I'm tired of linking to the same damn information in every post just so you can pretend it doesn't exist.  There are probably fifty links in this thread already that show Vostok core samples.  You yourself have posted quite a few of them.  When you bother to actually reply to one of the irrefutable facts in my last post, I'll give you the time of day again.

I find it funny that you are feeding off of others for sources and you grabbed that abcnews article that Dr Guy posted in the other forums. But, since you've asked me to specifically respond to that I will.

I've read that article it is extremely vague and also misinterpret Al Gore's words. I will respond to each item as they are reference in that article below going right down the line 1, 2 ,3, 4, etc. Also, just out of curiousity, have you seen An Inconvenient Truth? If so, then you can verify my statements as true below...

1) First off, Burton claims that Al Gore said that the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland will result in up to 20 feet of sea level rise. This is wrong. What Gore really said was that if both West Antarctic and Greenland melted, then we could see up to 20 feet of sea level rise. According to many models, this is still true, but on the high side and unlikely. The sea level rise numbers are correct, it is just that it isn't likely that both Greenland and Antarctica will both melt in the next few decades. But, seeing as how Gore claims that it could be "up to" that amount, he is still not wrong. Claiming the high side of numbers is never wrong. See how Burton twists around his words to make is own statements and falsify Gore's?

2) This one is thrown about a lot and is mostly an editing error in the way it sounds. Gore isn't claiming that all citizens of these low lying countries are being evacuated, but in his speeches refers to groups of people that have to evacuated. All of these people are the ones he refers to. In fact, you can check it out yourself if you do some research on such communities like Tuvalu. The Prime Minister there has even said that some of its inhabitants should evacuate to New Zealand and New Zealand has agreed to accept an annual quota of 75 evacuees.

3) Again, Burton twists Gore's words around claiming the Gore said that the ocean conveyor will shut down. He never said that in the documentary. He talked about the incident that happened when during the receeding of a previous ice age, the (then) Northeastern American glacier melted and poured tons of freshwater into the Atlantic. This was discovered to have caused part of western Europe into an ice age for a period of time. He never claimed that it will happen again, but said that we should be looking out for other large pools of water that can form on similiar glaciers. He NEVER claimed that global warming will cause this, but he did say that if it ever did happen, it would be an incidental concequence of global warming.

4) This one is just silly and seems as if it is here just to pad Burton's "9" errors from Gore. There are countless scientists that will give you hundreds of reasons backing the claim of a correlation between CO2 and the global temperature. This is one of the main debates of global warming today and Burton throws it in as an error as if he has any merit to claim it as such. Riiiiiight.

5) Again a play on words from Burton. It is widely known that as the average annual surface temperature increases, the amount of glacial ice you will have will decrease. Regardless of the cause of such warming, that is fact. The less cold days you have to accumulate that ice, the less ice there will be year in and year out. This is what Gore pointed out in An Inconvenient Truth. If Burton wants to claim that the reason for having less cold days during the year is NOT because of global warming, then he is in the minority on that. If he wants to claim that Gore was specifically saying that human-induced warming was causing those glaciers to retreat, then he is sadly misinterpreting.

6) Burton himself claims that regional climate change could be a cause of it. Regional climate changes can be a result of global warming. One find in many studies of climate is that global temperatures (regardless of what they are) redistribute where precipitation goes. So if the earth is warming as Gore claims, then places like Lake Chad can be adversally effected. He showed suched examples in the movie showing that because there is warming going on, places like Lake Chad are effected. Lake Chad has seen extreme droughts in the recent decade and one of the major contributors is the climate change the region has seen.

7) No where in An Inconvenient Truth did Al Gore claim that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. Again, a misinterpretation (and/or blatant skewing of Gore's words) of what Gore said in the film. Gore showed clips of the hurricane because it was recent and fresh in everyone's mind. He didn't say that global warming caused Katrina. He then went on to say that when ocean temperatures are warming, it can result in fiercer hurricane like what we saw with Katrina. He also made a point to say that, while the number of hurricane we receive each year won't change because of global warming, the magnitude of them will. If you watch the extended scenes on the DVD, he goes even deeper into this fact and the research for it. There have been numerous studies that show that higher ocean temperatures result in stronger hurricanes, but not an increased number of them.

