. Implying that this somehow shows the issue isn't proven is just ridiculous, as you well know. It's not even convincing as a tactic.

David: Implying that this somehow shows the issue isn't proven is just ridiculous, as you well know.
JK: I see you are still unable to show us peer reviewed papers that show that CO2 can cause dangerous global warming.

Can you even show us peer reviewed papers that show what temperature increase a doubling of CO2 will cause (proof - not some speculated positive feedback)?

A tripling of CO2 levels?

BTW, since CO2 was at 5-10x today’s levels a few million years ago, why did the earth not turn into a burnt cinder from all the greenhouse gas?

Thanks
JK

Hey David , why don’t you tell us why CO2 causes temperature, when the correlation of temperature with the sun is much better, on just about any time scale. Below is 1860 to present - notice between 1945 & 1970 the temperature went DOWN while the CO2 went UP. But Solar matches this (and the rest of the variations) quite well:

(Graph adapted by Dr. Tim Patterson.from: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991)

Thanks
JK

Can you even show us peer reviewed papers that show what temperature increase a doubling of CO2 will cause (proof - not some speculated positive feedback)?

climate change is about more than "CO2 levels", Jim.

but we've been here before. you dismiss with high ridicule anybody who points out that thousands of scientists disagree with you, including hundreds of Nobel Prize winners and just about every major credible organization in the world. that's indisputable and easily verifiable.

in other words: even though the vast majority of all scientists in the world, including scientists in over 70 different specializations, including Nobel prize winners who've made it part of their life's work, including every major organization of scientists in the world, including all that and much, much more--even though all of these say "man-made climate change is damaging the planet, perhaps irrevocably", you dismiss it with a flick of a "well, but have you seen this paper over here?" forgetting that the scientists above have, in fact, seen them, evaluated them, and are trying to tell you that you are dead, dead wrong.

but the best part, Jim? it doesn't matter if you disagree with them. because they are trying to make a difference given the best available information

do you even comprehend what that means, Jim? if you want certainty in life, you've come to the wrong planet.

the better question--which I doubt you'll answer--is this:

what are you doing to make a difference in the world?

that is, other than complaining about Illuminati-inspired Techno-Fascist-Socialist-Anarchist-Primitivist left-wing global conspiracies and the supposed ignorance of all science but that which you quote?

Echohuman "in other words: even though the vast majority of all scientists in the world ...."

JK: That is simply not true. It is an AL Gore / Jim Hansen / Michael Mann lie.

You would know that if you actually looked at evidence. But you seem incapable, instead you rely on fools and liars for your "facts". If you actually looked at evidence, you would be able to come up the ONE MOST IMPORTANT piece of evidence - the proof that CO2 can cause dangerous warming.

If you cannot prove CO2 causes dangerous warming, there is NOTHING ELSE TO PROVE because that one fallacy is the foundation of the entire house of cards.
If CO2 does not cause warming, then there is no reason to cut CO2 and there is no reason for any of the proposed climate change actions. You have no case. NONE. (except your irrational feelings.)

Thanks
RationalHuman

JK: That is simply not true. It is an AL Gore / Jim Hansen / Michael Mann lie.

there goes the last bit of your "rational" credibility, Jim.

and nice call on Jim Hansen--surely he's just "one of the crackpots" heading up NASA's Goddard Institute and teaching his life's work (climatology) at Columbia. when will these "irrational" goofballs ever get a clue?

If CO2 does not cause warming, then there is no reason to cut CO2 and there is no reason for any of the proposed climate change actions.

Jim--the rest of the world is taking action, and leaving you behind to fashion the conspiracy novel.

You have no case. NONE.

that must be the hardest part for you--acknowledging that you're not in charge of judging a case, and that your approval isn't needed to take action.

come join us, Jim. the weather's fine. for now.

Echohuman surely he's just "one of the crackpots" heading up NASA's Goddard Institute and teaching his life's work (climatology) at Columbia. when will these "irrational" goofballs ever get a clue?
JK: Glad to see that you recognize Hansen as one of the crackpots.

Just a few days ago he announced that October 2008 was one of the warmest months ever. This careful scientist, upon whom we rely for climate information to reshape the world, just happened to NOT NOTICE faulty data. He had to make a correction and now October 2008 is well below average. The cooling continues right on schedule with the prediction of the solar cycle experts.

