Could it have something to do with all the analysts who say there is or will likely be a recession shortly?

And I suppose the record low interest rates might have something to do with the intervention of the Fed after the market drove the bus into the ditch - but apparently that won't stop the libertarians from shamelessly claiming it as a market victory. lol!

"As with Manmade Global Warming, Democrats offer Bigger and Better Government, solving problems that don't exist."

If MMGW does not exist then why do most scientists say it does exist?

If MMGW is not a problem then why do most scientists and other experts say it is a problem?

Conspiracy theory, right? Even the animal and plant kingdom are in on it.

frank stop deluding yourself MOST scientist DON'T believe in Manmade Global Warming

The sad part is if you factor inflation the way they did in the 70s we would be at 10%

Troll,

"MOST scientist DON'T believe in Manmade Global Warming"

Yes they do. Even a poll organised with the involvement of 'sceptics' showed exactly that.

keep telling yourself that Frank....lol

Troll, yes I will keep telling myself what the evidence shows.

You keep living in your dreamworld where you think there is a majority of scientists who think that AGW doesn't exist - a ridiculous claim that you cannot even begin to support.

Troll: here is the proof that you are full of it:

The results are quite informative. No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate [0%]. In total, 18% responded that the IPCC AR4 WG1 Report probably overstates the role of CO2, or exaggerates the risks implied by focusing on CO2-dominated Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), to a greater or lesser degree. A further 17% expressed the opinion that the Report probably underestimates or seriously underestimates the consequences of anthropogenic CO2 -induced AGW and that the associated risks are more severe than is implied in the report. The remaining 65% expressed some degree of concurrence with the report’s science basis, of which the largest group [47% of all respondents] selected option 5. The exact response rates are given in Figure 1.

http://climatesci.org/2008/02/22/is-there-agreement-amongst-climate-scientists-on-the-ipcc-ar4-wg1/

And that is from a guy who would be considered to be a 'sceptic' (though even he would not deny that agw exists at all...just says the IPCC view is alarmist).

wait I'm sorry is that before or after the 10yrs of cooling we are about to experiance...

When any of your "scientists" can tell what the temperature will be next Tuesday at 1pm in Times Square I'll believe them when they predict what the temp will be 20 years from now let alone a 100.

None of the computer models work. When YOU can show proof NOT opinion let us know and I'll help you build the Ark

and here is proof your models are wrong done by your own fellow believers

Antarctica hasn’t warmed as much over the last century as climate models had originally predicted, a new study finds.

Climate change's effects on Antarctica are of particular interest because of the substantial amount of water locked up in its ice sheets. Should that water begin to melt, sea levels around the globe could rise and inundate low-lying coastal areas.

The new study, detailed in the April 5 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, marks the first time that researchers have been able to give a progress report on Antarctic climate model projections by comparing climate records to model simulations (these comparisons have been done for the other six continents). Information about Antarctica's harsh weather patterns has traditionally been limited, but temperature records from ice cores and ground weather stations have recently been constructed, giving scientists the missing information they needed.

"This is a really important exercise for these climate models," said study leader Andrew Monaghan of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Co.

Temperature gap

Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C).

"This is showing us that, over the past century, most of Antarctica has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe," Monaghan said.

The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere. The cold air over the southernmost continent handles moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions.

Frank

It's a waste of time arguing with Troll about AGW. Or anything else. He is not open to persuasion.

On Wednesday he posted a link which showed some increase in southern sea ice and a large decrease in northern sea ice, and claimed this as evidence that AGW was a crock, and then called me a liar for pointing out the contradiction between north and south and the fact that ALL the glaciers in the USA are melting.

Time to move on from debating with these guys. I don't mind debating the science, but they do.

No Peter you are a liar and you Know it. You said NOWHERE were glaciers growing and I proved you wrong.