8) No where in An Inconvenient Truth does Al Gore claim that polar bears are currently dying because of having to swim far distances. At one point he shows a CGI bear swimming in an ocean with no ice around, but he never claimed that was now.

9) This one is another stretch for Burton as he couldn't even deny that global warming won't have an effect on coral reef bleaching. He just throws it on anyway to pad his "9" errors. Numerous studies have shown that even a conservative temperature increase of 1-2 degrees C would cause regions between 20-30 degrees N to experience sustained warming that falls within the lethal limits of most reef-building coral species. Coral are extremely small species that are very susceptible to temperature changes. To deny that this wouldn't happen is to deny that it isn't currently happening.

Burton's claims of errors in Gore's statements are simply misguided and misinterpreted. He twists words around in ways that are actually true when said, but aren't Gore's words at all.

As far as your economic views go, to compare LCD economics to energy economics is a very rough comparison. They are extremely different economic models and the simple "upgrading" from one model tv to another doesn't compare. New technology LCDs are manufactured and funded by existing companies and purchased by consumers. Most of these green technologies are not exorbitantly funded and need to be sold at large scale to businesses (not consumers to pay off). Few joint-venture capitalists are will to take part in something like that unless there are incentives for purchasers in place. Often, it results in buyers needed to be scouted out first with prototypes to see if a market is ready. This requires even more money up front. This is why half of these new technologies never even make it off the drawing board. If we want to make any sort of headway in the near future to break ourselves away from foreign petroleum reliance (for both emissions reduction and security), then we need to have incentives in place for these new technologies to make it off the drawing board.

Also, there is no "forcing anyone to buy a TV" going on. You are claiming that is how I feel and that is what "lefties" feel and that is completely wrong. A little open-mindedness goes a long way into understanding what will work best given the circumstances. No one had a gun put to their head to trade their "clunkers" in for new cars this summer. They just received incentives to do so. This is what it should be like for these new technologies. If there is no reason for people to switch, then it won't be done.

The auto industry is a perfect example of an industry that is resistant to change. Without government involvement, we'd still be driving cars with no seatbelts, airbags, ABS, and traction control. It wasn't until government forced car makers into putting seatbelts into all fleet cars that it was done. Why? Because if it cost automakers to money to put them it with no ROI, then they weren't going to do it. Look at fleet mileage standards. There was little incentive for automakers to increase MPG of their cars and doing so would cost lots of R&D, so they didn't do it. Foreign regulations were stiffer than ours so foreign auto makers already had the efficient vehicles. So as gas prices rose, people flocked to the more efficient foreign vehicle and now look where the American auto industry is at. But hey...that's capitalism for ya.

Do I even need to get into the housing mess?

Businesses are extremely resistant to change. This is why the stock market is such a good investment. It is because business do one thing and that is attempt the quickest path to profits. You put your money in the stock market and you can be sure that the businesses will hopefully put your money into an ROI churn. But that is just it. That is usually all that businesses are after. Sure, there are many valiantly run businesses out there. But, those few can't be seen as the market litmus. History has told time and time again that if we want to see an outcome from business with the consumers and citizens' best interest in mind, then you have to have at least some type of regulation.

I work in IT and in the financial sector. Ever since the housing crash, there are tons and tons of new regulations put in place. It is always easy getting those regulations put into place in hindsight. Why is it that we have to wait for bad things to happen before we realize that some regulation is good regulation?

i just bought a Yaris from Toyota. the salesman told me the particualr model i bought would have brought in, MAYBE, a $150 dollar profit for Toyota.

go me! way to stick it to the man =P

I know that. Do you know that Antarctica is a continent? So is Greenland. I know, right? Crazy! Antarctica is actually roughly twice the size of Australia. In fact, the ice on the land doesn't even have to melt of it to be a problem. The ice on the sea holds the land ice in place. What scientists have found is that as the ice melts and the sea based ice gives away, it causes the land-based ice to slide with water acting as lubrication between it and the land. So the land based ice can give away into the sea without it having to melt first. So you are right also that a lot of what has melted in Antarctica has been sea-based ice so far (the Larsenb ice shelf, for example). That doesn't mean that there isn't cause for alarm. Quite the contrary.

