About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

95 comments:

  1. 1
  2. 2

    RE: Cheap South @ 1 – I agree it’s over-stated a lot, but it’s interesting that in the example given in that article the author doesn’t claim any deduction for real estate taxes on top of the interest paid, but in the very next part notes that you can deduct a small part of your real estate taxes without itemizing (something I didn’t know, and am not sure that it’s correct–I’ll have to look).

    Interestingly though, the tax deduction in Washington state isn’t as valuable as in some other states because we do have lower real estate taxes.

  3. 3
    Scotsman says:

    Environmental hypocrisy- why Al Gore can fly his jet and heat his mansion:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/234674

  4. 4
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 3:

    Environmental hypocrisy- why Al Gore can fly his jet and heat his mansion:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/234674

    do you believe in global warming?

    Al Gore Gets A Solar Roof
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/al_gore_gets_a.php

    “Gore is now preparing to install a geothermal system that will drastically reduce the cost of heating in his home.”

  5. 5
    pfft says:

    an out of sample look at how the financial sector is doing.

    Canadian Bank Results Take the Gold
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703502804575101904040505146.html?mod=WSJ_earnings_LEFTTopHeadlines

    “Other big Canadian lenders also have been posting strong results for the most recent quarter, as Canada’s economy emerges from a recession that wasn’t nearly as deep or painful as in the U.S.”

  6. 6
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 4

    “do you believe in global warming?”

    Climate change? Yes- it has been and will be again, both much warmer and much cooler than it is now. CO2 levels will also continue to vary as global heating/cooling varies the amount of vegetation and release/absorption of CO2 by the oceans.

    Is man and his presence a driving factor in climate change? Nope.

  7. 7

    RE: Cheap South @ 1

    Very True

    The IRS standard deduction is so high, you need at least a $120K principle at like 6% interest before Schedule A/B are even needed most of the time. Might as well use 1040 EZ most of the time if you owe less.

    Also, and this is the real kicker….paying 6% interest payments on any principle comes out of your net pay [your gross pay is just a number and not in your checking account for spending]….meaning the real interest you pay is gross/net x 6%….LOL

    Horrifying isn’t it, and makes even the mitigated tax deduction a joke.

    What do you think I paid my principle off last year….LOL….early retirement cash. And that 0.9% BECU MM before taxes taken out was little or no help either keeping the principle unpaid.

  8. 8
    Mikal says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 6 – Not at all? I agree that maybe not to the extant that some say, but it is as foolish as far one way as it is in the other.

  9. 9
    The_Dude_Abides says:

    .A Tour of Western Banks – Brett Rabatin – Sterne, Agee And Leach, Inc.
    On Wednesday March 10, 2010, 10:09 am EST
    67 WALL STREET, New York – March 10, 2010 – The Wall Street Transcript has just published its Pacific & Southwest Regional Banks Report offering a timely review of the sector to serious investors and industry executives.
    In the following brief excerpt from the 37 page report, Brett Rabatin discusses the outlook for the Banking sector and for investors….

    TWST: Where are you focusing your attention these days in the Pacific and Southwest bank space?

    Mr. Rabatin: In the Pacific Northwest, it’s an area of the country where the economy is still pretty weak. There is a lot of expectation the area may lag into a recovery. So the investment ideas the past few quarters have been predicated more on FDIC-assisted transactions and the potential benefit of those. We’re still early in the innings of FDIC receivership and bank failures, particularly in Washington State. But it’s a changing environment where investors have to be a little more guarded about how they think these transactions will transpire, particularly as it relates to asset discounts on assisted transactions. At one point, the discounts were good enough to maybe help at least partially fund the transactions.

    Now they’re just a lot cheaper than your typical M And A transaction. We’re seeing a few deals, particularly for the core-funded banks, where there is a 4% to 6% discount on assets. I think that level may continue to even get more competitive. We may see some goodwill booked on a few of these. Nevertheless, the opportunity for consolidators and for banks, like Umpqua (UMPQ), which is “neutral”-rated, and Washington Federal (WFSL), which is “buy”-rated, is to increase their market share and to get back to more normalized EPS sometime – if not in late 2011, during 2012 – with lower credit costs.

  10. 10
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Mikal @ 8

    I suppose in the strictest sense that yes, man adds some influence to the system. But I doubt we could accurately measure it. The influence of water vapor far exceeds CO2 as an atmospheric gas and as an input to global warming or cooling. And the variable output of the sun dwarfs both. As for CO2, the amounts absorbed or released from the oceans and vegetation again dwarf those contributed by man’s activities.

    Having the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant while everyone on the planet is busy exhaling the stuff shows just how far from reality this issue has evolved.

    It’s been an expensive lesson in the mixing of bad science and politics along with the creation and death of a quasi religion. I actually don’t care which way it turns out, and will adjust accordingly, but I do want to see science return to a foundation of honest inquiry and truthfulness while rejecting political considerations/influence. A guy can dream, eh? ;-)

  11. 11
    Leigh says:

    By Scotsman @ 6:

    RE: pfft @ 4

    “do you believe in global warming?”

    Climate change? Yes- it has been and will be again, both much warmer and much cooler than it is now. CO2 levels will also continue to vary as global heating/cooling varies the amount of vegetation and release/absorption of CO2 by the oceans.

    Is man and his presence a driving factor in climate change? Nope.

    Do you believe human activity affects air quality? Water quality? Soil quality? Extinction of species?

  12. 12
    Snigliastic says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 6 – holy “chocolate!”
    You don’t honestly believe that, do you?

    You are to global warming what Pffft is to financial markets.

  13. 13
    pdxdave says:

    In WA state sales tax is also a deduction if you itemize.

  14. 14
    Daniel says:

    By Scotsman @ 10:

    It’s been an expensive lesson in the mixing of bad science and politics along with the creation and death of a quasi religion. I actually don’t care which way it turns out, and will adjust accordingly, but I do want to see science return to a foundation of honest inquiry and truthfulness while rejecting political considerations/influence. A guy can dream, eh? ;-)

    Actually in science most of this is a non-issue in the sense that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree, not necessarily on the results but on the severity of the problem (see below). The dispute is created by incompetent, uneducated politicians and lobbyists.

