Sorry I may have been unclear. I never belived a new ice age was just around the corner, but later in life my own recollections caused me to belive the spin about "scientists predicting global cooling in the 70's", they did no such thing, unless you count the opinions offered in (and on) the NG article.
RH figures are usually quoted for sea level. The issue of water vapour is much more complex that my post which only conveys the concept not the details. Here are a couple of links with further info, Water vapour, climate forcings, note that H2O is a minor forcing in the stratosphere, closer to ground it is a feedback.
Yes it was in the mid-seventies, just after I left HS. I remember reading the original national geographic article that was reprinted ad-nauseum in the papers for a breif period. Like you I belived that cooling was all the rage and did a bit of research to try and convince someone of that about 10yrs ago - I was wrong.
The truth is that in the 70's nobody had a scientific paper claiming that climate was changing one way or the other. However I will say that the NG article did raise the question and people started seriously studying the idea in the early eighties, this was when they first found statistical evidence of warming.
"2008 has more ice than 2007, and since several other cycles (solar and ocean currents) have shifted towards cool phases the build up of ice is likely going to continue."
Wrong. However I would like to know who is propogating that particular bit of misinformation, do you have a link?
"Wanting the "save the planet" does not give you the right to tell other people how to live their lives."
Tell that to your illustrious leader because quite frankly the rest of us are fed up with his crap.
"In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the environmental movement is about the most un-American aspect of the US today."
Yes a good patriot should dump all his garbage over the neighboors fence and do everything in their power to turn the country into a toxic dump./sarcasm
There are now slightly more than twice as many people on Earth as there were when I was born. Population is the "elephant in the room" and the population/energy thing holds true for all life forms, not just humans. All other life forms with "unlimited" food and few predators will simply breed until the environment that supports them collapses. Humans are unique in that we are smart enough to recognise this threat, but our actions over my lifetime would seem to indicate we are not wise enough to defend ourselves against it.
"I think it's stupid that we create a theory, provide no cause and effect relationship, gather data that shows effect, the proclaim cause while something else may be going on"."
And this is exactly why I called your post "anti-science" elsewhere. However I'm unsure if you are purposely building a strawman, making an incorrect assumption because of a lack of knowledge, or just finished reading "State of Fear"...
I'm going to laugh my ass all the way to the grave if global warming activists kill us all because of an understudied field of science (ecology) led us to ignore other possible cause and effect relationships."
You won't get an argument from me that the biosphere is poorly understood, it's elegant complexity will keep the minds of mankind busy for millenia (if we last that long). However, finding new relationships will NOT invalidate the known relationships anymore than Eienstien invalidates Newton. What it will do is narrow those rather broad error bars you will notice in the linked graph.
Speaking of ecology, here in Australia we have experienced a change in our rainfall patterns that started in the 50's, sped up in the 80's and has seen our bread-basket reduced to dust over the last 10yrs. The Murry-Darling river system that covers the south east of Australia stopped flowing into the sea 6yrs ago. Now GW is not to blame for what is largely a land use issue but the CSIRO down here has found that a 20% drop in rainfall results in a 60% drop in run-off. Entire forests of six hundred year old river redgum are simply turning up their toes and dying. Respected scientists are now suggesting we flood these vast internationally recognised wetlands with salt water in a last ditch attempt to save what's left of them from the increasing acidity that has basically wiped out all aquatic life in the southern lakes.
Most of our major cities are planning/building massive de-sal plants, the Dams built in the 60's, 70's and 80's that until the mid-90's were full are now sitting between 20-40%. Every state capital is now on strict water rationing, you can't wash your car, you can't fill your pool/spa, you can't use a garden hose, etc. I haven't seen a garden sprinkler in action for years.
BTW: I'm 50yrs old and have lived all my life in the land of drought and flooding plains, people down here stopped "laughing" about GW a couple of years ago.
"We should all just pray that we're not near any of the tipping points commonly talked about."
Less than 10yrs ago when climate scientists were predicting one such "tipping point" would likely be an ice free summer artic by the end of the century, they were ridiculed in the press, in the halls of power and on slashdot. Yet today even the most conservative of scientists are predicting it will be ice free by mid-century and moderates are predicting "within a decade".
