Posts by FreeWilly

221

The new Ice Age Cometh!

by Gill in

jw
friends

http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/redir?src=websearch&requestid=6b69327903d3d481&clickeditemrank=1&userquery=sunspot+activity+for+2008+iceage&clickeditemurn=http%3a%2f%2fglobalwarminghoax.wordpress.com%2f2008%2f04%2f23%2fsunspots-and-a-possible-new-ice-age-updated%2f&title=%3cb%3esunspots%3c%2fb%3e+and+a+possible+new+%3cb%3eice+age%3c%2fb%3e+%28updated%29+%c2%ab+the+global+warming+%3cb%3e...%3c%2fb%3e&moduleid=matchingsites.jsp.m&clickeditempageranking=1&clickeditempage=1&clickeditemdescription=webresults.

i hope this link works but there has been virtually no sunspot activity since the beginning of this year and the suns magnetic field is down 60%.. if this link does not work, you might like to try googling: sunspot activity 2008 iceage.. the last time this happened we moved into a little ice age which lasted from 1100 to 1800.. global warming lies may well have met their match with reality.. so how will they tax us for the 'ice age?

do we get our tax back that we paid because of 'global warming'.. is this why they have made fuel so expensive....because they know what is coming and they want to make a killing?.

FreeWilly

OK, lets start at the top.

The IPCC Charter

The IPCC is not in itself a scientific body. It is primarily a inter-governmental body whose purpose is to affect political policy. Its stated purpose is:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess ... information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. ... Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

Its existence is predicated upon the assessment of “human induced climate change”. In other words its ongoing funding relies on the continued study of “r isk of human-induced climate change”. Would it surprise anyone here that a inter-government agency confirms an ongoing issue that requires their continued funding? I'm sorry, but call me skeptical whenever politics are involved.

Internal and external doubts have been raise regarding the independence, objectivity and political adgenda of the IPCC review process.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gray2.ipcc%20spin.pdf

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3967/

An examination of the review process revealed a “buddy network” of reviewers reviewing each others work to the same end.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/McLean_IPCC_bias.pdf
I mention these discrepancies not to completely discredit the massive efforts that the involved contributors have done. But the potential for a continued agenda and possible conflicts of interest exists with objectivity as a casualty.

Besty: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (at least 90% probability) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS?

Absolutely, I disagree. This 90% probability relies on computer modeling? IPCC's modeling is spectacular disgrace with real word failure rate of 96%.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Former and current IPCC contributors have spoken out against the inability of these computer models to accurately predict climate change:

"The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists, noted, "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." The following is the text of the letter and the list of signatories." http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
Are these all Exxon funded ~~Holocaust~~ AGW deniers too?

IPCC models used to forecast warming have both failed to predict the past when presented with the data, as well as the present cooling trend we're experiencing since 2003.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/vyushin/Papers/Govindan_Vyushin_PRL_2002.pdf

http://sss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/6/895 (abstract only)

What is your basis for contending this modeling is reliable ?
CO2
Serious doubts remain about CO2 as a climate driver - it never has before.

http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/0707.1276

http://www.sciencebits.com/files/articles/GACV32No1Veizer.pdf

The Sun is that most energetic it has been in the last 1100 years and until recently has platued at “an unusually high activity”. A large body of research clearly shows the Sun as a primary climate driver, unlike CO2.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040803093903.htm
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996GeoRL..23..359C
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.3621.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1740143246t005l/ (abstract only)
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/181
http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Phenomenological%20solar%20contribution%20to%20the%201900-2000%20global%20surface%20warming.pdf
Figure 3: (a) The northern hemisphere land temperatures are plotted with the solar cycle length (Friss-Christensen and Lassen; 1991).
(b) The globally averaged sea surface temperatures are plotted with the sunspot numbers (Reid; 1999). Both sunspot number and solar cycle length are proxies for the amount of solar energy that Earth receives. The similarity of these curves is evidence that the sun has influenced the climate of the last 150 years.

Earth is recently cooling not warming and the trend is predicted to continue. The Sun's intensity has recently begun to wane along with temperature trends which are expected to continue their retreat.
http://www.maik.ru/abstract/geomag/3/geomag1_3p124abs.htm
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

At 380 ppm Earth's atmosphere is near its all time low.
link

Earth has been warmer than it is now, sea level tens of feet higher than they are now, and glaciers totally melted all by natural drivers .
Here's the rub. Indications are that our sun has entered a period of diminished activity. If CO2, for the first time in Earths history, is driving the climate despite the Sun, then this fact will be demonstrated for all. Developed countries have made efforts to meet emmissions rductions and are failing miserably. When the time comes to review these efforts (2012) harder choices will have to be considered and recent trends will no doubt factor. If global warming re-emerges as a dominant trend in spite of reduced solar activity then the voices of alarm will carry the weight they deserve. If however, trends continue to follow the Sun's lead then Global Warming will likely be the next chapter in this classic (which, BTW is an excellent read).

