Say Anything Blog

By the way is this tour going to be a teleconference tour or is he going to emit climate changing elements to the atmosphere?

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Already he’s bragging about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

Bush was also for reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

Global Warming?

Bring it!!!!

There are no warning signs on the road less traveled.

One need not buy into the global warming story as told by Al Gore and others.  However, there is a building of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the increase of pollutants that should get our attention (I don’t consider CO2 a pollutant). I think the Republicans and Conservatives ignore or downplay this phenomenon at their peril--peril being the loss of seats in government, and as a result will not be a player at the table as “remedies” are proposed and enacted. We can be a part of future remedies and we can keep the craziness of the Left/Enviro-nuts in check---but, we must be in the game.  I think McCain is right about this and he can be depended upon to keep the nutcases inside the asylum.

Human-caused global warming is a hoax, and buying into it in any form is living a lie.  Nothing good can come of it.  When it is finally refuted in the public eye, those who supported it will be recognized for who they are: idiots.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Don’t vote for McCain, I agree. And for this climate change, jeez forget listening to the scientists on this issue, let’s just listen to Exxon since their the people who really know.

Nunez: Not only is there no proof of global warming(it’s actually getting slightly cooler), there are many climate scientists who have spoken out against it, but don’t listen to them, listen to a lying politician, like Al Gore(who makes windfall profits from his own scareology).

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

nunez, what does Exxon have to do with global warming which by the way is a liberal snow job.  You think that Hill an Obama don’t support it?

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

robert108,

Al Gore has donated all of his profits from the book and the movie to the Alliance for Climate Change. Google is your friend.

docdave,

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics

Google is your friend.

Then you would know that Al Gore profits from the phony carbon credits he peddles, as well as any book or movie profits?
Gore’s ‘carbon offsets’paid to firm he owns
Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade
...to name a few!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Tobacco and oil millionaire Al Gore is raking in windfall profits from selling carbon indulgences to the suckers who believe his global warming propaganda.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

jeez forget listening to the scientists on this issue

You mean the ones that always said it was crappy science, or the ones that have started backpedaling in droves:

Everybody has always known that “consensus” crap was just that, crap.

Or, the fact that people who actually work with models for a living know that they are a best estimation of our best guesses. Chaos Theory was developed after trying to model weather, and the scientist figured out there are entirely too many unpredictable variables to model to make it anything other than a WAG, but go ahead and put all of your eggs in one basket and help screw the economy. Nothing wrong with energy dependence, or conservation, they’re goals we should definitely be striving for, but I swear you leftist would bite off your noses to spite your face.

Why wouldn’t Algore sign the “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge”?....Oh, that’s right, that kind of stuff is for the peasants. Hypocrite.

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

Oh yeah, rock solid sourcing with the “Mother Jones” link. Don’t waste your time. How about shoring it up with a piece at kos.

""That’s the problem with you lefties, you’re not willing to get your hands dirty. I’d suggest you roll up your sleeves.”

-Jack Bauer

Gilbyguy:

Y’all have some funny looking grass wherever you are. It looks all white.

I mowed mine again today but it’s just too damn hot to stay outside this afternoon (about 90 with serious humidity). First really hot day here.

I got used to the relatively cool spring. Now I’m gonna have to adjust to Louisiana summers all over again. Today’s answer: Lotsa beer. Stay inside. 

I like to adjust in increments.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Dirlie:

Bush was also for reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

Yes, by mostly developing our own sources of energy, which McCain opposed.

Ethanol is not the solution, Bush is wrong on his support for it, but McCain is more wrong.

Halatbis:

I think McCain is right about this and he can be depended upon to keep the nutcases inside the asylum.

I disagree.  I think that proposing “solutions” is the wrong way to go.  First of all “solutions” that won’t fix a non-problem are probably going to have negative consequences.  This is all negative because it’s not going to fix anything.  Would you take an 8% cut in pay now to “fix” global warming?  That’s what you’re asking people 22 years from now to do.

Secondly accepting the flawed premise opens the floodgates.  The left will begin to compromise at McCain’s stupid “fixes.” We’ll get something worse.

Then when these stupid things don’t work we’ll GET more restrictions.  They won’t work, because the climate always changes.  It will get warmer or it will get cooler. 