Current modelling says that an ice free artic will speed up the warming in the N. Hemisphere causing drought conditions in the US mid-west and southern Europe, here in Australia we are coming to grips with what is being called a "permenant drought" that has seen our grain harvests halved for the last 10yrs (2005 was the only exception).
"Sometimes I really worry that we've all had it too good for too long and a much grimmer future is just over the horizon..."
I hope your wrong (especially since I'm about to become a grandad) but GW is just one of many signs that we are racing toward a global population crash of biblical proportions.
Indeed, what you have quoted is NOT a conspiracy theory. It's an anti-science strawman built to support the OP's ignorance of the subject. If you like that sort of anti-science fiction troll, I highly recommend M. Chriton's "State of Fear".
Lets start by dropping the political ad-homs. I'm not from the US and don't give a flying fuck what Gore and Bush do in their private lives, I fully expect ALL politicians to be hypocrites (it's their job!). I am however interested in US policy positions because we only have one atmosphere. And yes, it's a GoodThing(TM) that the trend is flattening but this would likely be due to state and corporate initiatives, not the current occupants of the whitehouse (unless the flattening is from a depressed economy).
I don't dispute that the GHG/GDP ratio may be a useful measue of efficiency, however it is useless when it comes to keeping emmissions in check since any nation can increase GHG toward infinity and provided their GDP keeps up the ratio will not change. The US administrations effort to replace cap and trade with a GHG/GDP ratio is nothing more than a cynical excercise aimed at derailing an effective treaty and the rest of the planet knows it.
"We also know that water vapor soaks up 25 times as much heat as CO2, and that there's a lot more of it, especially over the oceans. Of course, the Global Warming Industry doesn't mention this, because it would make people wonder how much effect CO2 really has, except over cold deserts."
You have been misinformed by the opposing "industry", scientists pretty much ignore water vapour for a very good reason. The atmosphere is saturated with water vapour. That means that the only way to change the amount of water vapour in the air is to change either the temprature or pressure of the atmosphere. In other words water is a feedback in a changing climate.
Now what the anti-GW "industry" never mentions is a little thing called the dew point that explains why dew drops form all over the world every night, even in deserts. In a (globally) stable climate you can pump as much H2O as you like into the atmosphere and all that will happen is that it will fall out as rain/dew over the next few days.
Here is a short list of some other old and tiresome misinformation that is midlessly regurgitated every time GW is mentioned...
Climate change on Mars/Jupiter
Sunspots.
Cosmic rays.
Volcanos emit more CO2 than mankind.
No warming since 1998.
Global cooling was all the rage in the 70's.
There are many more but the point here is that people simply spout off what they read in the opinion pages without having a fucking clue as to what they are talking about and a complete lack of desire to find out. They assume that the thousands of scientists that make up EVERY national science body on the planet are lobotmised fools who haven't got a clue about what they have spent a good portion of their lives studying.
A couple of minutes googling would have busted the ridiculous myth that you are propogating. If you or anyone else reading wants to be treated as a skeptic and not a 'denier', then act like a skeptic. Go and question your own assumption and try and prove yourself wrong. When you fail to do so then you may just be onto something worthwhile and ORIGINAL. Picking out pre-spun factoids that happen to fit your worlview is nothing less than the triumph of politics over science.
Disclaimer: I picked on you because I was looking for the H2O meme and you were the first one I saw. If you are interested in some genuine science I can give you some links but I suspect your mind is made up and firmly closed.
"The thing is that before we paid much attention to this stuff, there was ONE real model that predicted a global temperature increase: global warming. It was not ignored before because "the man" was trying to hide science, it was ignored because there was NO effort to show an actual cause and effect relationship."
If what you said in your post was an accurate summary of how the science came about and what it actually says then I could agree with you. However I belive you have contructed a strawman because of a limited understanding of the subject and it's 100+yr history.
There are a lot of things we don't understand about the biosphere's reaction to forcings, however we know the effect of the main forcings and we can measure them (including the Sun), and we can put error bars on those measurements (as seen in the link). The large and complex effort that has gone into creating that simple graph concludes humans are responsible for at least half the observed warming from 1900-2000.
Other unknown forcings may also contribute to a change in climate but that does not mean the known forcings go away.
That there is only one Earth is the reason why scientists MUST model it, this is nothing new there are plenty of unique systems that are modeled and nobody bats an eyelid. If anything scientists are giving a diagnosis in much the same way as a doctor diagnoses illness (ie: all humans are unique but similar).