    What do I mean with severity of the problem? The same models using different input parameters can lead to both, quite mild and absolutely devastating results. This is a basic feature of a complex nonlinear system in which chaos, multistability and other funky features are to be expected. Ignoring this is like giving your children a revolver with just one bullet loaded and telling them that it is save to play Russian roulette as the chance they will kill themselves is small. While no one would do this, somehow people think it is quite ok to not only endanger the livelyhood of their children but to also make their lives harder with their own greed.

  15. 15
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 6:

    RE: pfft @ 4

    “do you believe in global warming?”

    Climate change? Yes- it has been and will be again, both much warmer and much cooler than it is now. CO2 levels will also continue to vary as global heating/cooling varies the amount of vegetation and release/absorption of CO2 by the oceans.

    Is man and his presence a driving factor in climate change? Nope.

    so you think in the 20 plus years that climate change has been studied that they haven taken into consideration natural variability? you don’t think they’ve studied the oceans. the first IPCC report was 20 years ago.

  16. 16
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 10:

    RE: Mikal @ 8

    I suppose in the strictest sense that yes, man adds some influence to the system. But I doubt we could accurately measure it. The influence of water vapor far exceeds CO2 as an atmospheric gas and as an input to global warming or cooling. And the variable output of the sun dwarfs both. As for CO2, the amounts absorbed or released from the oceans and vegetation again dwarf those contributed by man’s activities.

    Having the EPA regulate CO2 as a pollutant while everyone on the planet is busy exhaling the stuff shows just how far from reality this issue has evolved.

    It’s been an expensive lesson in the mixing of bad science and politics along with the creation and death of a quasi religion. I actually don’t care which way it turns out, and will adjust accordingly, but I do want to see science return to a foundation of honest inquiry and truthfulness while rejecting political considerations/influence. A guy can dream, eh? ;-)

    you don’t think they’ve studied and rule out water vapor in the last 20 years? you cannot be serious. everything you raised is a standard denier talking point that has been repeatedly knocked down for years! the fact that you think there hasn’t been an honest inquiry is a joke.

    even the polluter industries own scientists said the evidence was overwhelming.

    Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

  17. 17
    pfft says:

    By Snigliastic @ 12:

    RE: Scotsman @ 6 – holy “chocolate!”
    You don’t honestly believe that, do you?

    You are to global warming what Pffft is to financial markets.

    On both I listen to the data, what do you listen to sir?

    I started getting bullish in july and august of 2009 so I’ve been right, the bears have been just as wrong as the larry kudlow’s of the world were in 2008.

  18. 18
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 15

    In case you missed it the “first IPCC report” has been completely discredited. We could try and correct it, but the underlying data has “conveniently” been “misplaced.” and if we go to the NASA data we find that it too has been compromised over time by outside environmental factors. But I’m glad to see that the expected number of Seattle residents have fully swallowed the Kool-Aid they’ve been fed over the last 20 years. It will probably take another 20 years to get ya’ll to see the errors, so I’ll just have to sit back and be patient.

    And if I read one more idiotic comment about “consensus science”, whatever that is, I’m just going to have to go fire up a big block V-8 and run over a Prius or two. The environmentalists among you should applaude such efforts since those phony “green” cars are actually more damaging in the course of their life cycles than a regular car or even a small truck. You’ve all been duped.

  19. 19
  20. 20
  21. 21
    Scotsman says:

    Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, ‘false high’ ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

    A report in the journal ‘Science’ in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What’s more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

  22. 22
    Daniel says:

    By Scotsman @ 18:

    And if I read one more idiotic comment about “consensus science”, whatever that is, I’m just going to have to go fire up a big block V-8 and run over a Prius or two.

    Even pouting like a spoiled kid won’t change the facts.

    “Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, dass ihre Gegner ueberzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklaeren, sondern vielmehr dadurch, dass ihre Gegner allmaehlich aussterben und dass die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.” — Max Planck

    A rough translation: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

  23. 23
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 18:

    RE: pfft @ 15

    In case you missed it the “first IPCC report” has been completely discredited. We could try and correct it, but the underlying data has “conveniently” been “misplaced.” and if we go to the NASA data we find that it too has been compromised over time by outside environmental factors. But I’m glad to see that the expected number of Seattle residents have fully swallowed the Kool-Aid they’ve been fed over the last 20 years. It will probably take another 20 years to get ya’ll to see the errors, so I’ll just have to sit back and be patient.

    And if I read one more idiotic comment about “consensus science”, whatever that is, I’m just going to have to go fire up a big block V-8 and run over a Prius or two. The environmentalists among you should applaude such efforts since those phony “green” cars are actually more damaging in the course of their life cycles than a regular car or even a small truck. You’ve all been duped.

    what is with the prius rant and how can it be more damaging than a regular car or small truck? that really came out of left(or is it right?) field? in good we trust, all others bring data. do you have data?

    what about all the IPCC reports SINCE 1990? the bush admin signed off on the last one and the polluter’s own scientists said global warming was real.

    “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1

    we also just had the warmest decade on record but do carry on…

  24. 24
    corncob says:

    Scotsman –

    The economy goes in natural cycles also. I suppose it is fine then to juice it like during the bubble years, as that has no effect on the cycle at all. Rational thought should tell you that if something is bad (greenhouse gases) then adding more to the problem is not going to somehow be ok. In a finely balanced system, where any small shift can cause an extreme response from self-reinforcing effects, it should be just assumed based on logic that it is safer to not nudge it, even if it costs some money.

  25. 25
    Scotsman says:

    Tim- my comments go to spam?

  26. 26
    pfft says:

    there are certain things you learn on the internet. if you are having a global warming discussion and someone mentions al gore, water vapor, sun spots or natural variation you can be sure said discussion will get nowhere. too bad the medieval warming period wasn’t mentioned although the prius managed it’s way into the conversation.

  27. 27
    Hugh Dominic says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 18 – I used to think you were smart. Now I see that you’ve just been loaded with talking points.

    But even without the climate change. How about we agree to target reductions in emissions, pollutants, and cost externalization because it makes for a nicer and healthier planet?