Finally I believe that having a Republican (especially one that falsely portrays himself to be a conservative) is worse than a Democrat that proposes the same ideas.  First of all he would negate the opposition in Congress.  Secondly when these boneheaded ideas take effect the Republicans will get the blame rather than the people who are truly at fault.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Pilgrim:

Today’s answer: Lotsa beer. Stay inside.

Funny, but I came up with the same answer to the exactly opposite question.

There are no warning signs on the road less traveled.

Beer: the cure-all.

TW: Right; sacrificing the truth for political expediency is what the Dems do.  We’re better than that, or should be.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I hope he comes up to North Dakota, it snowed today:  May 10th.

I saw it fall here in Fargo. Tenured pointy heads like UND’s Dexter Perkins will look you straight in the eye and proclaim that the reason it snowed today WAS due to “global warming.”

I hope he tells everyone that global warming is a bunch of baloney.

You touch on good reasons to not vote for McCain.  Let me add that if McCain is in, the Republicans in Congress will roll over for his every request - increased taxes, Amnesty, environmental etc.  We are assured of sheep Republican Congress with McCain. 

However, at least with Hillary or Obama, a few Republican Congress persons might finally find their voice and start to stand up again for principles.

However, at least with Hillary or Obama, a few Republican Congress persons might finally find their voice and start to stand up again for principles.

First of all, there are already Republican representatives who stand for conservative principles and a couple of them are from Texas (Ken Marchant my representative and senator John Cornyn).  Secondly have you considered how ineffectual these Republoan representatives will be if the Democratics controlled both the presidency and the congress.

Sure we can give the government and the nation to the Democrats for the next 4 years but there may not be much to resurrect after they get through with it.

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

I’m going to have to disagree with y’all on this one.  While I agree that much of the rhetoric on global warming is highly inflamed, I think that statement goes both ways.

Humans are changing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere, and that change inevitably will have an effect on climate.  That’s “just physics”.

McCain says he has “sponsored legislation to find free market solutions to the problem”.  If one agrees that a problem exists (maybe not the magnitude that some claim), is there a better approach than this?

Diverting resources to “solve” a non-existent “problem” is simply a waste.  If you’re talking about more efficient means of productivity, the market takes care of that, when not burdened by taxation and regulation designed to enrich the political class at the expense of the rest of the population.
So far, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is only significant when you express it in terms of percentage of increase.  If you express it in parts per million, for instance, it isn’t significant.  I think the Sun is the real causative factor in world climate, and we can’t “do” anything about that.
When technology is relatively unrestricted, it tends to make better things that use less energy to do the job.  It has gotten us from living in caves to having personal computers.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

docdave”

Sure we can give the government and the nation to the democrats for the next 4 years but there may not be much to resurrect after they get through with it.

Thank you!  Thank you!  A voice of sanity!

The absurd theory that, “If we give the WH to a dem, people will wake up in four years and we won’t be blamed”, is total crap.

In 48 months, armed with a bloated majority in Congress, Barack Obama will liberalize the Supreme Court for the next 20 years or more and then pass new ‘redistricting’ legislation, turn our backs on the War on Terror, snuggle up to Middle East dictators, install a new, tougher “Fairness Doctine”, reinstitute affirmative action, mandate the whole global warming scam, create an unprecedented immigration open-door policy and raise taxes to record levels to pay for it all.

I am utterly astonished when otherwise smart folks at SAB say, “Ah, let them win. McCain is just a RINO”.  Really? Just watch how the libs go after him in the Fall!

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT TWO THINGS: WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND SAVING THE SUPREME COURT.

Robert108:

Diverting resources to “solve” a non-existent “problem” is simply a waste

The impact of humans on their climate, not limited to the influence of anthropenic gas emisisons, is not a “non-problem”.

So far, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is only significant when you express it in terms of percentage of increase.  If you express it in parts per million, for instance, it isn’t significant.

If you measure it in terms of the classic greenhouse gas effect associated e.g. with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, on the other hand, it is a real and significant effect.  Expressing it in ppm isn’t the appropriate measure here.

When technology is relatively unrestricted, it tends to make better things that use less energy to do the job.  It has gotten us from living in caves to having personal computers.