As for slow moving changes such as the Panama thing, they are occuring all the time and do NOT force average GLOBAL temps in any direction, they simply move EXISTING heat around via a different path.
"OH MY" indeed, can you fit another myth into that post?
Mars and Jupiter: I love this one, "skeptics" claim we can't measure the Earth's climate properly but then present "evidence" of other worlds warming as a counter argument.
No increase of global temperature in over 8 years: This is called cherry-picking the data, but somehow you managed to screw that up. The actual myth is that there has been no warming since 1998. 1998 just happens to be the warmest year ever recorded, indicating that high school stats is all you need to spot the problem with that myth.
"And in the 1990s when sunspot activity was some of the highest ever recorded, global temperatures rose. I wonder if this is a coincidence.... or is it?"
High sunspot activity in the 1990's - Sunspots have a well known 11yr cycle so according to your theory temps should bounce from high to low and back to high again every 11yrs, they don't. It's not even a coincidence since the sunspot minimum occured within a year of the hottest year ever recorded and the sunspot maximum occured when Mt Pinatobo [sic] exploded causing the globe to cool slightly for a couple of years.
"So really... are you all still addicted to that theory? That it's all about the CO2?"
Do you even know what the theory you are attacking actually says? - Here is an attribution graph to assist you, in particular note that solar flux has been taken into account.
One data point does not make a trend, from your own link...
"Through 2006, total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have grown by 17.9 percent since 1990. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions account for over 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."
What really dismays me about your links is that the DOE are towing the Bush line of linking GHG limits to GDP measures in a last ditch effort to counter the global push for cap and trade based on physical quantities.
GHG emmisions are a physical entity measured in tonnes, GDP is a mathematical entity that is used as an indicator of productivity. Sure is nice to have a high GDP and low GHG but this completely ignores the physical limits of how much GHG the biosphere can actually absorb.
The Bush argument for controlling emmissions basically says that if we double GDP we can double emmissions and everything will be ok because the ratio has not changed - China's skyrocketing pollution levels are an excellent example of what is wrong with that thinking.
You do know something about sunspots and I agree a longer lull will be a "major story". However the statement "A period when solar activity of abnormally high.... which happened to be when 'global warming' is claimed to have started." indicates you know nothing about climate science let alone what (if anything) it has to do with sunspots.
Here is a link to an attribution graph from the IPCC (complete with error bars). You will notice that the solar flux has been taken into account and that sulphides emmited by humans is the largest negative forcing. Notice that the error bars on the net forcing do not dip below the axis.
Here is an article that may clear up your confusion about the 'hockey stick', if that's not enough then you can always ask M.Mann to set you straight.
Notice that contrary to your assertion that there is some sort of conspiracy to stiffle critics and ruin their carers, Mann's web site goes to the trouble of pointing out it's own critics in the "other opinions" section on the RH side of the page.
Skepticisim: First you post an "insightfull" anti-science troll worthy of M.Chrichton, then you do exactly what you claim this cospiracy is doing by backing up your claim with politically inspired psuedo-science regurgitated from a right-wing rag. That is not skepticisim, it is in fact what phycologists call "projection".
Occam's razor: Would indicate that it is YOU allowing YOUR politics to intefere with science and this global conspiracy of which you speak is nothing but a figment of your imagination brought about by your apparent inability to be skeptical of your own assumptions.
"What good is a perfected worded book that is four or more years old, and irrelevant compared to internet resources, as the summary informs?"
Many books are old and irrelevant, some are timeless. Reading how to program (as opposed to how to code) will help make sense of what you find on the net. This isn't to say there are no good sources on the net but it's silly to ignore the classics.
"I'm glad this summary was posted as News, and not AskSlashdot, because discussing the root of the challenge is much more interesting, than 1000s of people suggesting any particular book they've read themselves."
The question itself is too broad, it's hard to tell if the aim is to teach a particular industry recognised skill, give a general introduction to computer science, create an army of code monkeys, create an army of admins,....
"This is an unfortunate corruption of the scientific method by the current grant system of running science."
Bullshit, what's the point of doing the "95% persperation" part of obtaining funding and collecting the data if you are going to allow every other 'genius' to beat you to the 5% inspiration part and get all the glory/future funding?
