Reply To: Cap and Trade

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
* The few who write the IPCC reports, yes, pretty much. The examples are legion. The hydrologists are particularly contemptuous of the ignorance shown of the effects of the oceans and water cycles on climate, which are huge, arguably dominant.
** A typical example of distortion by data manipulation. The range and scale are selected to make the graph look steep, when it is not. It also begs the question about what the source of the rise is. The Earth has been warming since the Maunder Minimum, long before human industrial activity was significant, and warming seawater gives up CO2–which has also been rising since long before industrial activity became intense (generally pegged as early WWII, ~1940). With, be it noted, a LAG — it follows the warming by about 9 months. That, despite “feedback loop” double-talk by the alarmists, means it is an effect, NOT a cause. And a typical order-of-magnitude alarmist error: 22% in 50 years is a 0.4% compounding rate, not 4%. Which requires 180 years to double, not 20. Further, the slope of that progression shows no signs of being “compounded” (exponential). It is pretty much a linear progression. And 0.4% linear requires 250 years to double.
Since the IPCC models aren’t competent to predict even 1 year’s climate (actually they have shown no competence to predict at ANY time scale), using them to predict the non-linear climate 20, 175, or 250 years out is outrageous mendacity or ignorance.
*** So full of errors I don’t know where to start. I’ll just satisfy myself by pointing out that a 1% contribution does not = 0.1°/year unless it is a given that the temperature is rising 10°/year, which not even the most slavering Gore-ite claims. This time, the error is THREE orders of magnitude, even granting the other (erroneous) assumptions. 😆
**** Au Contraire!! That C-a-T is going to cost Trillions$ with NO detectable climate benefit is at the very core. Unless, like some of the investment hucksters who are circulating their promo newsletters, you are slavering to get some of that lovely money action–preferably leveraged by owning stock in a company with an inside track, like AlGore! What, exactly, do you think is worth discussing about C-a-T, if not its economic impact? Which is contingent upon its effectiveness–which, I argue, is deeply negative

* Well I don’t actually know how they work at IPCC or any other climate change research center, because I don’t work there, but I would believe that there can be disgruntled employees everywhere. If some scientist was turned down, and is screaming “Global Conspiracy” all over the media, then that is his problem. Otherwise if they are falsifying data, or perpetuating a fraud I don’t see a problem with anyone going to court about it.

** It is really strange to me that you see data manipulation on this chart.
http://tinypic.com/r/2mwidd/4
Whatever the range/scale you select it will stay exponential. Of course you can say that there is some margin or error there, or that data was altered. But then this is EVIDENCE, just take it to court and bye-bye global warming perpetrators.

Edit: Economy is also mostly based on fossil fuels. Is this chart linear as well?
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1254091224089&chddm=493051&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXDJX:.DJI&ntsp=0

*** I did not try to quote any real numbers here. My only assumption is that the heat is accumulating. And while the temperature is not changing, melting ice can indicate that heat is accumulating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage#2008

**** So do you think it makes sense to discuss Cap & Trade in the context that global warming is a scam? In my opinion if global warming is not real then cap & trade does not make sense, and we can happily burn fossil fuels, well at least until drinking water and oxygen prices are still affordable. Of course free energy (from renewable sources) might sound attractive, but I would love to wait until new technology is available and prices drop instead of paying now for 20 years in advance.