posted July 26, 2011 07:31 PM            

Wikipedia, though, can only be considered a distraction from the point of the debate, however. As I've pointed out repeatedly in this interaction anyone looking in any reasonable place for climate information will find all the major institutions in agreement. That's indisputable.

posted July 26, 2011 08:09 PM            

The chart I posted specifically says it "represents absolute global (NCDC) temperature change by decade.

And, cites NOAA as a source.

Man made global warming nuts are on a fools errand. They establish a baseline temperature of 0.0 for years after earth just came out of the Little Ice Age. Anyone with a lick of common sense would know temperatures are going to rise...or we wouldn't be out of the Little Ice Age.

These nuts have no concept of the terms "Mean" or "Regression to the Mean".

Neither do you acoustic...or you would know your chart is useless in proving your point. The mean temperature is the point where half the temperature points are below the mean line and half are above.

In this case, the nuts established a baseline of 0.0 just at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1880. How convenient to say 1880 is the year in which "normal" temperatures occured, but for any scientific purpose, it's trash.

Further acoustic, your chart does not show 1934 as the warmest year on record in the 20th Century and it very clearly was. I wonder if the nutty fraud James Hansen had anything to do with producing your chart.

Hansen caught peddling phony data AGAIN!

An example of the Y2K discontinuity in action (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

posted July 26, 2011 09:05 PM            

As is typical with you, you don't understand the chart you posted. If your chart shows change over time, then every change in the positive direction is a change from the previous decade's temperature. 1939 was .3 degrees Celcius higher than 1929. 1949 took back some of that change. Every subsequent decade only added to the temperature with NONE declining. So that's .14 plus .02 plus .05 plus .06 plus .19 plus .13. That's .59 cummulatively.

But that's IF your chart is even correct. I know my chart is. I know where it came from.

quote:

---

In this case, the nuts established a baseline of 0.0 just at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1880. How convenient to say 1880 is the year in which "normal" temperatures occured, but for any scientific purpose, it's trash.

---

Once again, your inability to understand charts shines through. My chart didn't choose an arbitrary mean temperature based on a "Little Ice Age" (What nonsense!). No, my chart clearly says, "Anomaly (*C) relative to 1901 - 2000," which means that the mean temperature is the average temperature of the whole record from 1901 to year 2000. That means from 1880 through the 1940's the global temperature was lower than the mean temperature for the entire 20th century.

In the year 1934, America had a hot year. America. That's all. Not the world. Not the globe. Not the planet. Just America, the U.S. of A. You've chosen yet another localized weather event as proof of your position.

You guys make a mockery of any remotely scientifically curious person. I'm still dumbfounded by the attempt at debate here.

For anyone interested in a whole page of charts by the NOAA, go here: http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate/factSheets

posted July 27, 2011 12:28 AM            

But, Hansen has been caught prostituting climate science far too many times for any rational person to rely on a word he says...or chart he produces.

You may well be the very last human left who doesn't get it. How does it feel?

One other thing acoustic. Don't you know the difference between "average temperature" and "mean temperature"?

posted July 27, 2011 09:51 AM            

quote:

---

One other thing acoustic. Don't you know the difference between "average temperature" and "mean temperature"?

"No, my chart clearly says, "Anomaly (*C) relative to 1901 - 2000," which means that the mean temperature is the average temperature...."acoustic

---

posted July 27, 2011 10:34 AM            

They have been thoroughly discredited in the scientific community...by their own unscientific methods..which include manipulation of data to produce their "desired" result and...lying about their results and methods and/or hiding the data they used so they can't be called out by real scientists.

posted July 27, 2011 11:19 AM            

No, the NOAA is not at all discredited. It is our nation's premier climate-watching scientific entity, and it's squarely in the global warming camp. This is the entity your grandkids would look to amongst others for information about the climate if they were doing a report on the climate.

posted July 27, 2011 03:03 PM            

"5 Lies Being Told In The National Debt Debate"

But, there's another lie,(6), being told and it's the mother of all lies. It's being told by demoscats, republicans and independents. It's being told by every member of the broadcast and print media. It's being told by every pundit and talking head.