"The original idea was that a claim is judged by its merit."
The presentation was not supposed to be convincing anyone of anything, it was to enlighten others in the field as to what the PAMELA team were up to and what they think they have found. Since the presentation the PAMELA team have refused to comment, they are busy polishing up their paper for publication in the journal Science. Apart from the subscription fee I see no better way to ensure their "claim is judged by its merit".
As an Ausssie I wouldn't say it's stagnated, I'd say it's still working. No need for DD here, although utilities push very hard and offer discounts if you give them the DD keys.
I agree the reason was absurd and find it depressing that people actually belive it. I have no reason to doubt the safety of US beef.
"Neither source is too concerned about accuracy in reporting."
It's kind of obviuos it's a SK 'wedge issue' since no other nation seems to be demonstrating in the streets about it. I was interested to see who was driving the wedge and why. It's always enlightening to get a local POV, thanks.:)
"If anything lawyers should be like secretaries to the government"
Unfortunately some lawyers already act as if they are secretaries to the government, but they are in fact officers of the court and should act accordingly. It's a seperation of powers thing...
"With that said, the plantiff's lawyers I had as clients once upon a time were among the most interesting people on the planet earth"
My pitt bull is highly intelligent, educated, loyal, playfull, loves kids, and ate the yapping toy poodle from next door./sarcasm
Any ideas on why the SK press spreads this FUD? - Do they belive it themselves or is there some kind of vested interest at work?
BTW: Technically Australian and NZ beef is safer as far as MC is concerned since AFAIK there have been zero cases reported in either nation but I hardly think the 3 cases reported in the US is reason for the SK press to keep the fud alive. This fact that AU/NZ have zero MC cases is undoubtedly due to both nations being islands with very strict quarantine regimes. Quarantine is taken so seriously here in Australia that airport sniffer dogs are employed to look for fruit. Due to quarantine we also don't have foot and mouth, rabies, and a whole host of other livestock and plant diseases.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry I may have been unclear. I never belived a new ice age was just around the corner, but later in life my own recollections caused me to belive the spin about "scientists predicting global cooling in the 70's", they did no such thing, unless you count the opinions offered in (and on) the NG article.
Understand TFA without RTFA. (my emphasis)
RH figures are usually quoted for sea level. The issue of water vapour is much more complex that my post which only conveys the concept not the details. Here are a couple of links with further info, Water vapour, climate forcings, note that H2O is a minor forcing in the stratosphere, closer to ground it is a feedback.
Water vapour
Climate forcings, note that H2O is only a forcing in the stratosphere, closer to ground it is a feedback.
Unlimited as in downloads. Obviously if you turn all the water on the planet into steam overnight then we are in big trouble the next morning.
Yes it was in the mid-seventies, just after I left HS. I remember reading the original national geographic article that was reprinted ad-nauseum in the papers for a breif period. Like you I belived that cooling was all the rage and did a bit of research to try and convince someone of that about 10yrs ago - I was wrong.
The truth is that in the 70's nobody had a scientific paper claiming that climate was changing one way or the other. However I will say that the NG article did raise the question and people started seriously studying the idea in the early eighties, this was when they first found statistical evidence of warming.
Disclaimer: I was looking for boobies in the NG.
"2008 has more ice than 2007, and since several other cycles (solar and ocean currents) have shifted towards cool phases the build up of ice is likely going to continue."
Wrong. However I would like to know who is propogating that particular bit of misinformation, do you have a link?
"Wanting the "save the planet" does not give you the right to tell other people how to live their lives."
/sarcasm
Tell that to your illustrious leader because quite frankly the rest of us are fed up with his crap.
"In fact, I'd go as far as saying that the environmental movement is about the most un-American aspect of the US today."
Yes a good patriot should dump all his garbage over the neighboors fence and do everything in their power to turn the country into a toxic dump.
There are now slightly more than twice as many people on Earth as there were when I was born. Population is the "elephant in the room" and the population/energy thing holds true for all life forms, not just humans. All other life forms with "unlimited" food and few predators will simply breed until the environment that supports them collapses. Humans are unique in that we are smart enough to recognise this threat, but our actions over my lifetime would seem to indicate we are not wise enough to defend ourselves against it.
"I think it's stupid that we create a theory, provide no cause and effect relationship, gather data that shows effect, the proclaim cause while something else may be going on"."