Which comes back to a long-standing disagreement between us.

If I have understood your position correctly, you suggest that the free market without government intervention can optimize both for the maximum short term as well as long term benefit.

I suggest that both are not always possible, and further that publicly owned corporations (e.g., those with public shares, not those owned by the government) only optimize for the short-term (e.g., five years into the future), which often is at odds to their longer term interests.  This explains the necessity of government involvement in education, R&D and other infrastructural issues.  This also includes government involvement in safety related issues, such as automobile seat belts and air bags.

I’m not suggesting restricting the market, neither is John McCain (so far as I can tell).  However, government investment in technologies that reduce our CO2 footprint (until such time as we may decide we need to increase it) is an intelligent choice here, and will inevitably lead to free market choices that further reduce our CO2 emissions.

I can argue that this is working because the United States has actually been reducing its CO2 emissions via this interaction between government sponsored R&D and our free market system, as opposed to the socialistic approach taken by Europe, where CO2 emissions continue to increase.

If I have understood your position correctly, you suggest that the free market without government intervention can optimize both for the maximum short term as well as long term benefit.

It’s not my position, it’s yours, which biases the argument in your favor.  You constantly maintain that there is a discrepancy in short term and long term goals in the free enterprise system, and that is simply nonsense.  As I have repeated over and over, without short term profitability, there is no long term.
However, that’s the wrong argument, IMO.  The govt does even worse, in that it ignores short term econmics entirely, and it’s redistribution tactic creates long term problems, as in the ethanol debacle, for one example.

It is also inaccurate to state my position as a “totally free market without govt intervention”.  I have also dealt with this with you multiple times, and will state it once again:  “Free market” means freedom of entry and exit, not “freedom from all regulation”.  You misstate the point entirely.  Obviously, minimal regulation(that doesn’t interfere with market forces) is not only necessary, but desirable.  Enforcement of contracts and a responsive money supply come to mind.

Trying to force the market to obey some misguided concept like “CO2 footprint” is not only wrong, but completely unnecessary.
The fact is, this bugaboo of yours has caused only a one degree C rise in global temp in the last century, and 3/4 of that has vanished in one year.  It’s not a problem, and projecting that a problem might exist at some time in the future is a piss-poor reason to monkey with totalitarian socialism, IMO.
Your “greenhouse effect” ain’t workin’, dude.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

The fact is, this bugaboo of yours has caused only a one degree C rise in global temp in the last century,

Actually that’s worst case, Since world CO2 emissions were pretty negligible prior to World War 2.  Also we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. 

But I think you’re point that even taking the most extreme position the effect is pretty small.  (Not that I buy it.)

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

McCain says he has “sponsored legislation to find free market solutions to the problem”.  If one agrees that a problem exists (maybe not the magnitude that some claim), is there a better approach than this?

Well for one thing the European “Cap and Trade” scheme he proposed is actually do worse than the US free market.

What do you make of that? 

But frankly since he’s using the same rhetoric as Algore there’s something to be feared here.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Isn’t it a bit of an oxymoron to speak of “legislation to find free market solutions”?
We doan need no steenking legislation!

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Well if the market were locked up in some kind of commie system, it would make sense.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

However, government investment in technologies that reduce our CO2 footprint (until such time as we may decide we need to increase it) is an intelligent choice here, and will inevitably lead to free market
choices that further reduce our CO2 emissions.

I can argue that this is working because the United States has actually been reducing its CO2 emissions via this interaction between government sponsored R&D and our free market system, as opposed to the socialistic approach taken by Europe, where CO2 emissions continue to increase.

An interesting point of view, although I disagree with it on a fundamental level.  We don’t have the space here for a full-blown refutation of your position, so I will have to settle for stating that we are succeeding in spite of govt interference in the market, and that the degree of socialization of the US economy has not reached the harmful levels present in Europe.

Also, the govt doesn’t invest, it spends.  There is a difference.  The govt isn’t financially responsible for the consequences of its spending, unlike private individuals, so it’s just spending, without the accountability that would be characteristic of actual investing.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Check out Public Eye blog!

Whistler:

Yes, by mostly developing our own sources of energy, which McCain opposed.