This sort of reminds one of his Y2K blunder where some of the good scientists (Steve McIntyre etal. at climateaudit.org) found errors that forced Hansen to revise the National Historical Climate Network Data. OOPS - it seems that 1998 was not the warmest year after all, 1934 was. OOPS again one month later, Hansen revised the data to show 1998 tied with 1934. The tie for the warmest year remains - IE: temperature has not since equaled or exceeded 1998/1934 therefore we have been on a ten year cooling trend. This compares to the previous warming trend which lasted about 23 years - we are on the verge of being able to declare a cooling climate and the warmer’s are still trying to stir up panic.

Then there are Hanson’s constant fear mongering, predicting impending doom if we do not take immediate action (like a used car dealer saying you have to buy today.)

Glad to see that you have finally seen through Hanson blunders and lies - only a fool will take what Hanson says at face value.

The science is only settled in the minds of fools, liars and their followers.

Thanks
RationalHuman

don't tell the Socialist-Anarchist-Fantasist-Extremist-Totalitarian-Yahoos. i'll lose my membership card.

Hey, ecohuman.com, how does your CO2 hypothesis explain the falling temperatures from 1945 to 1975 while the CO2 was rising?

How do you explain the temperature being flat to down for the last ten years as CO2 is rising.

Thanks
JK

I love to watch this petulant little child not once refute any of the ideas that JK lays out for him with any actual data. Every single flipping time, it's a nasty ad-hominem or non-answer.

Who needs cable ? God, this is funny. I'm with the Russians and others looking at solar cycles as a viable hypothesis for the well-documented cooling we have been witnessing...time to stock up on fur coats.

Hi Cabbie, You may enjoy this brief introduction to the idea that weather responds to solar system conditions (David & Echo may not enjoy it):

It is usually believed that the planets orbit around the sun, but this is not so – the sun and the planets orbit around the centre of mass of the solar system (termed the barycentre) in so-called “barycentric orbits”. Sometimes the barycentre is inside the sun, and at other times well away from the sun, depending on the juxtapositions of the planets especially Saturn, Jupiter and Neptune. The orbit path of the sun as the locations of barycentre and planets alter is complex, as demonstrated by Fairbridge. This divergent behavior causes widely varying outputs of energy from the sun on a regular basis, and these variations in the interactions between the sun and the planets have been assessed by various geological and related studies. The variations in energy correlate with uncanny precision with past vagaries of the Earth’s climate on a cyclical basis, the periodicity being about 179 years.

from: nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=377&Itemid=1

Paper: griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

Thanks
JK

Hey, ecohuman.com, how does your CO2 hypothesis explain the falling temperatures from 1945 to 1975 while the CO2 was rising?

i don't have a hypothesis, Jim. you do. that's what you don't seem to understand.

I love to watch this petulant little child

Thank you, Cabbie. your endless spew of bizarre personal insults helps me understand you better.

Every single flipping time, it's a nasty ad-hominem or non-answer.

you mean like when you call folks "petulant little child", "ignorant", "smiley-face happy-speak totalitarian", "liars", or when you liken them to Hitler, call them Communist or Marxist or Socialist ideologues, etc.?

ecohuman i don't have a hypothesis, Jim. you do. that's what you don't seem to understand.
JK: Help me understand:
Do you just believe in catastrophic global warming for the sake of believing?
Are there no facts/data behind you beliefs?
Do you just blindly follow what Al Gore and his Wall Street cronies tell you to believe?

Thanks
JK

JK: Help me understand:
Do you just believe in catastrophic global warming for the sake of believing?

no Jim, I don't.

Are there no facts/data behind you beliefs?

there are. I've posted them ad infinitum here, in response. you dismiss them, claiming they're entirely wrong and supported by "idiots", "zealots", and other suitably dismissive names--regardless of who they are or whether or not they're in the vast majority (they are.)

Do you just blindly follow what Al Gore and his Wall Street cronies tell you to believe?

I don't follow Al Gore at all, Jim. I don't know anything about his "Wall Street cronies", either. Al Gore's the leader of anything, as far as I know.

it's a confusing world when it isn't black and white, isn't it?