This is the lie.

There are no plans whatsoever to make any cuts to the federal budget. The Cut, Cap and Balance plan passed by House Republicans comes closest to making actual cuts. But not in the "CUT" phase of the plan.

There is no plan and no intention of passing any plan whereby next years federal budget will be smaller than this years federal budget.

Budgets are normally passed on 10 year future projected spending. Each year is the "baseline" for the next years spending. Each year in the budget shows a projected increase in spending by the federal government over the previous years "baseline".

So, when you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth over "spending cuts" in the budget, it's all utter horseshiiit.

They're all liars. The only thing being discussed is a reduction in the projected "increase" in spending.

If the "baseline budget" for the current year was $1,000,000 and next years budget was scheduled...due to "baseline budgeting"...to be $110,000,000 and you removed $5,000,000 from the scheduled increase in spending, you spent $5,000,000 MORE than you did in the "baseline year". That's not a "CUT". That's a spending increase.

So, the federal budget shows about $10 Trillion in additional spending over the next 10 years. The "Plans" call for a spending cut of $2-3 Trillion over the next 10 years. That's NOT a cut. That's an increase in spending of $7-10 Trillion.

It's a damned lie, a hoax and a con job.

I'm ready to throw all the lying bast@rds out on their lying as$es...including O'Bomber.

posted July 27, 2011 05:09 PM            

quote:

---

There are no plans whatsoever to make any cuts to the federal budget

---

really? who has not put forth a plan to do so?

posted July 28, 2011 09:29 AM            

Just the "unfunded liabilities" of the United States are almost twice..2 times the Gross Domestic Product of the entire world.

Yet, O'Bomber and his Socialist comrades in Congress adamantly refuse to rein in their out of control spending. Go figure.

There is no plan to actually CUT spending. Merely a plan to slow the growth of spending increases.

Which is why next years spending budget must be smaller than this years spending budget...CUTS. Why any future spending must be directly tied/CAPPED to the US GDP at about 18% and no more and a Constitutional Amendment be passed that all future US budgets not exceed US tax revenues...BALANCED.

Anything else is total fiscal insanity.

posted July 28, 2011 11:43 AM            

It did. Indeed, that ratio declined every Presidential term thereafter -- under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and inched up only 0.2% under Ford, essentially even. It also declined under Jimmy Carter to a low of 32.5%.

During this period there were wars, recessions, inflation, stagflation, top tax rates ranging from 90% to 70%, mostly Democratic but occasionally Republican Congresses, major industrial strikes, oil embargoes, a national malaise, clean-air and clean-water acts, the EPA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and even "W-I-N" (whip-inflation-now) buttons, Gerald Ford's lapel-based strategy for combating inflation.

Then, the debt/GDP ratio skyrocketed again.

Now, who followed Carter ... just cannot seem to recall, can you?

Under Ronald Reagan, the debt/GDP ratio ballooned by over 20% to reach levels not seen since Eisenhower. Note that the denominator -- GDP -- grew under Reagan so that must mean ... oh, no, it couldn't ... that the debt grew more rapidly than ever before. Under Reagan. Yes, under the visible hand of "the-government-is-too-big-and-spends-too-much-money ... if-not-us, who-if-not-now,-when" Ronald Wilson Reagan. (Republicans will rush to blame Democrats in Congress for the spending, but two facts render that bogus: i) Democrats had controlled Congress for most of the post-war period when the ratios fell, the only political variable now Reagonomics; and ii) Reagan never even submitted a balanced budget and the Congress appropriated the same in toto as Reagan requested ($7.314T requested; $7.361T appropriated over 8 years).