Enlighten me.

I was of the information that Bush wanted to drill for Oil in Alaska, until met by Democratic opposition…

I can argue that this is working because the United States has actually been reducing its CO2 emissions via this interaction between government sponsored R&D and our free market system

Whether we like it or not.  That’s happening.  Companies like Toyota have benefited A LOT by making their company “green”.  There is an obvious demand for it.

Buy a green car??? Those democrats allay their conscience in the oddest ways ; )

Larry Hagman has one of the coolest greenest homes I have ever seen!

But frankly since he’s using the same rhetoric as Algore there’s something to be feared here.

Indeed. BUT he is no Al Gore.  He’s supported strict constructionists and he is for the war.  What are you going to do

I think Halatbis makes a good case in defending any Republican’s support for Global Warming.  I don’t want to speculate too much, but McCain may be attempting to be

in the game.

As a politician, we might have to expect something like this out of him in a country where the democrats are more and more frighteningly taking over.

Halatbis says, “The Republicans and Conservatives ignore or downplay this phenomenon at their peril--peril being the loss of seats in government, and as a result will not be a player at the table as “remedies” are proposed and enacted. We can be a part of future remedies and we can keep the craziness of the Left/Enviro-nuts in check---but, we must be in the game.”

but McCain may be attempting to be

in the game.

What are you talking about, HE INTRODUCED the first legislation.  He doesn’t want in the game, he wants to push the fraud down our throats.

I was of the information that Bush wanted to drill for Oil in Alaska, until met by Democratic opposition…

And how did McCain vote?  HMM?

Whether we like it or not.  That’s happening.  Companies like Toyota have benefited A LOT by making their company “green”.  There is an obvious demand for it.

That would be the point wouldn’t it.  We don’t need the government screwing it up (as with ethanol) when the market’s going to do a better job.

Who’s kept more non-emitting nuclear plants from being built?  The government.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Companies like Toyota have benefited A LOT by making their company “green”.

Only due to subsidies.  Translation: your tax money.
Toyota was doing just fine before the subsidies, by making cars people wanted.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Whistler, you seem a little hostile, calm down.  I’m not attacking you.  I want sources.

I asked you to enlighten me, instead you responded with “And how did McCain vote?  HMM?”

That was my question.  Your answer could have been a bit more graceful.

That would be the point wouldn’t it.

I was actually responding to Carrick’s statement.

Do you have a source for his voting record against Bush’s push to drill for Oil in Alaska, and the legislation he first introduced?  Thanks.

...but, we must be in the game.

The game of denying the truth for political expediency?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Yes.

Dirlie, Google John McCain and ANWR.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

It’s Dirl. Plain and simple.  I know you’re an older gentlemen Whistler, so calling me “dirlie” is really below you.  You, a respectable and surely knowledgable blogger, don’t need to come down to the level of calling me “dirlie”.

Already, I have tipped my hat to your knowledge and experience of the subject, but calling me “dirlie” is elementary (schoolish)

I can gaurantee I’m quite younger than you, if anyone should be name-calling, it should be me!

Robert108: You constantly maintain that there is a discrepancy in short term and long term goals in the free enterprise system, and that is simply
nonsense.

Really?

Mathematically it is possible to have an optimization system for which the long-term optimal solution for a nonlinear system with feedback that does not correspond to the short term solution.  This is a rigorously true statement.  All you have produced so far to refute what is a mathematical principle is hand waving rhetoric.

The fact is, this bugaboo of yours has caused only a one degree C rise in global temp in the last century, and 3/4 of that has vanished in one year

Well to be clear that 1°C also includes other contributions such as sulfate emissions.  Until 1980, the two were more or less balanced, and most of the warming we’ve seen from human activity is from CO2 emissions since 1980.  The point here is unless CO2, the sulfate effect saturated entirely (there is only so much you can store in the boundary layer of the Earth, where these types of aerosols live).

I don’t accept that the full effect we’ve seen then is from CO2 (approximately 0.6°C), but if that were the case, it would indicate a climate sensitivity of around 4.6°C (e.g., double the CO2 gives 4.6°C increase in temperature). 