There's an old southern saying, "it ain't braggin' if it's true."

The only people I despise more than outright Commies are the covert ones, who espouse every single part of the coerced collectivism party program, and then turn around and cry foul when more rational humans call a duck a duck. It's almost built into the whole philosophy, really.

I suppose you really started to annoy me two summers ago when, out of the blue, you spewed this bizarre personal insult at me, in reference to our WW2 conversation,

"...obviously, you haven't read much history."

So classically passive-aggressive...why, it's the distilled essence of "ecohuman."

Embrace your inner collectivist. The one who seeks to mould the lives of real human beings like so much clay, via lies such as global warming. Defend it with every ounce of strength. Don't be such a passive-aggressive, punky Portland putz, telling people what they have and have not read, what they do and do not understand.

Earlier in this thread, instead of telling me where you thought I was wrong about my views on the modern day application of Hegelian manipulation vis a vis what are commonly termed "false right/left dichotomies," you just fell back on your old standby. You told me I had no idea what I was talking about, without telling me why this was so.

It seems to be enough for you to just tell people that they are flat-out ignorant or wrong, and then blithely ignore the blueprint-precise references they provide for the case they are trying to make.

Gods above, I can just picture the little round glasses, the pinched vegan face, the malnourished body perched atop a rickety ten-speed.

The closed mind, locked shut like a bank vault.

And there are literally tens of thousands of these clones in this place...

"...obviously, you haven't read much history."

So classically passive-aggressive...why, it's the distilled essence of "ecohuman."

what's most interesting about you, "Cabbie", is that few here take you seriously anymore. you have nothing to say; you've devolved into hateful nonsense.

so, when you post, it's consistently only that--and not an attempt at discussion or a thoughtful opinion. or, for that matter, you owning up to your own hateful way of writing and posting.

Gods above, I can just picture the little round glasses, the pinched vegan face, the malnourished body perched atop a rickety ten-speed.

I'm 6'4", and don't wear glasses. never have. i do like vegetables, though.

It seems to be enough for you to just tell people that they are flat-out ignorant or wrong

no, Cabbie, I leave the name-calling to you, and that middle school kid down the street.

telling me where you thought I was wrong about my views on the modern day application of Hegelian manipulation vis a vis what are commonly termed "false right/left dichotomies

dude. seriously. "Hegelian manipulation vis a vis"? who talks like that?

did I mention I'm in my forties and a native Oregonian?

the world is confusing when it's not black and white, isn't it, Cabbie?

I suppose you really started to annoy me two summers ago when, out of the blue, you spewed this bizarre personal insult at me, in reference to our WW2 conversation,

"...obviously, you haven't read much history."

we've never had a "conversation", Cabbie. you and I are consistent in our views, though. the key difference is, I don't have to launch nuclear weapons at you and label you an a**clown eighteen different ways to disagree with you.

so I'll let you in on a secret--I don't expect you to change your ways. I won't ridicule you for it or call you stupid. I *will* ridicule you for trying to call readers every misogynistic superlative you can lay your mind on, though.

Jim: As you know -- or should certainly know, if you want to be considered a serious actor in the global warming debate (and not just someone who thinks they matter because they throw up all and any mindless question you can think of), scientists have attributed the 1945-1975 flat global climate to (1) increased sulphate emissions after WW2, and (2) natural fluctuations.

Skeptics seem to think that the theory of AGW implies a steady, monotonic increase in global temperatures in lock step with increasing CO2e levels. But scientists have never claimed this, and have always recognized that external forces and natural fluctuations are factors.

David Appell: scientists have attributed the 1945-1975 flat global climate to (1) increased sulphate emissions after WW2, and (2) natural fluctuations.
JK: How do they explain the fact that solar is a better fit to the temperature than CO2 during that time? Again you mindlessly repeat garbage from the fraudsters while ignoring real evidence staring you in the face. Laughable.

David Appell: Skeptics seem to think that the theory of AGW implies a steady, monotonic increase in global temperatures in lock step with increasing CO2e levels. But scientists have never claimed this, and have always recognized that external forces and natural fluctuations are factors.
JK: You are admitting that “forces and natural fluctuations” are more powerful than the alleged CO2. Further, all I recall hearing from your team is about man’s CO2 and impending disaster (until the recent cooling trend started.)

