>>No CRU data lie has so far been revealed at all.<<
that's because the data went missing. you know this. -lol-
>>CRU analysis in fact tends to be slightly lower than all the others. If CRU analysis is every revised, it will be upward, not downward. However, the difference between them and the others is not significant.<<
i don't know what you mean by others and i don't want kind of "massaging" was done by the others or if their data was lost or if they cut out 4500 temperature gauge locations that tended to be colder and then used 1500 warmer location to average over the now excluded areas and then make comparisons to the 6000 locations without making adjustments.
scam, fraud, "hide the decline."
you know this.
>>The point I was attempting to make, and which you completely fail to grasp is that there is not a monotonic response in either system. Yet there is excellent theoretical and experimental support for both notions:<<
completely false. inflation was on freaking fire when stocks and housing were going up 20% a year - and there is no honest argument that it wasn't.
>>1) dumping vast quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise global temps over time,<<
except that during the 15 years of the most CO2 dumping, temps have been relatively flat and the last 8 years or so we've actually seen cooling. you know, you have to have a decline in order to "hide the decline."
you know this.
i'm all for theories, but it is complete crap to get different than expected results and still claim the theory is "settled."
>>and 2) dumping vast quantities of printed money into an economy will cause inflation over time.<<
the problem is that both systems are way more complex than this. as we've seen, both systems are open to being manipulated by unethical people.
if i ran the fed, i could print $5 trillion and bury it, well, at the fed. what kind of impact would that have on inflation?
maybe a little do expectations the money will come out of the fed at some point, but i control it and i want to create a deflationary depression - so i keep it there.
$5 trillion is created and we still get deflation.
you can't over simplify.
>>There is also plenty of theoretical and experimental evidence that neither system responds monotonically.<<
and there are reasons, one of which i outlined above.
there is a reason that CO2 didn't drive temperatures significantly higher in the last 15 years, too. the first, and most important, IS BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER MUCH MORE IMPORTANT FACTORS (emphasis, not yelling)!
>>The idiotic thing is to assume there are no other effects at play during "short" time intervals (readily observed by looking at the signal content of any global temperature chart), and you need a functional brain to figure out what "short" is in each system.<<
no, the idiot thing to do is screw over everyone's life on a theory not even supported by reality.
>>You also need to understand measurement resolution vs variance, so that when someone says "no significant increase" you understand that that does not mean "no increase" but rather means "given the noise in our measurements, the increase while appearing large still remains within the 5-95% margin of error."<<
i understand statistics.
i also understand the theory of CO2 driving temperatures higher and the real world results has shown that the predictions made by that theory are FALSE.
wiggle all you want, but NOBODY in the global warming scare mongering community was predicting "statistically insignificant warming" over the next 15 years!
NOBODY!
why? THEIR THEORIES WERE WRONG!
now, that doesn't mean that the premise is necessarily wrong, IT MEANS WE DON'T KNOW TO ANY DEGREE OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY JUST YET.
well, you don't DOUBLE ENERGY COSTS WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW CHI*T YET!
got it?
you do more research.
>>When you understand that, you will then understand how one more year (like 2010 will likely be) can suddenly change "no significant warming in 15 years" to "significant warming in 16 years".<<
and if it doesn't, you will be full of excuses.
"wait unitl next year."
NO! get your theory and provide data it isn't bull crap, THEN WE CAN TALK.
>>Its not that the last data point made a large difference, its that it shifted the result past the 95% tail of the distribution, and hence it became "significant". Magic!<<
the only "magic" are the lies and distortions in the data.
1. much of the original data is missing - fact.
2. there was a concerted effor to "hide the decline." - fact.
3. they took 6000 tepmerature locations and whittle them down to 1500 - and the average temperature of the 1500 was higher than the 6000 (they excluded more cold areas). they then compared the new colder data set to the older warmer data saet and said, "see, the temps are increasing!"
it is total crap.
the people aren't nearly as stupid as some seem to think.
you know all the above occurred and you pretend i don't mention them as YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE!
>>So in short, why is it that all the printing of money has not so far caused rampant inflation.<<
it has alreayd been explained. the system is much more complex than your simple minded view of it.