My position (based partly on recent climate history) is that roughly 1/3 of this is man-made, so the sensitivity is nearer 1-1.5°C.  That’s not a big number, and is not dangerous at all if we left the CO2 concentration at its current level, but would cause problems if we eventually quadrupled our CO2 concentration (as some demographic models suggest).

Your “greenhouse effect” ain’t workin’, dude.

Well it’s a real effect. Deny it if that makes you feel better.

Whistler:

Actually that’s worst case, Since world CO2 emissions were pretty negligible prior to World War 2.  Also we were coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Actually it’s not.  About half of the CO2 emissions occurred before 1980, they were just masked by (now saturated) effects from other human activity.

But the warm-up prior to WW2 could not have been caused by man.  At least that’s the way I understand it.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

But I think you read me wrong, since I stated prior to World War 2, you said half of all emissions were prior to 1980.

Those two statements aren’t in conflict.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

Even if I were a true denialist, I would support free-market styled “solutions” to the CO2 emissions problem based on a number of reasons:

The first is the precautionary principle:  We hedge against potentially catastrophic changes in our climate with minimal costs.

The second is denying the socialists their agenda.  As I see it, they are pushing global warming as a means to exert greater central government on our lives.

So the simplest solution is to accept their concerns at face value while saying “well, we think that this is a better way to solve the problem”.  The record of US versus European CO2 emissions very strongly supports the free market over the central government approach.

I don’t know the details of McCain’s proposal, but this is exactly the approach I would take.  Especially since I know that the central government approach won’t work, that it was never intended to work (so we should undermine that approach every opportunity that we get), but that there may be something that we genuinely need to be concerned about.

McCain’s solution for your study.

Not that I’m an expert but I think this IS the European method you said was less good than the market.

Cap and Trade is NOT a market solution.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

so calling me “dirlie” is really below you.

The kids at school must really pick on you a lot about that.  However I fail to see that it’s derogatory.  But I’ll respect your wishes for whatever reasons you have.

Meanwhile if you think I’m hostile to your questions I don’t know that’s really true.  I do sometimes have an hard time figuring out if someone is coming across in an honest manner or is playing a game.  Different people get different treatment.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

By the way I love the Orwellian language in there.  “Households” would be exempt.  But where are you going to buy your electricity or petroleum since these two industries are the most heavily regulated industries in there?

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

The kids at school must really pick on you a lot about that

I only expected as much that’d you reply with my request of common decency with a taunt, even though it was a pathetic one, because my actual name is NOT Dirl, so kids DONT call me that.

and then back off saying you fail to see the insult in the comment,

However I fail to see that it’s derogatory

Girlie, Dirlie....You are calling me a girly, wimpy, whatever is synonymous with the word. Let’s not be shy about it.  Don’t be a pale criminal, live up to your deeds.

and then finally ending in the common decency I requested.

But I’ll respect your wishes for whatever reasons you have.

“Americans are odd in that they do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else”
~Winston Churchill.

It’s fine Whistler, I’m done for the night.

Whistler:

But the warm-up prior to WW2 could not have been caused by man.  At least that’s the way I understand it.

As I understand the facts this is exactly true.  But the reason that the CO2 effect doesn’t show up is because it’s being masked by other human activity, not because it isn’t there.  And that statement remains true from 1850 until roughly 1980.

I was just trying to make it clear the reason that no effect was being seen was not that there wasn’t something happening, but because other things were happening too.

That link you gave is to the 2003 Lieberman-McCain bill, which was admittedly flawed policy.  Do you have something on his current proposal?

Carrick: It’s still trying to solve a “problem” that is not yet a “problem”, and shows no evidence of ever being one.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

What proposal?  I was on his website this morning looking at the issues.  He’s for everything/nothing.  Not that that is surprising for a politician, but what do we judge him by, what he says or what he’s done?

I’m for the latter.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

But the reason that the CO2 effect doesn’t show up is because it’s being masked by other human activity, not because it isn’t there.

This is the latest guesswork from the global warming propagandists.  It’s not there because it’s not there.
Occam’s razor.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Nunez, perhaps you would be shocked to learn that Exxon-Mobile actually funds global warming advocates at about 10-to-1 what they fund denialists?

For example what about the 225 million dollars that Stanford University received in 2003 to study global warming?