  28. 28
    Scotsman says:

    OK, all- you’re aware, I’m sure, that the original “hockey stick” graph which started the whole global warming scare has been discredited, and the lead scientist behind it has resigned? You’re aware that the head of the UN climate scientists and the IPCC has resigned and been discredited? You’re aware that the original data used to construct the hockey stick graph has conveniently been “misplaced?” You’re aware that the NASA data which was used to support the IPCC conclusions has been completely discredited due to environmental contamination? You’re aware, in short, that all of the data on which the entire AGW premise was based is either discredited or unavailable for peer review? You’re aware that the only recent data we have that can be considered accurate and valid, high atmosphere satellite temp readings, show that the earth has actually cooled significantly in the last year and a half, reversing all of the temperature gains claimed during the last 15 years? Finally, you’re aware that science isn’t conducted by “consensus,” but rather by reproducible experimental relationships and facts? Good- just wanted to be sure you’re up to speed!

  29. 29
    pfft says:

    By Hugh Dominic @ 23:

    RE: Scotsman @ 18 – I used to think you were smart. Now I see that you’ve just been loaded with talking points.

    But even without the climate change. How about we agree to target reductions in emissions, pollutants, and cost externalization because it makes for a nicer and healthier planet?

    exactly hugh.

    if scotsman is wrong, our ability to live on this planet will be a lot tougher. the sea level wiill rise. hurricane and storm strength will increase. more droughts. more floods. it will be tougher to grow crops.

    if the climate change people are wrong what we get is slightly higher energy prices offset in the long run by greater efficiency. another good is that there will be less pollution and our air will be healthier. polluters will also not have a free ride to pollute and damage private and public property to their own monetary gain.

    it’s a big gamble on the denier part.

  30. 30
    BillE says:

    By Scotsman @ 10:

    The influence of water vapor far exceeds CO2 as an atmospheric gas and as an input to global warming or cooling.

    Increased temperatures put more water vapor into the atmosphere. So, if we do cause an increased temperature with CO2, it will be multiplied by the increased water vapor that follows.

    Even ignoring the global warming subject, reducing our oil consumption is a good thing for many other reasons.

  31. 31
    Mikal says:

    RE: BillE @ 25 – Like preparing us for when it is gone.

  32. 32

    As The Tim noted, real estate agents rank in the top five occupations most likely to cheat on their spouses, for both men and women.
    What does this suggest? That RE agents are honest and scrupulous except when it comes to their personal lives? Or they’ve been lying to and cheating clients for years, why wouldn’t they also act that way with their spouses?

  33. 33
    Leigh says:

    RE: Ira Sacharoff @ 32

    LOL, we had a few RE agents get busted in the Portland area hosting their girlfriends at vacant homes…sometime the homes were even still occupied!

  34. 34
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 20:

    What?! The lied and manipulated the data!!

    http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?catid=14:text&id=232:rossmckitrick-02-10-09&option=com_content&view=article

    http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

    the hockey stick graph hasn’t been refuted. that’s a denier talking point.

    the deniers are intellectually dishonest. on one hand they’ll tell you the scientists have fudged the data. on the other hand they’ll tell there is no global warming because that same data and those same scientists show their hasn’t been warming since 1998. they are so dumb it’s not even funny.

  35. 35
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 28:

    OK, all- you’re aware, I’m sure, that the original “hockey stick” graph which started the whole global warming scare has been discredited, and the lead scientist behind it has resigned? You’re aware that the head of the UN climate scientists and the IPCC has resigned and been discredited? You’re aware that the original data used to construct the hockey stick graph has conveniently been “misplaced?” You’re aware that the NASA data which was used to support the IPCC conclusions has been completely discredited due to environmental contamination? You’re aware, in short, that all of the data on which the entire AGW premise was based is either discredited or unavailable for peer review? You’re aware that the only recent data we have that can be considered accurate and valid, high atmosphere satellite temp readings, show that the earth has actually cooled significantly in the last year and a half, reversing all of the temperature gains claimed during the last 15 years? Finally, you’re aware that science isn’t conducted by “consensus,” but rather by reproducible experimental relationships and facts? Good- just wanted to be sure you’re up to speed!

    you are totally wrong. you want data, here is data.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

  36. 36
    pfft says:

    no global warming here.

    Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

  37. 37
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 35

    You claim you rely on data- that may be, but you should try to find data that hasn’t been compromised. Even Michael Mann, the guy who came up with the hockey stick graph, has admitted it wasn’t accurate and that they had to manipulate and falsify data in order to get the graph as presented. Maybe if you all spent some time reading the peer reviews instead of just the initial articles you’d get a more honest appraisal of the current state of the science. Here’s a little “balance” for you:

    http://davehatter.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/global-warmingclimate-change-is-the-greatest-scam-in-history/

  38. 38
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 36

    The NASA data used in that article has been totally discredited. A large number of NASA’s surface temperature stations have been compromised by urban growth around the stations since their initial installation many years ago. The data they provide is not representative of broader climate change, but urbanization. Even NASA admits there are problems, but the same old half truths and lies keep circulating around. It will take a decade or more for this religion to finally die off.

  39. 39
    Daniel says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 28 – Could you please provide a full reference (at least issue and page) for the Science article you mention? I searched all of Sciences issues in January 2010 for various words you use and could not find it.

    Apart from that I stick to Barney Frank: “[Ma’am] trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it”

  40. 40
    Scotsman says:

    This is the best write-up I’ve found detailing the series of events that have led to the discrediting of the original AGW science. If you are truly interested in “science” as it used to be known, and not just propaganda, take the time to read it and perhaps the two follow-up articles. But if you want to continue to “believe” and a remain a “happy idiot” just pass this by. Eventually the truth, expressed through reality, will win out. But at this time it looks like the AGW threat isn’t very real. In fact, we may be headed back to the big global freeze promulgated in the 1970’s. All we can say for sure is that Earth is a very, very dangerous place….

    http://bigjournalism.com/pcourrielche/2010/01/08/peer-to-peer-review-how-climategate-marks-the-maturing-of-a-new-science-movement-part-i/

  41. 41
    BillE says:

    By Mikal @ 31:

    RE: BillE @ 25 – Like preparing us for when it is gone.

    Or reducing the need for our military presence in other parts of the world.