Then H.W. Bush, continuing the new-time economic religion, set new pool, league and American records, growing the ratio 13% in just one term.

Fortunately, Bill Clinton was able to reverse much of that, with a nearly 10% reduction in the ratio. [Causing Congressional Republicans to become apoplectic, crying to "get the money out of Washington", not reduce debt/GDP ratio further in case there were a rainy day].

Enter G.W. Bush. Not to be outdone by his father -- his recurring psychodrama visited upon the country -- George W. added 27% in two terms to the debt/GDP ratio. You see, G.W. was going to be like the courageous Ronald Reagan, not his wimpy father -- although, to be sure, his "wimpy" father volunteered for World War II, whereas Ronnie and Georgie headed for the hills during their generation's wars.

So, with the magic of George W, we entered the Obama era with an 83% debt/GDP ratio. The highest since Harry Truman who had reduced the ratio to 70%. That's six decades.

Just for good measure, W. left us two wars and the early part of the worst recession since the 1930s.

Take that, America. Take that, Barack Obama. At least Truman began with a strong economy and just months of remaining war.

At least Reagan dug his hole for us 20 years before the baby-boomers were to retire, and signed off on a fix to Social Security that included a payroll tax increase. And, Reagan began the practice of raiding the Social Security trust fund to help pay for deficits.

W., on the other hand, worked his wonders just as the boomers were retiring, and did nothing about Social Security except to fight for privatizing it, that would have devastated nearly the entire elderly population had he pulled it off.

Perhaps, it might help inform today's policy choices to ask whether there were common themes for our post-World War II periods of profligacy, as defined by debt/GDP ratio growth.

Gerrymandering provides Congresses that tend to be more stable than Presidencies that come and go. Moreover, as mentioned above, Congress rarely appropriates more money in toto than a president requests. Hence, perhaps we should focus on the presidents.

Remember the words, "tax-cuts pay for themselves"? Soothing. Downright enchanting if repeated enough.

And recall their kissing cousins, "tax-cuts [for the wealthy, mostly, but I'll give the rest of you low-lives something as well to make this appear as a principle] stimulate economic growth"?

Now, under whose presidencies were those "principles" employed?

Reagan. Reagan's VP (H.W. Bush). And, Reagan wannabe (G.W. Bush). In fact, the Reagan wannabe outdid them all.

A word about poor H.W. Bush. He had called Reaganomics, "voodoo economics"--an amazing turn of phrase for a nearly inarticulate man, so he must have believed it. But, he was stuck with it. Then, recession struck (his son was to outdo him in magnitude, but that is another story), and HW raised taxes on the wealthy, and Bill Clinton did it again--right in the midst of a recession.

And, what happened? Economic growth, budget surpluses, and a 10% reduction in the debt/GDP ratio.

Indeed, the two faces of H.W. Bush -- read-my-lipservice to Ronald Reagan, and then following through on his original beliefs so he did part of the heavy-lifting that Clinton had to do, make the point.

So, if the country is really looking for a recipe to reverse growth in Debt/GDP ratios -- the fear-mongering du jour of the rightwing -- perhaps, just perhaps, bowing at the altar of St. Ronald is not exactly the economic religion we need.

posted July 28, 2011 11:55 AM            

I said "SPENDING AS A PERCENT OF GDP" set at 18%.

Who in their right mind would think running the federal government should cost even 18% of the total Gross National Product. That's Gross National Product; not Gross National Profit.

posted July 28, 2011 03:53 PM            

President Barrack Obama took office in 2009 with the highest expenditure to GDP ratio. The ratio was 44.7 percent. In 2009, the U.S. GDP was about $14 trillion. U.S. expenditures were about $6.2 trillion. In 2010, the GDP is about $14.6 trillion. U.S. expenditures were about $7 trillion.

in fact the LOWEST ratio since 81 was in clinton's last year, when it was 32+%, during reagan's term it was more like 40%...and so on.