This is awkward for global warming advocates for several reasons.  The first is it exposes the lie that industry is opposed to solutions to address global warming.  They aren’t, they stand to profit from it just as Al Gore has personally accumulated roughly $100,000,000 from his involvement in the green industries.

They put forward that lie because it furthers their anti-capitalism agenda:  How much juicier can you make it than the narrative that suggests that industry is going to destroy the world, and is actively opposing efforts to save it because of industry’s greed?

Third, the solution this group proposes as the only solution involves tampering with the free market.

This is why you find so much angst over the involvement of Exxon-Mobile and other major companies in supporting research looking for solutions to the global warming crisis (to the extent that this is a crisis that is).  They undermine the narrative that industry is evil and uninterested in the common good, and further are undermining their main motivation for getting involved in this global warming “hoax” (as they probably view it) to start with.

If you don’t believe me, just type “social justice global warming” and see how intricately linked “global warming solutions” are with “righting social inequity” in which the US is consuming 25% of the worlds resource usage in a year (never mind they are equally productive).

All you have produced so far to refute what is a mathematical principle is hand waving rhetoric.

Since economics is the study of human behavior, a hypothetical mathematical model is not applicable.  You have proved nothing to support your assertion in the real world.  If all you have is a textbook mathematical principle to support your contention about economic activity, you have nothing.
Furthermore, as I have already pointed out, govt is not motivated by any sort of short term behavior beyond political advantage at the ballot box, and any apparent success in the economic long term is due to market domination and control, not any sort of economic viability.  Your contention just doesn’t hold water in real world terms.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Robert108:

This is the latest guesswork from the global warming propagandists.

Actually, iIt’s been understood since the early 80s.  You may not have been aware of it until recently, but that’s another issue.

It’s not there because it’s not there.  Occam’s razor.

One should make a explanation as simple as possible, but no simpler.

We know we emit suffates in addition to CO2.  It would be plain stupid to ignore the influence of the former and including only the influence of the later.

Robert108:

Since economics is the study of human behavior, a hypothetical mathematical model is not applicable.

You should know perfectly well that calculus-based economic theories exist.  You are denying the scientific basis of your own claimed field of study.

Even other aspects of human nature can be explored using game theory, one of the most demanding branches of mathematics.

In any case, we know that economic activity can be approximated by a nonlinear system with feedback.  Study of such nonlinear systems then tell us what types of behavior are possible.

If you want to shrug off rational argument and say “I believed this way, GD the facts” go to it.

We know we emit suffates in addition to CO2.  It would be plain stupid to ignore the influence of the former and including only the influence of the later.

A bigger problem is that the Earth has warmed and cooled off without human caused carbon forcing.  Also although the greenhouse effect is a real thing, the extrapolations they take from the small effect CO2 would have (in essence multiplying it) is also pretty shaky. 

Finally back to a previous point, does CO2 explain the warming from about 1910 to 1940?  I think we need to use your sulfates (we didn’t have much for scrubbers at the time) in this discussion.

The Debate is over!  Global Whining has been confirmed.

You should know perfectly well that calculus-based economic theories exist.
I never said they didn’t; I only said that they, being “theories” aren’t necessarily relevant to the real world, specifically running a business in the private sector.  If you don’t make a profit in the short term, you aren’t around for the long term.
You are denying the scientific basis of your own claimed field of study.
I’m doing no such thing; I’m just trying to bring some reality to what seems to be a fantasy world for you.  Try running a business(and succeeding), then get back to me about your economic theories.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Carrick: A quarter of a degree C, net, in a hundred years is not “evidence”, and could be entirely due to measurement error.  All the rest is supposition.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Robert108, the fact that mathematical theory gets used in economic modeling is not fantasy, it’s practical reality:  Finance companies hire mathematicians and physicists to perform exactly the sort of optimization problems we are talking about here, and they do so because it confers an economic advantage for them.  See computational finance for more on this.

So when you say (I assume this was misspoken) Since economics is the study of human behavior, a hypothetical mathematical model is not applicable you are clearly in error.

Whistler, hopefully we can both sign on to the fact that the classical greenhouse gas effect is real, and important for maintaining heat on the Earth (I forget the exact number, but it raises the temperature by something like 50°C over what it would be without it), and further that CO2 plays an important role in that (perhaps as much as 8% of the total effect).