221

The new Ice Age Cometh!

by Gill in

jw
friends

http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/redir?src=websearch&requestid=6b69327903d3d481&clickeditemrank=1&userquery=sunspot+activity+for+2008+iceage&clickeditemurn=http%3a%2f%2fglobalwarminghoax.wordpress.com%2f2008%2f04%2f23%2fsunspots-and-a-possible-new-ice-age-updated%2f&title=%3cb%3esunspots%3c%2fb%3e+and+a+possible+new+%3cb%3eice+age%3c%2fb%3e+%28updated%29+%c2%ab+the+global+warming+%3cb%3e...%3c%2fb%3e&moduleid=matchingsites.jsp.m&clickeditempageranking=1&clickeditempage=1&clickeditemdescription=webresults.

i hope this link works but there has been virtually no sunspot activity since the beginning of this year and the suns magnetic field is down 60%.. if this link does not work, you might like to try googling: sunspot activity 2008 iceage.. the last time this happened we moved into a little ice age which lasted from 1100 to 1800.. global warming lies may well have met their match with reality.. so how will they tax us for the 'ice age?

do we get our tax back that we paid because of 'global warming'.. is this why they have made fuel so expensive....because they know what is coming and they want to make a killing?.

FreeWilly

You claim that Kyotos failure (IYHO) is proof that Stern economics are flawed.

No claims here. The Stern report is an economic model. Kyoto is an economic reality. I have use one to shed light on the other. The Stern report is not an assesment of Kyoto. It is a projection that you apparently have/had some affinity to.

You also claim that the economic cost of climate change is too large a barrier to overcome - Kyoto's failure being proof.

The issue is cost vs. benefit. Particularly when weighed against other challenges facing humanity. A claim, if you need one, is the benefits of massive AGW countermeasures do not justify the costs they require.

You further claim that because of fear-mongering, uncertain scientists and uncertain science that anthropogenic global warming has the capacity to consume a disproportionate amount of resource, with the clear implication that it is wasting money to fix a problem that likely doesn't exist.

Yes, Yes and No. The objection is to "with the clear implication that it is wasting money to fix a problem that likely doesn't exist." It is cear that GHG do have an warming effect. To what degree and to what detriment is questionable.

27

So much for the ban on short-selling.........................

by Warlock in

jw
friends

if you ever believed the short-selling ban was going to work, i have some pacific ocean front property for sale...........................in las vegas.......real cheap........i promise.. warlock .

.

FreeWilly

6o9 "Isn't ....what Japan did back in the eighties, extending their problems for a much longer time than necessary? Or do I have that backwards?"

That's correct. Massive attempts to recapitalize deadbeat banks combined with very loose monetary policy (0% interest rates) prolonged the problem resulting in a recession known as "the lost decade". Stock and property values in Japan declined for 18 years despite massive government intervention. Japanese Citizens had a positive savings rate to fall back on which helped their economy survive this. The US has a negative savings rate.

I mentioned it earlier, but Norway took the opposite approach and let poor investments fail and resisted massive government intervention. They sought private solutions where possible and in the cases where they did intervene they too preffered shares (controlling) of the ailing companies. They recovered much quicker - 2 years if I real correctly. The Norwegian model largely viewed as a success and is IMHO the model we should follow. Either way pain cannot be avoided only prolonged and deepened. Just rip the band-aid off and be done with it so our kids have a future.

221

The new Ice Age Cometh!

by Gill in

jw
friends

http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/redir?src=websearch&requestid=6b69327903d3d481&clickeditemrank=1&userquery=sunspot+activity+for+2008+iceage&clickeditemurn=http%3a%2f%2fglobalwarminghoax.wordpress.com%2f2008%2f04%2f23%2fsunspots-and-a-possible-new-ice-age-updated%2f&title=%3cb%3esunspots%3c%2fb%3e+and+a+possible+new+%3cb%3eice+age%3c%2fb%3e+%28updated%29+%c2%ab+the+global+warming+%3cb%3e...%3c%2fb%3e&moduleid=matchingsites.jsp.m&clickeditempageranking=1&clickeditempage=1&clickeditemdescription=webresults.

i hope this link works but there has been virtually no sunspot activity since the beginning of this year and the suns magnetic field is down 60%.. if this link does not work, you might like to try googling: sunspot activity 2008 iceage.. the last time this happened we moved into a little ice age which lasted from 1100 to 1800.. global warming lies may well have met their match with reality.. so how will they tax us for the 'ice age?

do we get our tax back that we paid because of 'global warming'.. is this why they have made fuel so expensive....because they know what is coming and they want to make a killing?.