  42. 42
    Daniel says:

    By Scotsman @ 40:

    This is the best write-up I’ve found detailing the series of events that have led to the discrediting of the original AGW science. If you are truly interested in “science” as it used to be known, and not just propaganda, take the time to read it and perhaps the two follow-up articles. But if you want to continue to “believe” and a remain a “happy idiot” just pass this by.

    I will not waste my time with sources like those and I tell you why: I prefer actual original research and I am able to read and understand it. I need no journalist or hobby-blogger to simplify it or draw invalid conclusions for me. That is why I asked for the reference to the Science article that you are either unwilling or unable to produce.

    In my own field of research media articles, blogs and even Wikipedia are full of nonsense, much like they are in climate research. Anyone who actually knows the relevant literature can only shake their head about all those self-proclaimed experts repeating nonsense they heard elsewhere. This usually boils down to a basic mistrust in science rather than any rational argument.

  43. 43
    Daniel says:

    Before I forget it: For a short rebuttal of just about every single argument Scotsman provided so far see for example http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php. Seems that only “Driving a Prius is worse for the environment” is missing =)

    Notice that you can click on every single argument for detailed information!

  44. 44
    Scotsman says:

    RE: Daniel @ 42

    Daniel- that’s nonsense. The three articles referenced are well researched and cross-linked to all sources, often the original pieces referenced. You couldn’t ask for a better, more scholarly analysis. It has been attacked by from all corners and yet it still stands because the facts are irrefutable.

    Now, if your self image, career, social relationships, etc. are based on a myth (any myth, not just this one in particular) and that myth is widely and throughly discredited life is going to be hard for a while. I feel for those who had their entire existence predicated on a set of beliefs that are no longer valid. But one can only stick his head in the sand and pretend for so long.

    I’ve always said I don’t care which way the argument shakes out, and I’ll make whatever adjustments need to be made on a personal level to accommodate change and preserve the planet for my kids and the future. But I’m not going to fall for some flaming hypocrite like Al Gore, or the past head of the IPCC, or anyone else who enriches themselves at the expense of the truth and their fellow man. The truth always wins in the end, although sometimes it seemingly takes forever for that time to arrive. It’s going to win in the macro economics of the current global crisis, it’s going to win in the AGW debate, and everywhere else. I’d suggest you align yourself with those ideals and not just the flavor/fashion of the month/year/decade. That way when the ground gets pulled out from under some set of arguments or beliefs you’ll still be standing tall instead of trying to justify that which is ever more obviously wrong.

  45. 45

    RE: Scotsman @ 44

    I Do Agree With You On One Salient Point Scotsman

    We’re all going to experience some radical changes this year, not clearly predicted by the pundits [have they ever given us good predictions to date anyway?].

    Smiling and finding laughter will prepare us psychologically, while using science and facts will prepare us financially. Denial is a good way to get burned.

  46. 46
    Dawn Glover says:

    Lately I’ve been tempted to drink the cool-aide ..LOL

  47. 47
    deejayoh says:

    I get so much clarity from arguments about global warming on housing blogs…

  48. 48
    Daniel says:

    By Scotsman @ 44:

    RE: Daniel @ 42
    The three articles referenced are well researched and cross-linked to all sources, often the original pieces referenced. You couldn’t ask for a better, more scholarly analysis. It has been attacked by from all corners and yet it still stands because the facts are irrefutable.

    Oddly enough the “sources” I see are mostly other blogs and resources from reputable sources have been thoroughly abused. Btw: Where is that Science article?

  49. 49
    Daniel says:

    By deejayoh @ 47:

    I get so much clarity from arguments about global warming on housing blogs…

    RE: deejayoh @ 47 – Seems to me the basic reason behind peoples denial of risks is the same for a housing bubble and for the climate sceptics: greed.

  50. 50
    Ross Jordan says:

    By Daniel @ 42:

    By Scotsman @ 40:

    This is the best write-up I’ve found detailing the series of events that have led to the discrediting of the original AGW science. If you are truly interested in “science” as it used to be known, and not just propaganda, take the time to read it and perhaps the two follow-up articles. But if you want to continue to “believe” and a remain a “happy idiot” just pass this by.

    I will not waste my time with sources like those and I tell you why: I prefer actual original research and I am able to read and understand it. I need no journalist or hobby-blogger to simplify it or draw invalid conclusions for me. That is why I asked for the reference to the Science article that you are either unwilling or unable to produce.

    In my own field of research media articles, blogs and even Wikipedia are full of nonsense, much like they are in climate research. Anyone who actually knows the relevant literature can only shake their head about all those self-proclaimed experts repeating nonsense they heard elsewhere. This usually boils down to a basic mistrust in science rather than any rational argument.

    +1.

  51. 51
    The Tim says:

    How about let’s talk about something else.

    If you’re into the Facebook, go fan “Uncommon Goods” and vote for Seattlite Brad Singley’s Brainy Blocks (click “like” under the photos).

    Here’s a video. Wooden building blocks for little kids that encourage them to learn basic math. I think we can all agree that teaching kids math is good.

  52. 52
    David Losh says:

    No, Wait!

    As I mentioned a few weeks ago I have been listening to 570AM and 770AM(?) conservative talk radio. I’m trying to get the mind set of some of the commenters here.

    What it boils down to is Obama bad, Health Care will bankrupt the country, and we don’t want Cap and Trade. Every day it’s the same thing, over and over and over again.

    Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh seem to be the big names of conservative talk radio, but both admit they are just presenting talking points. They are entertainers.

    The climate arguments come up when discussing Cap and Trade. What has been admitted repeatedly these past few weeks is that the data has two points that are in error. Two points seems to be an indication of a broader conspiracy theory.

    My take is that we need to get rid of oil no matter what, and we have an exploding global population problem that is far more dangerous than anything else.

    Global population is always left out of these arguments except here at the Seattle Bubble.

    Cap and Trade would be a big drag on our economy. If Health Care passes our economy will change forever. Obama is a complete wild card so I like hearing differing views about him.

    All these things make me think that if Cap and Trade, or Health Care become realities the banking industry will be a distant second to the government’s interest.

    That would mean lower housing prices.