Let's not also forget all the land glaciers across the globe that are melting. Normally a large portion of those glaciers stay frozen through out the year. Now many of them are disappearing and a good portion of that water gets redistributed into rivers and then out to sea. This is what is causing a lot of water shortages worldwide. Water that used to be available is now back out into the ocean and unusable...which consequently will also contribute to sea level rise.

Did you just call me a communists? Seriously? lol, wow. Anyway...

It is hard to take you serious when you claim that this recent recession wasn't a big deal. Bank closures might not have been as abundant as in the 80s, so if that is your litmus test for what is bad in economics then you are sorely mistaken. One of the reasons why we don't have as many bank failures is because of government intervention. In fact, one of the few bright spots in the financial market is how the credit union sector has managed to stay afloat without using government money (Credit Unions are what I am involved with). They've taken responsibility for themselves.

The fact that you claim that regulation is what caused the bubble to burst shows how misinformed you are and what little information you actually have on the matter. I've heard people just like you claim that Congress forced banks into loaning money to people who couldn't pay back. This is completely untrue and what they refer to is the Community Reinvestment Act. However, the CRA only governs depository banks and not investment banks. So a lot of the banks that spurred the subprime lending mess weren't regulated by CRA. The banks that made the subprime loans are banks that AREN'T regulated by the Federal Reserve or organizations that audit the compliance of CRA. Those investment firms worked directly with Lehman Bros and the likes to which the CRA didn't even apply. The CRA (and consequently Congress) didn't force banks to lend money with no-money down, throw underwriting standards out the window, or even entice those mortgage brokers you mentioned to seek out new markets to take advantage of. Nor did Congress force credit-rating agencies to put high-grade ratings on subprime debt.

Fannie and Freddie and all the subprime lenders were certainly a culprit. There was a whole era of idiocy to which many are to blame. But it comes down to investment banks (the unregulated ones out of the reach of CRA) creating demand for a "new product". They saw these subprime loans as an opportunity and then traded them using borrowed capital.

You throw out words like communism and socialism, but your use of them plainly shows your gross misunderstanding of economics and also the situation we are in.

Your views on the auto industry are also distorted. You have a gross disregard for the importance of a lot of things. Of course after a company goes through bancruptcy it is going to come out a better company. That is the whole point of bancruptcy and why we have it! Not to mention how these particular bancruptcies are going to have government scrutiny up the wazoo.

It is also no revelation that trucks have a higher selling margin that the newer and more fuel efficient cars. It is because the truck is pretty much the same truck as it was 15 years ago except with a new shiny body and stronger chassis! Yahoo!

But to prove my point that these American auto makers need regulation in order to change, if you look at the increases made to fleet fuel efficiency of the last 40 years and then look at when it was that CAFE standards were increase, they directly correlate. Then look at the times when CAFE standards relaxed...and so did American fleet fuel efficiencies. Meanwhile foreign auto makers continued to increase theirs. Let's also not forget about the tons of other benefits you gain from CAFE standards such as decreased dependance on foreign petroleum (which means we control the price of gas better), less CO2 emissions, and also prevents certain models of foreign cars from being sold here which means our domestic product can compete better.

Now don't get me wrong, I know I am talking a lot about CAFE standards. What I don't want you to think is that I am saying they are the sole contributor to the poor performing American auto industry. But, what I am saying is that it has played a large part of it. Which is why government regulation (in moderation) is a good thing.

So you can stop throwing around words like socialism and communism, like you know what they mean.

Now let's get back to global warming...

The answer why not is because there are other cooling events.  If I turn the temperature knob on my oven up and then open the door are you going to argue that turning the knob up doesn't raise the temperature inside the oven?  The hardest part about these discussions is that there ARE answers to the questions that most people bring up.  They are just ignored, because it conflicts with ideologies.

As it is I'm more concerned about the possibility of the Yellow Stone supervolcano blowing up anytime soon than about man made global warming, considering a statistical probablity of 21.8% derived from a binomial distribution (probability of three major blows in 2.1 m years after the first one recorded).