FreeWilly

where have I said 'no costs' or that I thought Kyoto was the answer?

I'm not accusing you of claiming Kyoto is/was the answer. What I see is you distancing yourself from a know reality. And yes I am confronting you with that reality.

MY CLAIM: I said (and will continue to say) your statement of "no downside, significant upside" is naive. I repeated this in nearly every post of mine. The Stern Report is a theoretical economic model with the objective of reducing emmissions. Kyoto is an economic reality with the objective of reducing emmissions. What I see is you distancing yourself from a reality that clearly speaks to your theoretical claim. This embodies my usage of Kyoto and the Stern Report within my claim.

In fact Stern 2006 and Stern 2008 and Garnaut 2008 all regard Kyoto as a first step with much more stringent measures being required.

Precisely

I will reiterate my counter-claim

MY COUNTERCLAIM: There is a "downside" - it is economic cost.

Unless there's more beating of this horse to be done, lets move on....

Besty: Incidentally its kinda rude not to answer a polite question...... Where exactly do you stand on this issue?

Granted, although time is an issue and I have to get on an airplane soon.

My stand is that there are a number of challenges facing human kind. Fear, politics, and reliance on computer models seem to be propelling AGW to the top of that list. The sheer economic cost of is a major downside. When compared to the upside the benefits are negligible. We beat to death the real costs of Kyoto which would delay warming by 5 years if models are correct, yet you and others acknowledge that this is not even drastic enough. i.e it will cost a hell of a lot more to do more. If you view money is a fixed resource than what demands that the lion share of Earths spendable resources be applied to AGW over say Clean water or infectious diseases?

Fear - Catastrophe is often linked with the threat of AGW. In fact you alluded to it as well. Yet even the IPCC claims that there is not sufficient statistical information to support this notion as do many other sources (no time to link now). Nonetheless it is assumed and used as a scare tactic to elevate it's priority.

Politics- While the summary of the IPCC indicates a scientific body of one thought, the papers and statements of scientists behind the assesment are more cautious. (references to follow if desired)

Computer Models - Historically speaking, CO2 emmissions have lagged - not lead - temperature increase (see Vostok). CO2's new assumed role as climate driver is without historical precedent. They may indeed drive temperatures higher as computer models predict. However many of these models fail to even predict the past when applied.

At 380 ppm CO2 comprises less than 4/100'ths of a percent of all gasses present. As a Greenhouse Gas constituent it is a minor constituent, water vapor being by far the largest and greatest effect. Looking at Earth's climate history we note that at 380 ppm we are on the low end of the scale. We have had ice ages with 10x higher CO2 concentrations. An aweful lot of assumptions and amplification qualities are placed on this trace gas with the popular insistance that "the science is settled".

So my position is the idea that AGW counter-measures - namely CO2 emmision reuction - should garner a dibilitating level of resources due to it's presumed role as the gravest concern facing humankind is tenative at best.

27

So much for the ban on short-selling.........................

by Warlock in

jw
friends

if you ever believed the short-selling ban was going to work, i have some pacific ocean front property for sale...........................in las vegas.......real cheap........i promise.. warlock .

.

FreeWilly

BTS:

that these mortgage backed securities are worthless, is idiotic.

No one is saying that these mortgages (or houses) are worth zero - you are absolutely correct. But that's not the point, they don't have to be worth zero. If they are worth merely 80% of their face value then they are worth negative $Billions! To the Investment banks that own these mortgage backed securities (MBS), not only are they worthless to them, but they contain severe negative value. Why? Because in order to buy them, these investment banks didn't simply used funds they possesed. They lent more money than they possess - in some cases 40x more money than they posses! This point is critical to understanding the crisis. It's perfectly legal under our Fractional Reserve banking system.