And this is exactly why I called your post "anti-science" elsewhere. However I'm unsure if you are purposely building a strawman, making an incorrect assumption because of a lack of knowledge, or just finished reading "State of Fear"...
I'm going to laugh my ass all the way to the grave if global warming activists kill us all because of an understudied field of science (ecology) led us to ignore other possible cause and effect relationships."
You won't get an argument from me that the biosphere is poorly understood, it's elegant complexity will keep the minds of mankind busy for millenia (if we last that long). However, finding new relationships will NOT invalidate the known relationships anymore than Eienstien invalidates Newton. What it will do is narrow those rather broad error bars you will notice in the linked graph.
Speaking of ecology, here in Australia we have experienced a change in our rainfall patterns that started in the 50's, sped up in the 80's and has seen our bread-basket reduced to dust over the last 10yrs. The Murry-Darling river system that covers the south east of Australia stopped flowing into the sea 6yrs ago. Now GW is not to blame for what is largely a land use issue but the CSIRO down here has found that a 20% drop in rainfall results in a 60% drop in run-off. Entire forests of six hundred year old river redgum are simply turning up their toes and dying. Respected scientists are now suggesting we flood these vast internationally recognised wetlands with salt water in a last ditch attempt to save what's left of them from the increasing acidity that has basically wiped out all aquatic life in the southern lakes.
Most of our major cities are planning/building massive de-sal plants, the Dams built in the 60's, 70's and 80's that until the mid-90's were full are now sitting between 20-40%. Every state capital is now on strict water rationing, you can't wash your car, you can't fill your pool/spa, you can't use a garden hose, etc. I haven't seen a garden sprinkler in action for years.
BTW: I'm 50yrs old and have lived all my life in the land of drought and flooding plains, people down here stopped "laughing" about GW a couple of years ago.
"We should all just pray that we're not near any of the tipping points commonly talked about."
Less than 10yrs ago when climate scientists were predicting one such "tipping point" would likely be an ice free summer artic by the end of the century, they were ridiculed in the press, in the halls of power and on slashdot. Yet today even the most conservative of scientists are predicting it will be ice free by mid-century and moderates are predicting "within a decade".
Current modelling says that an ice free artic will speed up the warming in the N. Hemisphere causing drought conditions in the US mid-west and southern Europe, here in Australia we are coming to grips with what is being called a "permenant drought" that has seen our grain harvests halved for the last 10yrs (2005 was the only exception).
"Sometimes I really worry that we've all had it too good for too long and a much grimmer future is just over the horizon..."
I hope your wrong (especially since I'm about to become a grandad) but GW is just one of many signs that we are racing toward a global population crash of biblical proportions.
Indeed, what you have quoted is NOT a conspiracy theory. It's an anti-science strawman built to support the OP's ignorance of the subject. If you like that sort of anti-science fiction troll, I highly recommend M. Chriton's "State of Fear".
Lets start by dropping the political ad-homs. I'm not from the US and don't give a flying fuck what Gore and Bush do in their private lives, I fully expect ALL politicians to be hypocrites (it's their job!). I am however interested in US policy positions because we only have one atmosphere. And yes, it's a GoodThing(TM) that the trend is flattening but this would likely be due to state and corporate initiatives, not the current occupants of the whitehouse (unless the flattening is from a depressed economy).
I don't dispute that the GHG/GDP ratio may be a useful measue of efficiency, however it is useless when it comes to keeping emmissions in check since any nation can increase GHG toward infinity and provided their GDP keeps up the ratio will not change. The US administrations effort to replace cap and trade with a GHG/GDP ratio is nothing more than a cynical excercise aimed at derailing an effective treaty and the rest of the planet knows it.
"We also know that water vapor soaks up 25 times as much heat as CO2, and that there's a lot more of it, especially over the oceans. Of course, the Global Warming Industry doesn't mention this, because it would make people wonder how much effect CO2 really has, except over cold deserts."
You have been misinformed by the opposing "industry", scientists pretty much ignore water vapour for a very good reason. The atmosphere is saturated with water vapour. That means that the only way to change the amount of water vapour in the air is to change either the temprature or pressure of the atmosphere. In other words water is a feedback in a changing climate.