Well, actually the bigger prob IMO is THE MEDIA being ready to believe and publish anything that makes for a big story and potential increase of print media circulation and people watching their news casts, these days without scrutiny...

Well, thank you about being honest about your closemindedness.  You might try another article I wrote about the religification of the AGW crowd.  You fit that one to a T.

The best part of a beautiful post, seriously had me in that place between laughing and crying.

When it comes to money you don't know much about the world outside your window, do you?

By unfair, I mean he's laid out his citations and the information therein. Why have you not had the same courtesy?

Raistlin

Very much so,  The failure of the banks in the past 2 years was being compared to the great depression, instead of subsequent bank collapses.  The problem with the analogy is that back in the 30s, there was no FDIC, FHSLA or even the Credit Union equivalient, and there were also no federal regulations of reserve deposits.  So the hysteria that was used to push TARP was based on flawed analogies, and thus the bailout was flawed.

Hmmm, now what could that mean given the theme of this article.  Well, if I was a thinking person, I would look to Kyoto and Copenhagen.  In other words, subverting the laws of the land to those of the laws of the UN.  It is no secret that Kerry campaigned on it in 04 as did Obama in 08. 

The root cause of the issue that is referenced is the recession.  You are talking about a component, I just expaned it to generalize about the overall market.  And you best check the constitution.  The president has no purse strings, Congress does, and we know who was in charge of them when TARP was created.

As you said, you were not really around in the 80s, so I can see your misconception about this.  But indeed, the banking side was not that weak (the brokerage side was very weak) this time around, and the 80s saw a massive upheavel in the basic structure of banking due to failures.  Without Tarp, we would have seen a similar shakeout this time, but I do not recall the world ending in the 80s due to that failure period.

The critical word here is "required".  Since there is no proof it was required by BOA or CITI, it is all an exercise in linguistics.  They paid it back quickly, because they did not require it.  It helped them to be sure, but some banks still failed (too far gone) and others just pocketed the money (as evidenced by the rebound of the profits so quickly - has GM and Chrysler made billions since their bailout?).  The refutation is not in saying they have not paid back the money, but in that they needed the money to begin with.  They clearly did not.  BOA was buying companies right, left and center up to the bailout!  Companies going belly up are not buying other companies during their swan song.

Ignoring your condescending rhetoric, I will state I am an Economist.  To be clearer I am an monetarist (think of Walter E. Williams).  So I understand the subject very well.  It is not an idealogical platitude, and I am not your champ.  It is cold hard reality that does not take a doctorate to understand (it helps, but is not a requirement).  And you are free to disagree with me.  I was responding to a false statement you made with clarification, so I was unaware that is unacceptable.  As you will note, I do try to avoid talking in absolutes, so you will also note I never said never (until now).  However exceptions should be exceptions and not the rule.  Unfortunately they are becoming the rule.

As for your classification of Paulson and Bernanke, I would suggest you read up more on them.  You will find they are not the free marketers you trumpet them to be.  I am not suggesting they are socialilsts or worse (there are more than 2 states of thought in this area), but they are hardly what one would call a freemarketer.  Nor do I agree with them.  If you are looking for a good Fed Chairman, think Volcker.

So you see, while you dismiss and label and condescend me (after accusing me of those crimes), I have background in the subject, just as I am sure you have background in your speciality.  Does that make us right all the time just because we have a history of education in that field?  I leave that to you to answer.

Because you cannot connect the dots.  And they are not many to connect.  You only have to ask yourself where the money for BOTH comes from.  And then ask what the hell the government is doing on either in the first place.  The answer is pure politics.  That is why.  You can deny it, but that does not make your denial valid.  And the proof is in the pudding.  You only have to look at where the stimulus money went to AND what conditions - pre and post facto - were placed on the TARP and porkulus money.  Whether the conditions are put on pre or post payoff does not matter.  They are both there in the end.

And yes, i am definitely alleging that funds from TARP were spent on assets that were not toxic.  In case you have not heard, the current administration is very mad at the banks for not doing exactly that - re-issuing bad loans to cover bad loans.  instead the banks took that money and put it into safe investments - T-Bills.  Big shock.  The money to cover the toxic assets - where a connection can be made - went to Fannie and Freddie - both of which were already government owned, operated and mismanaged.