For example if you have $1 Billion you can lend $1 Billion in MBS and make 4% return on it. However, if you lend an extra $19 Billion you can finance $20 Billion in MBS and instead make 80% on you original funds (minus the cost of borrowing). But here is the key point... this system works fine unless the value of your collatoral (assets) drops. If you are lending at 20:1 then those assets cannot drop more than 1/20 or you are flat busted! A lot of people aren't aware that this is what has gone on. It's a gigantic financial catastrophe. It is also, coincidentally, what cause the Great Depression.

Here is an example from SeekingAlpha.com:

"Lehman's (LEH) market cap of $9B is only 40% of their book value of $23B, and it sounds very cheap. But then look at their assets: They have $160B hard-to-value Level 2 assets and $41B impossible-to-value Level 3 assets. The WSJ article applies a 5% haircut on Level 2 and 25% on Level 3 to come up with $19B future write-offs. However, based on analysis from many other public sources, most of the Level 3 assets are MBS CDOs, even if they are AAA rated, the recovery rate is only about 50%. For Level 2 assets, 10% haircut is actually a conservative estimate. The combination of both more realistic haircuts will result in $36B additional losses, which would more than wipe out their book value of $23B plus their market cap of $9B. This is leverage in the working, unfortunately at the down side. "See Article

See also this brief explanation of how Investment Banks use leverage

So these banks cannot stand on their own two feet. They are INSOLVANT and they want to hide the fact it from their investors, Financial regulators and the public. Their only hope of staying in business is if the value of the assets securing their MBS (or derivatives thereof) will rebound to their former levels and in the mean time they do not have to practice fair accounting. Real Estate will NOT rebound back to it's bubble days. The bubble has bust. Their next option is a government bailout which to date has meant wiping out all the shareholders. What we're witnessing are last gasps of desperations by financial entities that do not want to admit that they are busted. If they hide the true value of their books from their investors then the investors won't pull the plug. They have everything to lose by fair accounting.

The reason there is no market for these products is PRECISELY because there is no transparant accounting. Would you buy a financial instrument such as a MBS or a derivative of an MBS if you were not allowed to see the true value of the assets contained within them? HELL NO! The banks have themselves in a big pickle. The issue is not "liquidity", it's insolvancy. Many of them are walking deadmen.

What needs to happen is these firms need to go bust. Credit that has fueled the boom needs to be purged from the system. Firms that did not partake in this risky behavior will be rewarded by being the "last man standing". Investors who took these stupid greedy risks need to be wiped out. Investment banks who hid these problems on their books need to go bust and their reputations become just like Enron. A new generation will understand the lesson of risk, credit and leverage that was last learned during the great depression. This remedy is in fact unavoidable. There is no way to prevent credit from contracting despite the Feds fevorish actions. We can only make things worse.

"Blaming fair-market accounting for the credit crisis is a lot like going to a doctor for a diagnosis and then blaming him for telling you that you are sick"-Dane Mott , JPMorgan Chase & Co.

27

So much for the ban on short-selling.........................

by Warlock in

jw
friends

if you ever believed the short-selling ban was going to work, i have some pacific ocean front property for sale...........................in las vegas.......real cheap........i promise.. warlock .

.

FreeWilly

Burningtheships.

Eliminating mark to market accounting is not part of the solution it is the problem. The alternative - Mark to model (aka mark to imagination) is basically a free pass for these companies to deceive investors and keep losses hidden away from their balance sheets. It's what allowed this credit tsunami to gain strength. As long as investors didn't see losses their risk appetite remained large. They kept fueling ill advised mortgages even after the RE markets peaked and as far as they knew everything was fine. It's a page from Enron. The problem is leverage and credit. If you are leverage 20:1 on bubble house mortgages whose value has now dropped over 25% then yes, you don't want to mark those losses to the market because the market says you collection of mortgages is now worth less than zero $. As it is the FASB had to delay their compliance order for all investment firms to mark their portfolio's level 3 assets to market to 2010. The Fed realized lots of big names out of business if they had to value their Mortgage portfolio's according to the current market rates. Real Estate values are not going back to their bubble days. They are correcting back to their historical norms.

For over a hundred years home prices maintained a relationship of price to income ratios and a price to rent ratios. Post 2001, prices began deviating and eventually surpassed two standard deviations above these historical relationships. Simply put, people cannot afford to sacrifice too a large portion of their houshold income just to support a bubble mortgage.

I think litigation will pursue corporations who did NOT mark to market. It's a deceptive practice.

27

So much for the ban on short-selling.........................

by Warlock in

jw
friends

if you ever believed the short-selling ban was going to work, i have some pacific ocean front property for sale...........................in las vegas.......real cheap........i promise.. warlock .

.