BTW, we are still waiting for you to cough up a few peer reviewed papers proving that CO2 really is dangerous. Or show us how much warming we will get with a CO2 doubling or tripling. Please no stuff from political hacks like the IPCC.

Thanks
JK

Jim Karlock wrote:
>> David Appell: scientists have attributed >> the 1945-1975 flat global climate to (1) >> increased sulphate emissions after WW2, >> and (2) natural fluctuations.
> JK: How do they explain the fact that
> solar is a better fit to the
> temperature than CO2 during that
> time?

Because "better fit" is not a scientifically valid term. Because correlation does not equal causality.

Climate scientists aren't idiots. They know there is this big ball of energy out there, the sun. They know it can influence the climate. Because of this, they have made extensive measurements of its effects. It is not a matter of some nebulous "better fit," of something -- you have to examine the details. And climate scientists have, for years now. And their best measurements and reasoning find that the Sun's radiative forcing is ~0.1 the forcing of anthropogenic CO2. Not nonexistent -- but not significant, either.

> JK: You are admitting that “forces
> and natural fluctuations” are more
> powerful than the alleged CO2.

No. It's not that simple, though it's convenient for you to pretend so.

Natural fluctuations are certainly a factor. No climate scientists has ever denied this.

You'd like to reduce this to some simple, kindergarden-level calculation, but it is not simple.

The fact is, CO2(e) is a greenhouse gas, and it warms the atmosphere. On average, in the long-term, it warms the planet.

Jim Karlock wrote:
> BTW, we are still waiting for
> you to cough up a few peer reviewed
> papers proving that CO2 really is
> dangerous.

Jim, as I have already explained, such a scientific proof is impossible. "Dangerous" is a term of human values, not of science. It is a hugely subjective term that has a great many determinants. Until you define it precisely, science cannot even begin to address it.

Science deals with physical facts, only.

> Or show us how much warming we will get > with a CO2 doubling or tripling.

This has been laid out in considerable detail in the IPCC reports.

> Please no stuff from political hacks
> like the IPCC.

You consider the IPCC scientists to be "political hacks" only because you do not like their conclusions -- no other reason. I'm sure I have talked with many more of them than you have -- and never once did I ever get the impression that they were more concerned with politics than science. On the contrary, they seemed completely detached from any politics, whatsoever.

Your obfuscation is a nice try, but completely unconvincing to anyone who knows what they're talking about. You're grasping at straws. There's clearly nothing you won't imply in order to benefit your ideological point of view.

David,

IPCC scientists are "political hacks" because of how they reached their conclusions.

Ben wrote:
> IPCC scientists are "political hacks"
> because of how they reached their
> conclusions.

Would you elaborate -- or give any reason whatsoever for your claim?

No I won't.

It's readily available, you've had it all handed to you many times and have avoided every oppotunity to grasp the fraud AGW is.

The science you cling to is bunk.

As time moves forward and the climaye matches the real science of today, underscroing the fraud, your future claims that you were going with the best sceince all this time will be laughable.

You've been a loud AGW zombie and your phony pretense of expertice and understanding is only surpaced by your inability to recognize BS.

David: "Dangerous" is a term of human values, not of science. It is a hugely subjective term that has a great many determinants. Until you define it precisely, science cannot even begin to address it.
JK: You (as a climate expert with a doctorate degree, who scrams about the dangers of global warming) can't even come up with a working definition of dangerous! Laughable David. Just plain laughable.

You have been screaming about global warming for ages, now prove that it is real and that it is dangerous or quit trying to scare little children, politicians, progressives and other scientific illiterates.

David: > Or show us how much warming we will get > with a CO2 doubling or tripling.

This has been laid out in considerable detail in the IPCC reports.

JK: Then you, as a climate expert with a doctorate degree, will have no trouble showing us the references - peer reviewed of course. And do us the courtesy of providing a quote from the papers like I have usually done. (The IPCC reports are NOT peer reviewed, being mostly the work of political hacks.)

Of course you must also show that the resultant warming causes more harm than good, otherwise the warming it is a good thing. Again peer-reviewed.

If you cannot show these foundations of your hypotheses, you have no case. Instead you are merely spreading dark age magic spells.

Thanks
JK