  53. 53
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 37:

    RE: pfft @ 35

    You claim you rely on data- that may be, but you should try to find data that hasn’t been compromised. Even Michael Mann, the guy who came up with the hockey stick graph, has admitted it wasn’t accurate and that they had to manipulate and falsify data in order to get the graph as presented. Maybe if you all spent some time reading the peer reviews instead of just the initial articles you’d get a more honest appraisal of the current state of the science. Here’s a little “balance” for you:

    http://davehatter.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/global-warmingclimate-change-is-the-greatest-scam-in-history/

    I have spent plenty of time looking it up. there is nothing there. left out was tree ring temperature data because tree ring data and instrument data diverged starting in the 60s. they aren’t correlated now and scientists are trying to figure out why. there is no scandal there.

    AP IMPACT: Science Not Faked, but Not Pretty
    AP IMPACT: Climate scientist e-mails show effort to not share data, pettiness, but no fakery
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400

    your statement about mann was a complete lie.

    E-mail furor doesn’t alter evidence for climate change
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html

    here is the real state of climate science.

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    “Footnote 6 on page 3 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean “the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment”, are over 90% and 66% respectively.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report#Working_Group_I_.28WGI.29:_The_Physical_Science_Basis

  54. 54
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 40:

    In fact, we may be headed back to the big global freeze promulgated in the 1970’s.

    I knew you were going to bring that up. that’s totally not true but carry on! it’s funny that you say we are in happyland yet you mention every single ridiculous talking point that has been knocked down so many times it’s not even funny.

  55. 55
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 44:

    RE: Daniel @ 42

    Daniel- that’s nonsense. The three articles referenced are well researched and cross-linked to all sources, often the original pieces referenced. You couldn’t ask for a better, more scholarly analysis. It has been attacked by from all corners and yet it still stands because the facts are irrefutable.

    Now, if your self image, career, social relationships, etc. are based on a myth (any myth, not just this one in particular) and that myth is widely and throughly discredited life is going to be hard for a while. I feel for those who had their entire existence predicated on a set of beliefs that are no longer valid. But one can only stick his head in the sand and pretend for so long.

    I’ve always said I don’t care which way the argument shakes out, and I’ll make whatever adjustments need to be made on a personal level to accommodate change and preserve the planet for my kids and the future. But I’m not going to fall for some flaming hypocrite like Al Gore, or the past head of the IPCC, or anyone else who enriches themselves at the expense of the truth and their fellow man. The truth always wins in the end, although sometimes it seemingly takes forever for that time to arrive. It’s going to win in the macro economics of the current global crisis, it’s going to win in the AGW debate, and everywhere else. I’d suggest you align yourself with those ideals and not just the flavor/fashion of the month/year/decade. That way when the ground gets pulled out from under some set of arguments or beliefs you’ll still be standing tall instead of trying to justify that which is ever more obviously wrong.

    the ice is melting. there are crazy storms all over world.

    HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD. you are right though, there is nothing to see. scientists haven’t looked into sun spots or natural variability in the last 20 years.

  56. 56
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: The Tim @ 51

    “How about let’s talk about something else.”

    Darn, and I was about to accuse Scotsman of being a Communist Troll for siding with the Chinese in the conclusion that we can’t tell the cause of GW.

    http://www.straitstimes.com/SME%2BSpotlight/Lifestyle/Story/STIStory_500434.html

    (Note ironically that the Chinese still think we should do something to ease the risk of GW. Unfortunately I think their idea to ease the risk is that the US should use less fossil fuels.)

    In a related story, Chunking is coming out with a rice based canned haggis that you heat by burying in the ground for 10 minutes of global warming. ConAgra, the parent company of Chunking has announce it will be acquiring the Claim Jumper restaurant chain to ensure a continued source of methane discharges providing the global warming necessary to heat its products.;-)

  57. 57
    David Losh says:

    RE: One Eyed Man @ 56

    Claim Jumper; a communist conspiracy? Truth or Fiction? You decide.

  58. 58
    Debunker says:

    ** March 16, 2009 — 650 international scientists, many of them current and former United Nations IPCC scientists who have now turned against the UN, wrote the latest 231-page report to the US Senate Minority Committee debunking man-made climate change. This is 12 times more than the 52 scientists who signed the UN report supporting man-made climate change in 2007.

    (Source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6 )
    ** Petition Project: 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition (see http://www.petitionproject.org/ which requires a hand-written signature and paper form submission), including 9,029 with PhDs.
    The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
    ** Professor Mojib Latif, the leading scientist of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) has admitted that the Earth’s temperature has not increased in nine years, and that we’re entering a period of steady or cooling temperatures that will possibly last until 2020 or 2030.

  59. 59
    Debunker says:

    Despite no global warming in 10 years and record-setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly. However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.

    Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

    When the Royal Society of New Zealand recently claimed that the earth was warming, Society member and climatologist Dr. Vincent Gray responded:

    “This statement is a lie. The globe is currently cooling. ……..there are currently nine authorities currently involved in providing a dataset of monthly global temperature anomalies. They are:

    NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC, GHCN-COADS)

    NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)

    Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)

    NOAA radiosonde network , (RATPAC)

    Hadley Centre Radiosonde Network (HadAT2)

    University of Alabama Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (UAH )

    Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (RSS)

    National Center for Environmental Protection Reanalysis (NCEP50)

    European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40)

    Eight of these authorities agree that the globe is currently cooling. Only GISS disagrees.” (Source: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm )

  60. 60
    Debunker says:

    March 25, 2009 — While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.

    The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong (Strong has played a critical role in working with the UN to globalize the environmental movement).

    For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

    CCX is the chicago climate exchange. CCX is 10% owned by Goldman Sachs (GS) and 10% owned by Generation Investment Management (GIM), an investment firm founded & chaired by Al Gore. This firm was co-founded by the former Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. [1]
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange

    Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

    Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

    (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/25/obama-helped-fund-carbon-scheme/ )

    ** What is the United Nation’s Agenda 21, what is sustainable development, and how do these fit into the information above?

    As described in this article on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation’s Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN’s vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation’s plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate – all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on Earth.

    Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups (see the Agenda 21 local planning guide at http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html ). Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate ‘a Local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” – Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3

    Source: http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

    RELATED SOURCES:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1646
    Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org

  61. 61
    Daniel says:

    Ah more wikipedia, blog and even Fox News links. Surely _those_ ought to be scientific!
    The author of this senate minority blog website cannot even write an excerpt of a paper partly in favor of their viewpoint without making tons of false statements. And I only read one of them…

    I gotta agree with The Tim: We ought to care about math education in our schools. Then at least people would know that statements derived from statistical data will never be 100% certain. Whoever wrote that did not understand this but feels qualified to comment on a complicated statistical analysis =)

  62. 62
    Daniel says:

    Some things that have been mentioned…
    Here you find links to 17 scientific studies on the influence of the sun:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    And here we have something on the myth that there is no warming since 1998:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

    The key issue: “”To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.

  63. 63
    Debunker says:

    RE: Daniel @ 62

    Sorry sir, but you are full of crap.

    This single item alone utterly destroys your argument. It’s like a space alien magician jumped out of a spaceship and danced on your head. I think you should take your CIA paycheck and send it back to your boss for doing such a shitty job or trying to convince people on random Internet blogs.

    ** March 16, 2009 — 650 international scientists, many of them current and former United Nations IPCC scientists who have now turned against the UN, wrote the latest 231-page report to the US Senate Minority Committee debunking man-made climate change. This is 12 times more than the 52 scientists who signed the UN report supporting man-made climate change in 2007.

    (Source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6 )

  64. 64
    pfft says:

    By Debunker @ 58:

    ** March 16, 2009 — 650 international scientists, many of them current and former United Nations IPCC scientists who have now turned against the UN, wrote the latest 231-page report to the US Senate Minority Committee debunking man-made climate change. This is 12 times more than the 52 scientists who signed the UN report supporting man-made climate change in 2007.

    (Source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6 )
    ** Petition Project: 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition (see http://www.petitionproject.org/ which requires a hand-written signature and paper form submission), including 9,029 with PhDs.
    The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
    ** Professor Mojib Latif, the leading scientist of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) has admitted that the Earth’s temperature has not increased in nine years, and that we’re entering a period of steady or cooling temperatures that will possibly last until 2020 or 2030.

    please, every time one of those “600 scientists have come out against global warming” petitions we find out they are taken out of context, didn’t sign anything or are just flat out wrong.

    there has been no global warming since 1998? I thought that the scientists were crooks and couldn’t be trusted? now you believe their data? why didn’t they hide that data? I thought they were manipulating data?

    to say there is no consensus is a joke and grossly misinformed.

  65. 65
    pfft says:

    By Debunker @ 59:

    Despite no global warming in 10 years and record-setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly. However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.

    Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20-100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier “natural” climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

    When the Royal Society of New Zealand recently claimed that the earth was warming, Society member and climatologist Dr. Vincent Gray responded:

    “This statement is a lie. The globe is currently cooling…there are currently nine authorities currently involved in providing a dataset of monthly global temperature anomalies. They are:

    NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC, GHCN-COADS)

    NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)

    Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)

    NOAA radiosonde network , (RATPAC)

    Hadley Centre Radiosonde Network (HadAT2)

    University of Alabama Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (UAH )

    Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (RSS)

    National Center for Environmental Protection Reanalysis (NCEP50)

    European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40)

    Eight of these authorities agree that the globe is currently cooling. Only GISS disagrees” (Source: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm )

    and they all know the cooling is temporary.

  66. 66
    pfft says:

    By Debunker @ 60:

    March 25, 2009 — While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.

    The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong (Strong has played a critical role in working with the UN to globalize the environmental movement).

    For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

    CCX is the chicago climate exchange. CCX is 10% owned by Goldman Sachs (GS) and 10% owned by Generation Investment Management (GIM), an investment firm founded & chaired by Al Gore. This firm was co-founded by the former Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. [1]
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange

    Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

    Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

    (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/25/obama-helped-fund-carbon-scheme/ )

    ** What is the United Nation’s Agenda 21, what is sustainable development, and how do these fit into the information above?

    As described in this article on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation’s Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN’s vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation’s plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate – all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on Earth.

    Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups (see the Agenda 21 local planning guide at http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles/la21_198.html ). Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: “Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate ‘a Local Agenda 21.’ Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” – Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3

    Source: http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

    RELATED SOURCES:
    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1646
    Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org

    how much you want to bet I can google mr fox and show he’s on some board or is being paid by the polluting industries. so I guess it’s a wash?

    what are the polluters own scientists saying? they are saying global warming exists. the industry can’t even hire the right scientists.

  67. 67
    Scotsman says:

    We could talk about heath care and how happy we’ll be when it passes! I especially like how we get to start paying for it almost 5 years before we get any of the benefits. That’s to insure that it will “reduce the deficit” during it’s first 10 years. Maybe we should review how well the government has run other major programs it’s been involved in:

    The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. They have had 234 years to
    get it right, and it is broke.

    Social Security was established in 1935. They have had 74 years to get it
    right, and it is broke. All the “trust” funds set aside for this program have
    been spent.

    Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They have had 71 years to get it
    right, and it is broke.

    The War on Poverty started in 1964. They have had 45 years to get it right-
    $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”,
    and they only want more.

    Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They have had 44 years to
    get it right, and they are both broke. All of the funds set aside for this program
    have been spent- and then some.

    Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They have had 39 years to get it
    right, and it is broke.

    The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on
    foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a
    year, and we import more oil than ever before. They had 32 years to get it right,
    and it is an abysmal failure.

    They have FAILED in every “government service” they have shoved down our
    throats and now you think they can run 1/6th of the economy and insure more people, offering more service, for a lower cost?

    We certainly need to work on our education system, because this country is populated
    by idiots.

  68. 68
    Mikal says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 67 – I hope the first thing you lose is your gfire department the day your overly expensive rented house catches fire.

  69. 69
    The Tim says:

    By Scotsman @ 67:

    Social Security was established in 1935. They have had 74 years to get it right, and it is broke. All the “trust” funds set aside for this program have been spent.

    Hah, now I know you’re crazy! Why, just today I got the following letter in the mail from my US Government:

    See! They capitalized “Trust Funds” so you know it’s true. You can read the entire letter if you don’t believe it.