I am open to things called FACTS The FACTS contradict man made Global Warming

POST THE MATHMATICAL MODEL THAT WORKS PREDICTING CLIMATE CHANGE. You Can't because it does NOT exist

Patty

Are the following increasing or decreasing in the USA over the past year:

Unemployment
Housing repossessions.
The government deficit.
The balance of payments deficit.
The dollar against other main currencies.
The gap between rich and poor (I know - this is a commie concept, but many countries measure it as an indicator of the health of their societies).

Peter: Markets, employment, and even global temperatures go up and then they go down. Up and down. Up and down. Up and down. Increase and decrease. There is no such thing as perfect equilibrium. Neither economies nor climates reach a state if stasis. Ever.

Democrats - solving problems that don't exist. For personal power and socialist glory.

Meanwhile, Democrats ignore an actual war declared by jihadists. Letting the grown-ups do the heavy lifting while they whine and moan how unfair everything is.

Peter: "I know - this is a commie concept, but many countries measure it as an indicator of the health of their societies"

Agreed. This is a commie concept. Many countries live in abject poverty. That doesn't mean we need to follow suit.

Troll,

To recap, the question was simple: do most scientists in the field believe that AGW is happening or not?

You say no.

I provide evidence that they do.

You change the subject.

No surprise.

BTW, I thought everyone knew that Manmade Global Warming was a hoax. Didn't we already sort that out? I can't believe it's still being discussed here as if it's a viable theory.

Patty

You drag AGW into everthing. Still at least you managed to avoid mentioning you-know-who.

If it was a Democrat president you Republicans would be screaming blue-murder about the state of the US economy, and you know it.

Worldwide stats show that the bigger the gap between rich and poor, the more crime there is. Which is not to excuse the crime.

Peter: Point one: I drag MMGW into the debate only because I thought everyone had agreed that it's a hoax, and just an attempt to increase govt. size and power. In other words, it's an example to illustrate my argument, not really an issue debated any longer among anyone who is keeping up with the times. I'm surprised that you are so behind the curve on this one; you seemed so into it before.

Point two: The point is that the economy is not so bad. It's being used as an election issue. In another time, another place, I don't know what the Repubs. would do.

In any case, I am more Conservative than Repub. Just look at McCain, the Repub. nominee - I have many issues with him. And the Repub. party know-it-alls who promoted him to represent me, because he doesn't.

So poverty = crime and rich = no crime? So, tax the rich and give to the poor to reduce crime? Do you realize how vague and sloppy and pandering to socialism this is?

Patty,

"BTW, I thought everyone knew that Manmade Global Warming was a hoax"

Again: If you are right then why do most scientists say it is happening Patty?

"I thought everyone had agreed that it's a hoax"

Wow you are really deluded. I just posted evidence from the sceptic side of the aisle that shows that no scientist thinks it is a hoax, not even the ones who think it is not a problem (who are of course a minority).

What do you know that they do not? Indeed on past performance you cannot tell the difference between a warming trend and a cooling trend so if you think the economy is improving it really must be time to batten down the hatches. In fact if enough people read your post it could in itself trigger a market collapse and be the final nail in the coffin of the dollar! Patty says it's all gonna be OK! SELL!!!

Frank: Sorry, but from what I read, there is now a consensus that MMGW was a hoax.

The globe is cooling now (for 10 years already) and the attempt to write this off as La Nina (and part of the global warming trend) is being laughed at.

Sorry. But you need another hobby horse.

Patty,

"Sorry, but from what I read, there is now a consensus that MMGW was a hoax."

Clearly not. I just posted evidence, namely a poll done with the involvement of sceptics - which found no evidence that any climate scientist in the field thinks it is a hoax. Not one of the scientists polled agreed that was a hoax. Yet you say everyone does. So did you not read that or do you simply ignore inconvenient evidence?

"The globe is cooling now (for 10 years already)"

No it isn't Patty. Even if you start the trend at 1998 - which of course would be a stupid, ignorant, mendacious and/or dishonest thing to do - the trend is positive.