>>I'm simply adopting your mode of simplistic reasoning regarding CO2 and global temps.<<
no you aren't. you are building up a straw man and tearing it down because you have no explanation as to why temps haven't dramatically increased as CO2 has dramatically increased.
not a single global warmer predicted this outcome 15 years ago.
NOT ONE!
what good is a theory when its predictions are wrong?
well, other than creating an excuse making machine like you.
>>Please note that grasping at housing inflation is trying to sidestep the question. The housing inflation happened prior to the money printing.<<
i argue that the inflation occurred during the housing bubble and immorally hidden by the corrupt fed.
the reason the recent money printing hasn't caused rampant inflation is that the banksters have effectively buried the money in their back yard where nobody can get to it to spend it.
a dead simple explanation.
yet you have NO EXPLANATION for your position on CO2 output and basically flat temps (cooling over the last 8 years or so - hide that decline!).
>>I'm asking why we have not had rampant inflation since Ben started printing.<<
asked and answered. the money isn't seeing the light of day in the economy, it is covering losses in the banks (many of whom are still insolvent and need even more money just be an ongoing institution again).
the banks aren't lendingmoney because of a very risky environment and, perhaps, their desire to crash the economy to buy up assets for pennies on the dollar.
>>You've claimed many times on this thread that printing money will lead to collapse. You did it right here:
we believed the FED lie and now we are collapsing.<<
what? you've taken that statement completely out of context.
when you have a valid point, you don't need to do that.
btw, the "collapse" i think is more likely than not is a deflationary depression - IN SPITE OF THE MONEY PRINTING!
you are sorely confused.
>>You are more of an "alarmist" about this than Al Gore is about CO2.<<
it isn't alarmism if it is true - and that is the difference between al gore the known liar and myself, a guy who tries to gauge the present trends and reach an honest assessment of the future.
i admit over and over and over that all of us need to be aware of multiple scenarios BECAUSE I COULD BE WRONG in my present more than likely deflationary depression view.
>>Yet your claims are so far not true at all.<<
the data trend supports my view, though.
unemployment is much worse now than in march of 2009. the government is borrowing more than the world saves. interest rates are rising. the fed says they won't monetize the debt. fannie and freddie are set up for UNLIMITED LOSSES.
the rubber band extends more and more and i'm claiming it will eventually break.
your CO2 rubber band DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!
>>Is it just perhaps because you understand there are some time lags involved?<<
maybe, maybe not. lots of things can happen - including zeroing out the currency and starting over.
i understand both systems are complex and multidimensional.
>>If so, why do you understand that here, but not in atmospheric systems?<<
all you are doing is proof texting. the original theory said nothing about time lags. in fact, al gore LIED and said CO2 rose ahead of temperature?
remember that LIE HE'S NEVER RETRACTED?
in general, though, some times lags make sense, sometimes they don't.
if you want to claim a time lag of more than 15 years here, then lay out the scientific theory that predicts that such a lag.
I. DIDN'T. THINK. SO.
>>Or perhaps, your views on economics are as incorrect as you think Al Gore's views on climate are? Which is it??<<
false argument as there is a third choice.
i understand both systems are complex and dynamic.
i also believe we are likely headed for a deflationary depression in spite of the money printing because of these human driven complex factors.
i'm not claiming that CO2 doesn't influence temperature - the system is too complex to know for sure and to know how much, if it does.
i'm saying THERE IS NO DATA TO ALARM PEOPLE AND TAX PEOPLE TO THE TUNE $100S OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BASED ON RESULTS THAT DON'T MATCH THE THEORY!
you can hypothesize about some kind of tooth fairy explanation, but that doesn't cut it.
if you want to claim some kind of time delay, LAY OUT YOUR THEORY AS TO WHY THERE IS A TIME DELAY AND EXPLAIN WHY NOBODY KNEW THIS INT HE LATE 90s WHEN THEY SAID THE SKY WOULD FALL AT AN ACCELERATED RATE!
STOP SPREADING AND COVERING UP THE LIES AND MANIPULATION. |