Now what the anti-GW "industry" never mentions is a little thing called the dew point that explains why dew drops form all over the world every night, even in deserts. In a (globally) stable climate you can pump as much H2O as you like into the atmosphere and all that will happen is that it will fall out as rain/dew over the next few days.
Here is a short list of some other old and tiresome misinformation that is midlessly regurgitated every time GW is mentioned...
Climate change on Mars/Jupiter
Sunspots.
Cosmic rays.
Volcanos emit more CO2 than mankind.
No warming since 1998.
Global cooling was all the rage in the 70's.
There are many more but the point here is that people simply spout off what they read in the opinion pages without having a fucking clue as to what they are talking about and a complete lack of desire to find out. They assume that the thousands of scientists that make up EVERY national science body on the planet are lobotmised fools who haven't got a clue about what they have spent a good portion of their lives studying.
A couple of minutes googling would have busted the ridiculous myth that you are propogating. If you or anyone else reading wants to be treated as a skeptic and not a 'denier', then act like a skeptic. Go and question your own assumption and try and prove yourself wrong. When you fail to do so then you may just be onto something worthwhile and ORIGINAL. Picking out pre-spun factoids that happen to fit your worlview is nothing less than the triumph of politics over science.
Disclaimer: I picked on you because I was looking for the H2O meme and you were the first one I saw. If you are interested in some genuine science I can give you some links but I suspect your mind is made up and firmly closed.
"The thing is that before we paid much attention to this stuff, there was ONE real model that predicted a global temperature increase: global warming. It was not ignored before because "the man" was trying to hide science, it was ignored because there was NO effort to show an actual cause and effect relationship."
If what you said in your post was an accurate summary of how the science came about and what it actually says then I could agree with you. However I belive you have contructed a strawman because of a limited understanding of the subject and it's 100+yr history.
There are a lot of things we don't understand about the biosphere's reaction to forcings, however we know the effect of the main forcings and we can measure them (including the Sun), and we can put error bars on those measurements (as seen in the link). The large and complex effort that has gone into creating that simple graph concludes humans are responsible for at least half the observed warming from 1900-2000.
Other unknown forcings may also contribute to a change in climate but that does not mean the known forcings go away.
That there is only one Earth is the reason why scientists MUST model it, this is nothing new there are plenty of unique systems that are modeled and nobody bats an eyelid. If anything scientists are giving a diagnosis in much the same way as a doctor diagnoses illness (ie: all humans are unique but similar).
As for slow moving changes such as the Panama thing, they are occuring all the time and do NOT force average GLOBAL temps in any direction, they simply move EXISTING heat around via a different path.
"OH MY" indeed, can you fit another myth into that post?
Mars and Jupiter: I love this one, "skeptics" claim we can't measure the Earth's climate properly but then present "evidence" of other worlds warming as a counter argument.
No increase of global temperature in over 8 years: This is called cherry-picking the data, but somehow you managed to screw that up. The actual myth is that there has been no warming since 1998. 1998 just happens to be the warmest year ever recorded, indicating that high school stats is all you need to spot the problem with that myth.
"And in the 1990s when sunspot activity was some of the highest ever recorded, global temperatures rose. I wonder if this is a coincidence.... or is it?"
High sunspot activity in the 1990's - Sunspots have a well known 11yr cycle so according to your theory temps should bounce from high to low and back to high again every 11yrs, they don't. It's not even a coincidence since the sunspot minimum occured within a year of the hottest year ever recorded and the sunspot maximum occured when Mt Pinatobo [sic] exploded causing the globe to cool slightly for a couple of years.
"So really... are you all still addicted to that theory? That it's all about the CO2?"
Do you even know what the theory you are attacking actually says? - Here is an attribution graph to assist you, in particular note that solar flux has been taken into account.
One data point does not make a trend, from your own link...
"Through 2006, total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have grown by 17.9 percent since 1990. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions account for over 80 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions."
What really dismays me about your links is that the DOE are towing the Bush line of linking GHG limits to GDP measures in a last ditch effort to counter the global push for cap and trade based on physical quantities.
GHG emmisions are a physical entity measured in tonnes, GDP is a mathematical entity that is used as an indicator of productivity. Sure is nice to have a high GDP and low GHG but this completely ignores the physical limits of how much GHG the biosphere can actually absorb.