Patty posted:

Frank: Sorry, but from what I read, there is now a consensus that MMGW was a hoax.
You are taking Rush Limbaugh as gospel. Not good.

The point is that the economy is not so bad. It's being used as an election issue.
And did no Republican ever use the economy as a stick to beat a Democrat? LOL!

Just look at McCain, the Repub. nominee - I have many issues with him.
Yeah, but are you going to stay at home and help Obama to win in November?

So poverty = crime and rich = no crime?
No - read what I posted.

Peter:

1.Rush Limbaugh as gospel? No, I'm a Christian. I only listen to Rush for fun.

2. Even if the Repub. Party did use the economy as an election issue in another time, another place, it doesn't make the current Democrat drum beating panic dance vis-a-vis a recession anything less than bogus.

3. No. Will not stay home. Obama is a disaster. Not only is he the most far-left Senator in COngress, but he is also one of the least experienced. He has terrible judgement regarding people. Just witness his association with Rev. Wright. Did he not know this friend/mentor/father figure was a loose canon? Obama is young, and inexperienced and I don't want to be around while he misjudges other problem leaders and leads the country into disaster.

4. What you posted was too vague. I tried to translate it. If you won't bother clarifying, why should I?

Frank: Sorry to pop your bubble, Frank. Really. But MMGW is now a debunked hoax. Sorry.

Patty, denial isn't healthy. You're not bursting anyone's bubble. You're just babbling your mantra over and over and ignoring any evidence that refutes your claims.

You've said that everyone thinks MMGW is a hoax. Again, I have posted a poll of scientists working in the field and not one of them agreed with you, not even the ones that disagreed with the IPCC.

You've also said that it has been cooling for 10 years and not only is 10 years too short, not only does 10 years conveniently start at a peak, not only will you often get a cooling trend in such a sequence with a warming signal plus *random* data, but despite all that the data STILL shows the opposite of what you claim.

So you shuffle the cards, deal from a stacked deck, and still deal yourself a losing hand. And then you declare victory. LOL! Virtuoso denial. Truly amazing.

Frank: "Not only is 10 years too short?"

Too short for what? To disprove an unproven global warming theory?

Well, it certainly doesn't help prove the theory. Does it?

No, it doesn't.
It poses a problem for those who desperately wish that MMGW is gospel.

But that's the way it is with science. It's not about consensus. It's about factual evidence:

Observation. Hypothesis. Experiment. Observation of results. Reevaluation of old hypothesis. New Hypothesis.

That's science.

Global warming doesn't stand up to new evidence. The manmade part was always too nebulous to even test.

Sorry.

Patty

First off, I enjoy debating with you and I'm glad you're back tonight.

1. Check out the current debate on AGW here. There is room for argument, but your position (it's all a hoax) is untenable from the science at present. Now, Riush and fellow-Rightworlders would agree with you, but that's not where it's at.

2. The US economy was in better shape when Bush got elected eight years ago than it is now. End of.

3. Glad you are voting for McCain - a decent man who will bring the GOP back into the mainstream and away from the neo-cons and the christian right when he gets elected in November. The only threat to him would be that conservatives like you would stay home and not vote.

4. The greater the gap between rich and poor, the more crime. All societies notice this. Check out the US v Sweden.

Patty

To Frank & Peter MMGW is their religion, they are fanatics. That is the on thing that can be counted as a fact...

Peter: Don't have time to address all three points so I choose number 2.

The fact is that the economy was entering a mild recession when Bush took office, largely due to the slowdown in the computer industry.

That is why Bush enacted the "Bush tax cuts." The economic theory is that if you inject the economy with money (tax cuts) you encourage growth. It seemed to work this time.

Macro economic models are not infallible. Too many variables moving at once. (like climate, actually)

Clinton took office right about the same time that the Soviet Union disolved. He was lucky this way. Also, the computer boom was just starting. The economy soared - we had the "peace dividend" from the dismantling of the military and the growth in the computer industry, all fueling the economy. The deficit became a surplus.