  70. 70
    David Losh says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 67

    I get mail every day. Medicare works.

    Just because you say the government doesn’t work, doesn’t make it so.

    I presented you with two items out of your list that prove you are wrong. That is as much evidence as the right wing conservatives have found against the case proving global warming is a threat.

    You have your assertions I have mine.

    What I don’t like is making unAmerican statements draped in the American flag.

  71. 71
    Scotsman says:

    RE: David Losh @ 70

    Wow- I only get mail 6 days a week, you must have a special deal to get it every day. From what I read I’ll only be getting it 5 days a week pretty soon. So, yes, technically it still “works,” just not as well as it used to.

    Medicare “works” now, but is technically bankrupt. and pretty much everyone who is qualified to understand the issue agrees it will never be able to pay for all of the benefits it has promised over the next 20 years, so I hope you’re not counting on it to keep “working.”

    Does a “dead man walking” work? Are zombies dead, or alive? Does it matter in the end?

  72. 72
    Confused Renter says:

    My wife and I are renting a house in Seattle.Today our landlord received a FedEx package and I noticed it was from Bank of American regarding the Making Home Affordable program. I thought that was a little weird, so I checked out the program and it looks like to be eligible the home must be your primary home. That is obviously not the case here because our landlord purchased the home two years ago as a rental property and we have been renting it ever since. Is my landlord committing fraud by participating in this program? If so and you were in this situation, would you report him? I admit I don’t know the full details of this program, but it makes me angry to think that we are going to be helping him afford his rental property as taxpayers.

  73. 73
    pdxdave says:

    God forbid we make any orgnanized attempt to pollute less.

    Instead of analysing the symptom, I think we need to be clear that there IS a problem. We pollute a crapload of nasty stuff every day, cancer rates and various unknown sicknesses are increasing at alarmingly high rates, and wilflife is being drastically depleted. It’s like the world has HIV and the doctors are all arguing about whether the rash is a result of the AIDS or not. Global warming is just 1 symptom.

  74. 74
    EconE says:

    RE: Mikal @ 68

    Wouldn’t it be a bigger headache for the landlord?

    Maybe Goldman Sachs should run the fire departments?

  75. 75
    Gerald says:

    Scotsman, I think you are mistaken about Mann admitting errors. I think he’s dug in his heels despite the challenges to his hockey stick.

    The global warming argument is about politics, not science. The nature of the scientific method doesn’t provide for a theory to be proven by mere consensus of scientists. Despite what you may have read, the science is certainly not settled and this battle will continue for many years.

    The problem for the AGW scientists is that there is no unambiguous source for global temperatures for long enough time periods when the earth is known to have very long naturally occurring climate cycles. To try to develop an estimate for temperatures, scientists have long sought out “proxies” that allow them to recreate what temperatures were in centuries past. These proxies include ice core samples and tree ring analysis. If you dig into this data, though, you realize that the breadth of data is surprising shallow and limited. Also keep in mind that none of this data is used in its raw form, it is adjusted to attempt to make corrections based on the sampling methods. The same is true of more modern measurements where attempts have been made to take temperatures in fixed locations around the world over long periods of time to get apples-to-apples comparisons. Even the raw data from these stations are corrected because of location changes, hardware changes, etc that the scientists deem necessary. In other words, all of the temperatures that are being analyzed are filtered by humans in some way, leaving the process very open to manipulation. It is natural to be skeptical of analyses being presented as “settled” when there is reason to ask questions.

    One might argue that it’s better to be safe than sorry and just assume the worst and make whatever changes are necessary now. That is a really expensive route, though, so is it so unreasonable to ask for better proof?

  76. 76
    Gerald says:

    pdxdave, you can’t conflate pollution with the global warming argument. You will find easy agreement among the vast majority of people that reducing pollution is a good thing. Carbon dioxide, though, isn’t a pollutant. We produce it with every breath we take.

  77. 77
    Scotsman says:

    This is perfect. Now the top dogs at NASA admit their data isn’t even as good as the now discredited and impossible to find/review CRU data. How obvious does it have to become before people decide maybe there isn’t as much truth to AGW as they thought?

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/

  78. 78
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pdxdave @ 73

    I don’t think anyone is against polluting less and keeping the environment healthy for all. What people object to is re-ordering the economy by trillions of dollars under the pretense that it will somehow give us control over issues we most likely will never have control over, I.E. global warming/cooling. But if you go back and look at the history of how the entire issues came to the forefront in the first place, it was never really about global warming, but all about politics, money, and power.

  79. 79
    David Losh says:

    RE: Scotsman @ 71

    So now you admit the post office works. How much of your tax dollars are spent on the postal service?

  80. 80
    Scotsman says:

    How much will your “free” health care cost? This table is from the senate bill- find your income in the middle of the chart, then your tax increase on the right. Sorry, that’s not a tax- it’s a fee. Big difference!

    http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?getimagenr=65877

  81. 81
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 67:

    We could talk about heath care and how happy we’ll be when it passes! I especially like how we get to start paying for it almost 5 years before we get any of the benefits. That’s to insure that it will “reduce the deficit” during it’s first 10 years.

    you aren’t very informed on health care. there are tons of things that kick in as soon as it passes. banning pre-existing conditions, annual caps and lifetime caps. the money is collected now to start up the program. it will reduce the deficit overall. most of the estimates on how much it will save are low because the bill contains many pilot programs to reduce costs that the CBO just couldn’t score.

    Fannie and Freddie are disasters, we can all agree on that.

    the post office has failed only because for some reason it’s the only government service that has to run a profit. the post office is more service than corporation.

    I think the war on poverty is a stupid notion, but I don’t think it’s been a failure. if it went away many many people would be in much worse shape.

    you can criticize medicare, medicaid and SS all you want but they are very popular programs that work. nobody will get rid of them. yes they do need more money. so what? we’ll just give the more money. SS is working a lot better than wall street and it’s doing it’s job. medicare and medicaid are working a lot better than the private healthcare system that’s raising premiums and dropping people like crazy. did you know that in some companies being a cop or fireman is pre-existing condition? domestic violence is a pre-existing condition. being a woman is a pre-existing condition. some free market system there. how many people who are on medicare are uninsured? zero! before medicare how many seniors were uninsured? it was up to 40% SS, medicare and medicaid work.