FreeWilly

It is real silly. Short sellers do not affect macro trends and in times of panic short sellers provide a reserve of buyers. If he could Paulson would ban price discovery by the markets.

Regarding the crisis, Oh its real alright. Wallstreet leverage the farm on Real Estate remaining stable or rising. Quantitative computer models did not factor more than a 3% decline in values. All the investment houses leverage their customers assets heavily on this premis. BSC, MER, MS, LEH, GS and others were leverage in 20,30 and even 40:1 ! When that math works against you it vaporizes lots and lots of cash.

Treasury Secretary Paulson (ex CEO of Goldman) wants the Taxpayer to bail out his golf buddies. The bailout of AIG was a Goldman Sach bailout in disquise. As Goldman's largest trading partner, AIG's failure would have sunk GS's balance sheet below minimun capital requirements. This happened to Bear Stearns and Lehman causing their investors to pull their funds in fear of loss. * Poof * they were gone. Paulson made sure that wasn't the case with GS. Criminal

Paulson is truly a fox in the henhouse.

221

The new Ice Age Cometh!

by Gill in

jw
friends

http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/redir?src=websearch&requestid=6b69327903d3d481&clickeditemrank=1&userquery=sunspot+activity+for+2008+iceage&clickeditemurn=http%3a%2f%2fglobalwarminghoax.wordpress.com%2f2008%2f04%2f23%2fsunspots-and-a-possible-new-ice-age-updated%2f&title=%3cb%3esunspots%3c%2fb%3e+and+a+possible+new+%3cb%3eice+age%3c%2fb%3e+%28updated%29+%c2%ab+the+global+warming+%3cb%3e...%3c%2fb%3e&moduleid=matchingsites.jsp.m&clickeditempageranking=1&clickeditempage=1&clickeditemdescription=webresults.

i hope this link works but there has been virtually no sunspot activity since the beginning of this year and the suns magnetic field is down 60%.. if this link does not work, you might like to try googling: sunspot activity 2008 iceage.. the last time this happened we moved into a little ice age which lasted from 1100 to 1800.. global warming lies may well have met their match with reality.. so how will they tax us for the 'ice age?

do we get our tax back that we paid because of 'global warming'.. is this why they have made fuel so expensive....because they know what is coming and they want to make a killing?.

FreeWilly

Oh dear Besty I'm trying to understand you - really.

Let's start again with your claim:

" even if the international scientific consensus is wrong. There is no downside to doing the right thing, with significant upside...To further clarify I'm talking at a governmental, national and international scale”

You cite "The 2006 Stern Report's main conclusion" regarding Kyoto costs as support of this “no downside, significant upside” claim.

You then state:

In principle I'm not opposed to climate treaties but I fear their chances of achieving their aims are slim... compliance would be an endless fruitless task.

However you advocate:

“developed countries, particularly America, to take the lead in developing an economically and environmentally sustainable model for producing clean power, energy efficiency and conservation of biodiversity.”

How do you expect anyone to listen to what you say if you cannot explain yourself coherently? You make no sense. You advocate an international effort with virtually no costs only benefits. Your only evidence is a study that implies a 20 to 1 benefit ratio for implementing Kyoto as an example of your claim. You advocate an multi-national effort but are "opposed to climate treaties". After I point out Kyoto's failure due to costs you then state this is "a position that I don't hold, which you are now asking me to further justify". Priceless.

QUESTION: Why would you cite as evidence a study projecting a 1% cost, 20% benefit of Kyoto implementation if this is a position you don't hold and do not want to justify?

Here is an international commitment by primarily developed countries to reduce GHG emissions. It is seemingly everything you would wish for were it not for the reality. The problem with Kyoto is NOT compliance, but cost. Cost is the basis of your “no downside” claim. Perhaps you would like to retract or modify your claim now? Since you failed to grasp this in my last post I will make it even more simple for you:

FACT Kyoto signatories are unable to meet their emmission reduction commitments due to exorbitant costs. [1][2][3]

Your “no downside, significant upside” claim is patently false and...naive. Why won't you just admit that so we can move on?