I voted for Clinton, BTW - I wanted change and someone young. His team included women and blacks which seemed at the time like a much needed changing of the guard. As you know, I no longer attach any positive value to identity politics, voting for race or gender. I've changed.

In retrospect, Clinton dropped the ball with jihad but to be honest, the country had no appetite for conflict before 9/11, anyway. I don't think the country would have supported Clinton even if he wished to do something other than posture.

The computer economic bubble burst right as CLinton was leaving office. And the country showed signs of a recession.

I think you can conclude one thing from this: Clinton was lucky. Bush was not so lucky.

The Presidency is not a "magic" office. There is only so much a President can do. The economy is largely outside the purview of the Presidency -- although high taxation and high regulation discourages growth (and prosperity). And it is felt that the Bush tax cuts did minimize the recession to some extent.

Troll

Did you bother to check my link at 2.32?

No, I thought not.

Patty

Interesting comment at 2.49. I'd never have guessed that you voted for Bubba!

I agree with most of it, but it is doubtful if Bush helped the US economy by cutting taxes for the rich.

I await your response to 1, 3 and 4.

Patty,

(10 years)
"Too short for what"

Too short to eliminate the effects of short term noise (i.e. short term natural variation). Climate is measured on timescales of ~30 years.

"Well, it certainly doesn't help prove the theory. Does it?"

A 10 year trend is too short to say anything either way, unless it showed a radical change in trend such that the uncertainty intervals excluded either warming or cooling. So even though the last 10 years shows warming (not cooling), if that were the only information then it would not be sufficient to show GW never mind AGW. But of course we have more than 10 years of data, so only the dishonest or ignorant cherry pick a peak 10 years ago as a starting point.

"It poses a problem for those who desperately wish that MMGW is gospel."

A position held by hardly anyone and certainly not by me.

"But that's the way it is with science. It's not about consensus. It's about factual evidence:"

And the best evidence so far includes: that it is warming (evidence from direct observation and multiple proxies); that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (proven in the lab and corroborated by observations of the earth's atmosphere from space); that we are causing its concentration to increase (increase proven by direct measurement, anthropogencic source proven by isotope evidence); that each doubling of CO2 concentration will most likely to lead to between 1.5 and 4C of warming with about 3C being most likely (constrained by multiple independent results including evidence from the distant past); that it will continue to warm (evidence from multiple physics based models as well as the fact that GHGs are increasing); that we are currently headed for doubling and then quadrupling CO2 (based on likely emissions projections in BAU); that the effects will be severe to catastrophic (evidence from multiple studies, which show few good consequences and many negative consequences, especially for warming of 2 to 6C).

Peter: doubtful? Why?

Where's the pay-off for me if you don't think about my answers? and reply thoughtfully? It's not very interesting. And not interesting enough to answer 1,3, and 4. although nice you say you "like to debate."

Troll,

"To Frank & Peter MMGW is their religion, they are fanatics."

Leaving aside the patent nonsense that a scientific theory could be a religion (hint: the fact that AGW is happening does not tell you how to live your life(*). Do you have a dictionary? Look up religion) - YOU claim that most scientists do not believe that AGW exists and then YOU ignore evidence to the contrary. That makes you the fanatic.

(*) To save iterations - as I know that Troll is now going to launch into a tirade about Gaia and legislation - the fact that AGW is happening says nothing about what the response to it should be.

Frank the belief in mammade global warming not only tells those who believe in it how to live, Those that believe in it want to DICTATE to the rest of us how to live.

Like I said show me the mathmatical model that is accurate for a week let alone 100yrs and I will believe. You believe with NO Proof you are a fanatic.

I don't need a tirate I know that my kids and yours will be laughing at your religion in 50yrs.

Peter

It's a fact that the tax cuts helped the economy and that government with those tax cuts have broken every record for the amount of revenue it has seized even with those cuts ie: because of the economic growth.