The Bush argument for controlling emmissions basically says that if we double GDP we can double emmissions and everything will be ok because the ratio has not changed - China's skyrocketing pollution levels are an excellent example of what is wrong with that thinking.
You do know something about sunspots and I agree a longer lull will be a "major story". However the statement "A period when solar activity of abnormally high.... which happened to be when 'global warming' is claimed to have started." indicates you know nothing about climate science let alone what (if anything) it has to do with sunspots.
Here is a link to an attribution graph from the IPCC (complete with error bars). You will notice that the solar flux has been taken into account and that sulphides emmited by humans is the largest negative forcing. Notice that the error bars on the net forcing do not dip below the axis.
Here is an article that may clear up your confusion about the 'hockey stick', if that's not enough then you can always ask M.Mann to set you straight.
Notice that contrary to your assertion that there is some sort of conspiracy to stiffle critics and ruin their carers, Mann's web site goes to the trouble of pointing out it's own critics in the "other opinions" section on the RH side of the page.
Skepticisim: First you post an "insightfull" anti-science troll worthy of M.Chrichton, then you do exactly what you claim this cospiracy is doing by backing up your claim with politically inspired psuedo-science regurgitated from a right-wing rag. That is not skepticisim, it is in fact what phycologists call "projection".
Occam's razor: Would indicate that it is YOU allowing YOUR politics to intefere with science and this global conspiracy of which you speak is nothing but a figment of your imagination brought about by your apparent inability to be skeptical of your own assumptions.
"What good is a perfected worded book that is four or more years old, and irrelevant compared to internet resources, as the summary informs?"
Many books are old and irrelevant, some are timeless. Reading how to program (as opposed to how to code) will help make sense of what you find on the net. This isn't to say there are no good sources on the net but it's silly to ignore the classics.
"I'm glad this summary was posted as News, and not AskSlashdot, because discussing the root of the challenge is much more interesting, than 1000s of people suggesting any particular book they've read themselves."
The question itself is too broad, it's hard to tell if the aim is to teach a particular industry recognised skill, give a general introduction to computer science, create an army of code monkeys, create an army of admins,....
"This is an unfortunate corruption of the scientific method by the current grant system of running science."
Bullshit, what's the point of doing the "95% persperation" part of obtaining funding and collecting the data if you are going to allow every other 'genius' to beat you to the 5% inspiration part and get all the glory/future funding?
"The original idea was that a claim is judged by its merit."
The presentation was not supposed to be convincing anyone of anything, it was to enlighten others in the field as to what the PAMELA team were up to and what they think they have found. Since the presentation the PAMELA team have refused to comment, they are busy polishing up their paper for publication in the journal Science. Apart from the subscription fee I see no better way to ensure their "claim is judged by its merit".
As an Ausssie I wouldn't say it's stagnated, I'd say it's still working. No need for DD here, although utilities push very hard and offer discounts if you give them the DD keys.
I agree the reason was absurd and find it depressing that people actually belive it. I have no reason to doubt the safety of US beef.
:)
"Neither source is too concerned about accuracy in reporting."
It's kind of obviuos it's a SK 'wedge issue' since no other nation seems to be demonstrating in the streets about it. I was interested to see who was driving the wedge and why. It's always enlightening to get a local POV, thanks.
BTW: We are having a bit of trouble growing grass lately.
"If anything lawyers should be like secretaries to the government"
/sarcasm
Unfortunately some lawyers already act as if they are secretaries to the government, but they are in fact officers of the court and should act accordingly. It's a seperation of powers thing...
"With that said, the plantiff's lawyers I had as clients once upon a time were among the most interesting people on the planet earth"
My pitt bull is highly intelligent, educated, loyal, playfull, loves kids, and ate the yapping toy poodle from next door.
Any ideas on why the SK press spreads this FUD? - Do they belive it themselves or is there some kind of vested interest at work?
BTW: Technically Australian and NZ beef is safer as far as MC is concerned since AFAIK there have been zero cases reported in either nation but I hardly think the 3 cases reported in the US is reason for the SK press to keep the fud alive. This fact that AU/NZ have zero MC cases is undoubtedly due to both nations being islands with very strict quarantine regimes. Quarantine is taken so seriously here in Australia that airport sniffer dogs are employed to look for fruit. Due to quarantine we also don't have foot and mouth, rabies, and a whole host of other livestock and plant diseases.
So does life in prision, what's your point?