221

The new Ice Age Cometh!

by Gill in

jw
friends

http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/redir?src=websearch&requestid=6b69327903d3d481&clickeditemrank=1&userquery=sunspot+activity+for+2008+iceage&clickeditemurn=http%3a%2f%2fglobalwarminghoax.wordpress.com%2f2008%2f04%2f23%2fsunspots-and-a-possible-new-ice-age-updated%2f&title=%3cb%3esunspots%3c%2fb%3e+and+a+possible+new+%3cb%3eice+age%3c%2fb%3e+%28updated%29+%c2%ab+the+global+warming+%3cb%3e...%3c%2fb%3e&moduleid=matchingsites.jsp.m&clickeditempageranking=1&clickeditempage=1&clickeditemdescription=webresults.

i hope this link works but there has been virtually no sunspot activity since the beginning of this year and the suns magnetic field is down 60%.. if this link does not work, you might like to try googling: sunspot activity 2008 iceage.. the last time this happened we moved into a little ice age which lasted from 1100 to 1800.. global warming lies may well have met their match with reality.. so how will they tax us for the 'ice age?

do we get our tax back that we paid because of 'global warming'.. is this why they have made fuel so expensive....because they know what is coming and they want to make a killing?.

FreeWilly

Besty:

Are you the self imposed moderator of this post or simply the "loudest drunk in the Bar"?

ad hominem and false dichotomy - good start.

Wow, did you find a website of logical fallacies? Good boy..... but sorry to break this to you, a logical fallacy requires an argument to either forward or rebut. Take it slower....slower... and see that there was no argument presented by either you or me. What you really meant to say is "that was sarcastic and insulting".

Perhaps you are just not satisfied with the simplicity of my observation. Namely, the naivity of "no downside to doing the right thing, with significant upside." At minimum a sweeping statement and I would add terribly naive as well.

In what appears to be an ad hoc (different from ad hominem) attempt to buttress your claim you cite the "2006 Stern report". You then immediately qualify this evidence with criticisms and inaccuracies noted by Garnaut. So I'm left guessing exactly what you are trying to say. I'll refrain from suggesting that you have adopted a cause that you attempt to defend with tit-for-tat exchange of quotes by supposed experts. I will in NO WAY imply that this is eerily reminiscent of a JW armed with a 'Reasoning' book.

Let's try to inject a little common sense into your claim though. If there were "no downside", which you've framed in terms of GDP, then the transition from theoretical to actual should be relatively painless if not advantageous. As you initially state (and then quickly temper) Kyoto would cost of only 1% of GDP and would yield a net benefit of 19% GDP - an attractive ratio indeed. Yet if we simply look at the progress of major Kyoto signatories we see how terribly flawed this notion is. A 1% cost of GDP is laughable - ridiculous. Perhaps you can explain your cost/benefit theories to post Kyoto Canada, EU, New Zealand, Japan or Russia. Be sure to take your laptop so you can show them what you read on Wikipedia. I predict major signatories will continue to fail to meet their commitments for one simple reason - COST.

You see Besty, the reality of your claim is, in a word, naive when confronted with real world. Perhaps in your next post you can inform the board what the cost of Kyoto purchases in terms of temperature reduction? That would add a wonderful context to your pie in the sky economics of no downside, significant upside, sugar plum fairies and rainbows.

221

The new Ice Age Cometh!

by Gill in

jw
friends

http://aolsearch.aol.co.uk/aol/redir?src=websearch&requestid=6b69327903d3d481&clickeditemrank=1&userquery=sunspot+activity+for+2008+iceage&clickeditemurn=http%3a%2f%2fglobalwarminghoax.wordpress.com%2f2008%2f04%2f23%2fsunspots-and-a-possible-new-ice-age-updated%2f&title=%3cb%3esunspots%3c%2fb%3e+and+a+possible+new+%3cb%3eice+age%3c%2fb%3e+%28updated%29+%c2%ab+the+global+warming+%3cb%3e...%3c%2fb%3e&moduleid=matchingsites.jsp.m&clickeditempageranking=1&clickeditempage=1&clickeditemdescription=webresults.

i hope this link works but there has been virtually no sunspot activity since the beginning of this year and the suns magnetic field is down 60%.. if this link does not work, you might like to try googling: sunspot activity 2008 iceage.. the last time this happened we moved into a little ice age which lasted from 1100 to 1800.. global warming lies may well have met their match with reality.. so how will they tax us for the 'ice age?

do we get our tax back that we paid because of 'global warming'.. is this why they have made fuel so expensive....because they know what is coming and they want to make a killing?.

FreeWilly

Back atcha Besty. The above posts you cite were written while I was writing my post. So I guess your emotional swipe kinda backfired. But don't worry I won't call you an idiot.

I will call you naive though: " even if the international scientific consensus is wrong. There is no downside to doing the right thing, with significant upside." You fail to grasp basic economics which of course have profound effects on the environment. But you knew that right?