Oh and those tax cuts for the rich gave everyone that makes 50,000 a $2500 tax break. Where I come from 50,000 ain't rich.

Frank

A couple of questions.

Even if you start the trend at 1998 - which of course would be a stupid, ignorant, mendacious and/or dishonest thing to do - the trend is positive.

1. If 1998 was warmer than any subsequent year how can you show a warming trend starting from there.

(I accept that it is misleading to start from an untypical warm year or indeed an untypical cold year)

2. What do you make of media reports that Global Warming may be on a break until 2015?

Frank O'Dwyer -

(10 years) Too short to eliminate the effects of short term noise (i.e. short term natural variation). Climate is measured on timescales of ~30 years.

So why did you predict drought, heatwaves and record temps for the 2007 summer? Notwithstanding that you were hopelessly wrong and we shivered while the waters rose, if you had been right you'd have felt vindicated, on the data from one summer.

You can't (ok, you can) flip over to saying that a decade is too short in that case. Let's have some intellectual honesty for once from you medievalists.

So come on, let's hear it Frank. Let's hear you say that you know what will be happening to the climate in 10, 50, 100 years time, although your one previous attempt at predicting one summer just a couple of months in advance couldn't have been more wrong.

Frank/Peter - It is like arguing with the flat earth crowd. Patty is so out of it she thinks there is a consensus that GW is a hoax. She must also be reading some rightwing nonsense about the US economy, and she's taking her cue from that. And Troll can't bother himself to discuss the actual facts of any issue.

Patty is right about the economy. The numbers are good. The foreclosures are 0.05% of the total housing market. The majority of those were poor credit risks buying more than they could afford or speculators. The question I have on the mortgage bailout is, where were the insurance companies? All loans with a less than 20% down payment are required to have private mortgage insurance (PMI) which insures the lender for the loan in case of default by the borrower. Shouldn't they have covered these losses?

The problem we have is federal overspending and fiscal mismanagement. Take a look at these numbers:

Figures in parentheses are from FY 2000, when we ran a $200 billion surplus. I am estimating as best I can from these tables

Defense: $515 billion ($294)
Homeland Security: $38 billion ($0; was in Domestic Necessary)
Domestic Necessary: $713 billion
Domestic Worthy Causes*: $305 billion ($217)
Social Security: $644 billion ($409)
Medicare: $408 billion ($197)
Medicaid and SCHIP: $224 billion ($136)
Interest: $260 billion ($223)
Total: $3107 ($1789)

(*Domestic worthy causes = Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, NSF)

Personal income taxes: $1259 billion ($1004.5)
Corporate income taxes: $339 billion ($207.3)
Social Insurance receipts: $949 billion ($652.9)
Other taxes: $153 billion ($161)
Deficit: $400 billion (surplus $236 billion)

via econlog

Daphne: I have to respectfully disagree. AIG's loses the last two quarters could only be counted by Carl Sagan (Billions & Billions), Bear Stearns is kaput, gas is going through the roof, the subprime mortgage crisis is real and effects major financial institutions throughtout the world (let alone us here in the U.S.).
The borrowers may very well have overreached, but the problem is often their only asset was the inflated value of their house.

Henry,

"1. If 1998 was warmer than any subsequent year how can you show a warming trend starting from there."

Suppose you won the lottery in 1998. If the only information you had was the net balances of your bank account, would you be able to tell if your income exceeded your outgoings after 1998? Would you be able to tell if you were still receiving your salary, interest payments, etc?

The trend in temperature is like that, except to complete the analogy there would be random credits and debits to complicate things. It is this random noise that makes it difficult to find the increasing trend on short time scales.

You can even prove this to yourself in (say) excel by generating a sequence of normally distributed noise and then adding a warming signal. Go back to a 1998 like peak and you will very likely find a decreasing trend. However in this case you *know* there is a warming trend, and the decrease comes from the noise. In the real world data, there isn't even a decrease...you need to cherry pick other (shorter) timescales to find such. You could equally cherry pick trends that short to show hyper-warming.

