Yes, the last decade saw global cooling, not warming

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Index piker:

Are you trying to tell me the emissions contracts will be worthless and no real dollar value for penalty for exceeding limits?

That's impossible to answer.

Since you already know that there will be economic damage (but can't provide any historical examples) I expect you'll be able to tell us what the penalty will be for exceeding the limits, who will pay it, how it will be collected and how individual governments will pursue this.

Since you're able to predict multinational policy years in advance, please let us know what the DOW will be in six months.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from bugscoe:

Index said it, common sense.

Just like my trading systems numbers are 'publically' available on my website. It's true, it's true!

Lol. You don't get it. It's not the end data, it's the means to calculating and arriving at the end data that is in question!

There are no calculations involved in the GHCN data, you can check each data point on line against individual stations if you were so inclined.

But that is the part you choose to see as 'false' and don't give a crap about because the 'publicly available' data confirms your bias. And I guess in your world if it's publicly available, it's the holy grail of truth.

Is that why you're not actively looking at the temperature data, and stating that it involves some unknown calculations which you don't specify?

Also, I'd like the science to show me how it's possible that over the past 5000 years, there were 3 periods where it was warmer than today and the world didn't blow up.

Wow. Is that correct -- in the last 5000 years there were only three periods where it was warmer than today?

And since we know that this decade is warmer than last decade, and the temperatures have been steadily increasing if what you wrote is true (and there's no reason to assume that it is) that portends a very interesting future.

Perhaps the SUV's weren't too big back then and people weren't eating as much meat...

You understand that what you wrote wouldn't pass for logic. Just because there's anthropogenic warming doesn't mean there isn't also natural warming.

Natural warming/cooling brought about by sharp changes in the environment are termed "climate forcings."

 

[Index piker]

Quote from bigdavediode:

That's impossible to answer.

Since you already know that there will be economic damage (but can't provide any historical examples) I expect you'll be able to tell us what the penalty will be for exceeding the limits, who will pay it, how it will be collected and how individual governments will pursue this.

Since you're able to predict multinational policy years in advance, please let us know what the DOW will be in six months.

Then please by all means explain how this cap and tax system is supposed to work?

 

[Index piker]

Quote from bigdavediode:




You understand that ... Just because there's anthropogenic warming doesn't mean there isn't also natural warming.

Natural warming/cooling brought about by sharp changes in the environment are termed "climate forcings."[/B]

So please demonstrate that natural climate forcings are always benign and that man can control those as well?

I'll be waiting on your data.

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from bigdavediode:

There are no calculations involved in the GHCN data, you can check each data point on line against individual stations if you were so inclined.

Is that why you're not actively looking at the temperature data, and stating that it involves some unknown calculations which you don't specify?

Wow. Is that correct -- in the last 5000 years there were only three periods where it was warmer than today?

And since we know that this decade is warmer than last decade, and the temperatures have been steadily increasing if what you wrote is true (and there's no reason to assume that it is) that portends a very interesting future.

You understand that what you wrote wouldn't pass for logic. Just because there's anthropogenic warming doesn't mean there isn't also natural warming.

Natural warming/cooling brought about by sharp changes in the environment are termed "climate forcings."

OK, I get it. You really don't get it.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from bigdavediode:

Actually I believe in Nobel prize-winning economics.

I understand that in liberal world that sounds meaningful and important, but after Gore and Obama's Nobel peace prizes.

Well...it doesn't mean jack shit to the rest of us.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Index piker:

So please demonstrate that natural climate forcings are always benign and that man can control those as well?

I'll be waiting on your data.

Actually I agree with you that they wouldn't always be benign.

And in fact that's why it's important to avoid compounding these problems with man-made emissions.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Index piker:

Then please by all means explain how this cap and tax system is supposed to work?

"Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade."

I suppose it would work similarly to the existing markets in nitrogen oxides.

Trading is a very efficient method of dealing with a limited resource.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Lucrum:

I understand that in liberal world that sounds meaningful and important, but after Gore and Obama's Nobel peace prizes.

Well...it doesn't mean jack shit to the rest of us.

I don't think any research award, prize in economics, or internationally respected prize in science, mathematics or economics would mean "jack shit to the rest of you."

 

[Index piker]

Quote from bigdavediode:

"2)Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade."

1)Trading is a very efficient method of dealing with a limited resource.

1) co2 is not a limited resource.

1b) No economic gain is produced through trading. It's a negative sum game. Wall street banks love negative sum games. Energy companies who are fellating the right senators love the idea too.

2) Thanks for admitting loading another burden on economic growth.

2a) If you claim it doesn't place a burden. Please explain how it will reduce carbon emissions.