    I haven’t met a person my age who thinks they’ll get any SS. that is why I think we will get benefits because nobody believes. what people don’t realize is that people on SS vote and they raise hell. nobody will do away with SS in less they want their party to never get elected again. nobody will ever cut medicare for the same reason. seniors vote.

  82. 82
    pfft says:

    By Gerald @ 75:

    Scotsman, I think you are mistaken about Mann admitting errors. I think he’s dug in his heels despite the challenges to his hockey stick.

    The global warming argument is about politics, not science. The nature of the scientific method doesn’t provide for a theory to be proven by mere consensus of scientists. Despite what you may have read, the science is certainly not settled and this battle will continue for many years.

    when you said the science isn’t settled I stopped paying attention right there. you are pushing classic talking points that frank luntz would be proud of. we’ve been studying it for over 20 years. I don’t know where the consensus meme came from but you’re the second person to mention it here. the consensus came out of decades of research and testing in many different areas. if you knew the process the IPCC went through you wouldn’t say that. the IPCC report was signed off by the bush administration.

    there is consensus no matter what republicans, the deniers and the heritage foundation says.

  83. 83
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 81

    ” the money is collected now to start up the program. it will reduce the deficit overall.”

    Actually, i read today that there is a good chance much of the health care fee will be re-directed to save social security, since ss is currently cash flow negative. Of course that begs the question how will we pay for health care when the health care fees (taxes) are paying for social security and perhaps for bailing out the states of California and Illinois? It’s all just a giant ponzi scheme and will soon enough collapse.

  84. 84
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 80:

    How much will your “free” health care cost? This table is from the senate bill- find your income in the middle of the chart, then your tax increase on the right. Sorry, that’s not a tax- it’s a fee. Big difference!

    http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?getimagenr=65877

    who said it’s free? you have to pay premiums.

  85. 85
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 77:

    This is perfect. Now the top dogs at NASA admit their data isn’t even as good as the now discredited and impossible to find/review CRU data. How obvious does it have to become before people decide maybe there isn’t as much truth to AGW as they thought?

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-stunner-nasa-heads-knew-nasa-data-was-poor-then-used-data-from-cru/

    just how bad was NASA data? from what I read earlier the NASA data was corrected and it made basically no difference at all.

    you guys will tout that same data to to say there has been no warming since 1998.

    NASA data:

    http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/16/must-read-from-hansen-stop-the-madness-about-the-tiny-revision-in-nasas-temperature-data/

  86. 86
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 78:

    RE: pdxdave @ 73

    I don’t think anyone is against polluting less and keeping the environment healthy for all. What people object to is re-ordering the economy by trillions of dollars under the pretense that it will somehow give us control over issues we most likely will never have control over

    another straw man. it isn’t re-ordering the economy. it’s just that you have to pay to pollute. it worked with acid rain. the midwest was polluting and it was destroying the public and private property of citizens in the Adirondacks. lakes had no life. how is that fair?

    why do you think that corporations should be able to pollute for free? they are imposing an externality on the rest of us.

    cap and trade works:

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-12-03/news/17274817_1_acid-rain-greenhouse-gases-sulfur-dioxide

  87. 87
    Gerald says:

    pfft, you seem awfully defensive, almost as if you believe I am challenging your religion. Am I?

  88. 88
    pfft says:

    By Gerald @ 86:

    pfft, you seem awfully defensive, almost as if you believe I am challenging your religion. Am I?

    it’s not a religion. it’s science. I am just stating the facts. if the scientists come out and say we’re wrong I will believe them. I more offensive than defensive. knocking down the talking points is just too easy and too much fun.

  89. 89
    David Losh says:

    RE: Gerald @ 75

    It’s economic rather than political.

  90. 90
    Gerald says:

    Which scientists will you believe and which ones will you ignore?

  91. 91
    Daniel says:

    By Scotsman @ 71:

    Are zombies dead, or alive?

    They are fictitious, just like the the climate conspiracy.

  92. 92
    pfft says:

    By Gerald @ 89:

    Which scientists will you believe and which ones will you ignore?

    I believe the vast majority of scientists who wrote the IPCC report. I believe those who have studied it for over 20 years. I also believe my own eyes and ears. winters are warmer. fires are worse. the ice caps are melting even faster than expected. I hear on the tv how places are getting snow that never got that much before. I hear on the tv how the olympics didn’t have much snow. the IPCC report predicted all of that crazy weather years ago.

    I believe the scientists because they aren’t afraid to be wrong. they put out the temp data even though it shows no warming since 1998. why would they do that if they are corrupt and manipulate data? scientists have backed off the fears that the ocean conveyor belt would stop and plunge us into a cold period as a result of global warming. the scientists are a lot more honest than the deniers.

  93. 93
    Daniel says:

    By Scotsman @ 67:

    The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on
    foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a
    year, and we import more oil than ever before. They had 32 years to get it right,
    and it is an abysmal failure.

    Maybe they should stop spending 17 billion a year on the nuclear arsenal (8.7 billion directly and the rest hidden under the posts “Environmental responsibility”, “Energy infrastructure”, etc.). Or are you complaining about the 4.1 billion “Science spending”?

  94. 94
    Scotsman says:

    If a “fact” is based on a lie, or a misrepresentation, or a deliberate manipulation of a data point that doesn’t fit . . . is is still a fact?

    Here’s a fact: there is now no generally accepted data set that covers the period from 1900 to the present that conclusively shows global warming as a consistent trend.

  95. 95
    Daniel says:

    By Scotsman @ 94:

    If a “fact” is based on a lie, or a misrepresentation, or a deliberate manipulation of a data point that doesn’t fit . . . is is still a fact?

    Of course, if a similar effect is there without misrepresentation and manipulation. Or does gravity suddenly turn off if I show you manipulated data that suggests its 3% weaker than it really is?

    Its like removing 1 part of a 3000 piece puzzle and claiming that makes it entirely impossible to distinguish a picture of a house printed on the puzzle from a picture of a sailboat.

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.