"2. What do you make of media reports that Global Warming may be on a BREAK until 2015?"

I think you are referring to the reports of the recent study in Nature. Two problems with that. One is that the media reports are inaccurate (lots of reports of 'cooling' over the next decade etc - but the study doesn't say that). The other is that the study itself is not considered a great forecast and people like James Annan and the Realclimate crew are willing to bet on it. For example the Hadley Centre has predicted that at least half the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998 so the question should be settled, along with various others (hurricanes etc), soon enough.

Pete,

"So why did you predict drought, heatwaves and record temps for the 2007 summer? "

I didn't - although if I had done I would have been right as those did happen around the world. All I did was state my belief that there would likely be a heatwave *in the UK* that summer, which turned out not to happen. (Actually I never specified where it would happen, but you were right to conclude that I meant the UK.) I never mentioned record temps or drought, you just invented that. I've admitted the part I did get wrong several times before. It was not however a prediction based on any study or model it was simply a hunch of my own and based only on the fact that we hadn't had a heatwave for a while and that AGW makes them more likely. I also knew less about the issue then than I do now.

Now are you going to appeal to your side of the aisle to show some intellectual honesty. Troll says that most scientists don't believe AGW exists and Patty says that everyone knows that AGW is a hoax. I have posted evidence that disproves both claims - most scientists in the field, almost all, and even those that say it is overplayed, say that AGW is happening. And the idea that it is a 'hoax' is simply a conspiracy theory up there with the idea that Israel brought down the WTC.

The private sector is reaping the consequences of their own gross mismanagement and our tax dollars along with the Fed are bailing them out. That there are segments of industry facing a crisis of their own making doesn't refute the fact that Patty's current numbers on the state of the economy are true. The unemployment numbers released the other day showed an unexpected drop in people getting off UI. We have a strong economic engine that can ride out these temporary business fiascos and the the only thing I see that may slow it down is the impending tax increases we're going to face to deal with SS, Medicare, Medicaid and the deficit.

Gas is going through the roof because democrats have refused to allow drilling or new refineries to be built. Food prices are going through the roof because of government policies also.

Daphne: The cause of economic woe is debateable, the fact of economic woe is less so. Even the Wall Street Journal is pointing out the current mess on a fairly regular basis. Damn, a crying baby here, back later.

Mahons, you may be more sensitive to economic woe in the financial industry since you live in the center of it. I'm not disputing your examples of corporate distress - those are facts. But unless they cause a widespread credit crunch for business or consumers, or higher lending interest rates, the economy will continue to be fine.

Guess you're on baby duty this morning. :-)

A little economic humor for Saturday.....

principles of economics

this is good too....

yoram bauman

Mahons posted:

Frank/Peter - It is like arguing with the flat earth crowd. Patty is so out of it she thinks there is a consensus that GW is a hoax. She must also be reading some rightwing nonsense about the US economy, and she's taking her cue from that. And Troll can't bother himself to discuss the actual facts of any issue.

I couldn't have put it any better. The claim that AGW is a hoax is (a) untrue and (b) laughable, but these right-wing zealots have convinced themselves and are totally impervious to all evidence to the contrary. No evidence in favour of AGW will ever convince them, just as no amount of evidence in favour of evolution will ever convince a creationist.

Daphne: Hilarious videos....swing voters, the idiot savants of Democracy!..clueless, apathetic and every 4 years they determine the fate of the nation. hahaha.

Daphne: Hilarious videos....swing voters, the idiot savants of Democracy!..clueless, apathetic and every 4 years they determine the fate of the nation. hahaha.

Much better to do away with democracy then. Hey, if it doesn't get the RIGHT result it's gotta be a bad idea. Just ask Mugabe.

Peter, are you sucking lemons today? Go watch the videos, the right gets skewered more than the left, you might enjoy them - it's bipartisan humor.

Really? You mean bipartisan as in Rush Limbaugh?

LOL!