I would also suggest that we would agree that we don’t fully understand all of the climate feedbacks in the system, and that it has been the tendency of the global warming advocates to only consider those feedback mechanisms which yield a net positive gain to temperature.

I also think we both agree that the CO2 effect (whatever it is) is probably smaller than the global warming advocates claim, and that for most of the 20th century natural fluctuations have dominated global climate change.  So while global climate change is real, most of that is not associated with human activity, at least to this point. 

Further we would agree, I believe, that most of the hoopla associated with global warming is a tactic used by socialists and other anti-industrial types who are using this as a pretext for extending the control of the central government over normal citizens, or for undermining our free market system.  That is why they find true free-market based solutions so frightening, especially if they come from Exxon-Mobile or any other “evil corporation”.

I think our main point of divergence is that I am simply saying that assuming there are no negative feedback mechanisms at play, that what we know about the physics of greenhouse gases suggests that we can realistically reach the level of CO2 concentration needed to significantly modify the Earth’s climate.  And by significantly, I mean significant on a human-impact scale, not just on “can we measure it” scale.

While it may be true that there are negative feedback mechanism (e.g., Roy Spencer’s Iris Effect) that moderate climate, I have to regard such mechanisms with the same degree of skepticism that I hold e..g the water vapor-CO2 positive feedback mechanism.

Anyway that’s my take on it.  Interesting discussion. Also interested in your feedback on my thoughts here.

you are clearly in error.

Run a business that enjoys long term success without short term profit(in the private sector), and then you will see who is “in error”.  Your math models are only for aggregate functions, but for a business to succeed, the real world requires short term success to have long term success.  Of course, since govt dominates any market it enters, it simply confiscates what it needs, and calls that long term success.  It isn’t.

BTW, water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Robert108, You can have short term losses, if you plan for them, in order to have long term success.  Most publicly owned companies have to satisfy their stockholders, which reduces the opportunity for long term vision.  Lose money three years in a row, regardless what happens in five years, and see what happens to the CEO.

Perhaps you can expand on what you (personally that is) mean by an “aggregate function” and what the implications are for that in the question of the optimization of nonlinear systems with feedback.  I’m totally unclear where you are going with this (aggregate functions as I know them have nothing to say about this one way or the other).

Water vapor accounts for 70-80 of the total classic greenhouse effect .  That’s not the “vast majority”.  CO2, methane, CO3, NO and other trace gases account for roughly 20%.

BTW, water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse
effect.

If only humans and other mammals could be made to stop emitting so much of it!
Damn those upper life forms.

Carrick: In my book, 80% is a “vast majority”.

Mathematical economic analysis is based on things that have already happened, and real world economics is about what is going on right now.  I’m sure you can devise a very limited scenario where one can claim long term success without short term success, but it would be a very special case, and not relevant to real world economics, which is what I have been saying all along.
I don’t even understand the relevance of your argument to our economy, unless it’s some kind of justification for govt interference in the market, as an excuse for more socialism.  As I said before, the govt can claim long term “success” without short term success, but it’s only because the govt dominates every market it enters, and ends up determining the parameters and eliminating competition.  Besides, govt can always confiscate the money it needs to keep operating, and can also keep its own books, so real world comparison is nonsensical.  The govt doesn’t operate by the rules of the market.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

But the warm-up prior to WW2 could not have been caused by man.  At least that’s the way I understand it.

TW: Here’s the deal: If it’s getting warmer, it’s global warming; if it’s getting cooler, it’s global warming, but something is “masking” it.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Robert108:

TW: Here’s the deal: If it’s getting warmer, it’s global warming; if it’s getting cooler, it’s global warming, but something is “masking” it.

The theory was there before the recent spat of cooling.  Believe what you want.

The theory was there before the recent spat of cooling. Believe what you want.

In the Seventies, the scareologists were warning of “global cooling”; was that another “spate” of cooling?  How do you determine that what happened a few years back wasn’t a “spate” of warming?  Sounds like agendized opinion to me.  Theories are just that: theories.
I see no reason to believe in something that obviously isn’t happening.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke