Global warming dials up our risks, UN report says

[K-man]

Well...if a paper that actually supports the theory of man made global warming but is concerned about how the info. is handled is rejected, not on the merits but because it might hurt the cause...imagine actual skeptical papers and how they are treated...

Have you read the paper that was rejected? If so could you please post a link as I would love to read it. If you haven't then you really have no idea of the reason it was not accepted.
:asian:

 

[billc]

Well, this is what was reported as to what the scientist reviewing the paper for submission said...

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.
The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”

 

[billc]

Just found this...

The Bullying of Bengtsson and the Coming Climate Disruption Hypocalypse « Roy Spencer, PhD

Lennart Bengtsson being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers.


I predict history will not treat them kindly, and the reputation of all climate scientists will be tarnished in the process. As it is, the public who pays our salaries are already laughing at us.


Some of us (Christy, Lindzen, myself and others) have put up with many years of unfair treatment by a handful of activist gate-keeping colleagues who stopped our papers from being published or proposals from being funded, sometimes for the weakest of reasons.


Sometimes for entirely made-up reasons.


What makes the Bengtsson case somewhat unusual is his high profile. A Director at ECMWF. Then Max Planck Institute. He was at ECMWF when that organization became the top weather forecasting center in the world. He knows the importance of models providing good forecasts, with demonstrable skill — exactly what the climate models do not yet provide.


That climate models do NOT provide good forecasts with demonstrable skill should concern everyone. But as Bengtsson has found out, a scientist advertises this fact at their peril.


Bengtsson has always been a little skeptical, as all good scientists should be. After all, most published science ends up being wrong anyway.


But once he became more outspoken about his skepticism, well…that’s just unacceptable for someone of his stature. That his treatment should lead him to worry about his health and his safety tells us a lot about just how politicized global warming research has become.


This bad behavior by the climate science community is nothing new. It’s been going on for at least 20 years.

I have talked to established climate scientists who are afraid to say anything about their skepticism. In hushed tones, they admit they have to skew the wording of papers and proposals to not appear to be one of those “denier” types.

As I have always said, if you fund scientists to find evidence of something, they will be happy to find it for you. For over 20 years we have been funding them to find evidence of the human influence on climate. And they dutifully found it everywhere, hiding under every rock, glacier, ocean, and in every cloud, hurricane, tornado, raindrop, and snowflake.


So, just tell scientists 20% of their funds will be targeted for studying natural sources of climate change. They will find those, too.


It’s not like they will have to look very hard. The 17 year hiatus in warming, which no one predicted, and which the climate models can’t even explain, tells us that Mother Nature is also involved in climate change.


If nature can cause enough global cooling to cancel out anthropogenic warming, it can also cause global warming. It must, because natural changes are cyclical.


I think we might be seeing the death throes of alarmist climate science. They know they are on the ropes, and are pulling out all the stops in a last ditch effort to shore up their crumbling storyline.

And specifically to this thread...which should make all those fearful souls happier...

The latest example is the highly speculative theory that, after only 40 years of watching an Antarctic glacier, we have a few scientists extrapolating out to 200 to 1,000 years a “collapse” of a portion of the ice sheet. The media presents it as something that sounds imminent and unavoidable. Governor Brown then says it will inundate LAX airport, even though at 125 ft elevation, the greater threat to LAX is probably sliding into the ocean from a mega-earthquake, or an invasion by extraterrestrials.


Unfortunately, now every tornado and El Nino in the coming months will be pointed to as proof positive they were “right” all along….as if those events didn’t happen before we started driving SUVs. The news media, filled with frustrated creative writers who are trying to change the world, will be only too happy to hype a screenplay-worthy storyline around the latest science claim by some obscure activist scientist.

 

[pgsmith]

Do you know what it is Ballen...back before we all had to "adapt" because they started taxing everything and forcing things on us for our own good, a family could live well on one adult working...and do well. Now...the economy has adapted, and both parents have to work, sometimes more than one job each, and the kids are raised by everyone but the parents...because they both work...but we adapt...

While I generally hate debating with billc, this is something that definitely gets me riled up. So many people lament that it's impossible to live on a single paycheck today. To all of those people I call BS. This is whining pure and simple, and has nothing to do with reality. I have frineds that survive on a single paycheck. I did the math myself not too very long ago. The reason that both parents have to work is because those parents, and their kids, want all the things that weren't necessary back in the "good old days". Things like cable TV, smart phones, microwaves, designer shoes, jeans, and handbags, large screen TVs, new cars, air conditioning. I had none of these things when I was young and we lived on my Father's income. Both parents working is due purely to the influence of our consumer society. Blaming people's greed and stupidity on taxes and the government is an excuse, plain and simple.

 

[billc]

Yeah, well if the government didn't take so much of their money then they wouldn't have to work two jobs to get the things that they want out of life...who cares if they want all those things...that would be "THEIR" choice, not yours...and is it right for the government to take so much of their money that they have to work two jobs to get those things...simply because the government takes that much money out of their pocket...money they earned, through their hard work...?

Who are you exactly to tell those people what they need or should want? Why is it greed to want a smart phone, or microwaves or jeans or designer shoes...life is to be lived and experienced and their choices on how to live it and experience it are nobody's business but theirs.

Why should the government take so much from people that they have to make that choice...just to line the pockets of politicians who enter office poor and leave rich...off of the money and influence they get from the very people you are criticizing...why is it better for a truly greedy politician to spend that money rather than the people who actually earned it...?

Remember...all those things you condemn...cable t.v., designer shoes, jeans, microwaves...are created by other people...who earn money to make those things for other people...and then use that money to support their families...if you don't want those things...good for you...I just enjoy to no end when people tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy...

Here is an idea...why don't you list all of your belongings...that way I and the other posters here on Martialtalk can decide which of those things you need, or should have...that should be a fun exercise...don't you think?

The reason two people have to work today is the government takes too much money from us...that is the truth...why should people have to live as primitively as cavemen simply to feel pure of heart because you think "consumer society" is a bad thing. It was that society that also created all the good things,in life, from wonder medicines to ice cream and putting on a holier than thou attitude in defense of corrupt politicians is silly...

I'm more than willing to continue this on another thread to prevent thread drift...

 

[Makalakumu]

While I generally hate debating with billc, this is something that definitely gets me riled up. So many people lament that it's impossible to live on a single paycheck today. To all of those people I call BS. This is whining pure and simple, and has nothing to do with reality. I have frineds that survive on a single paycheck. I did the math myself not too very long ago. The reason that both parents have to work is because those parents, and their kids, want all the things that weren't necessary back in the "good old days". Things like cable TV, smart phones, microwaves, designer shoes, jeans, and handbags, large screen TVs, new cars, air conditioning. I had none of these things when I was young and we lived on my Father's income. Both parents working is due purely to the influence of our consumer society. Blaming people's greed and stupidity on taxes and the government is an excuse, plain and simple.

 

[pgsmith]

Yeah, well if the government didn't take so much of their money then they wouldn't have to work two jobs to get the things that they want out of life...who cares if they want all those things...that would be "THEIR" choice, not yours...and is it right for the government to take so much of their money that they have to work two jobs to get those things...simply because the government takes that much money out of their pocket...money they earned, through their hard work...?

Who are you exactly to tell those people what they need or should want? Why is it greed to want a smart phone, or microwaves or jeans or designer shoes...life is to be lived and experienced and their choices on how to live it and experience it are nobody's business but theirs.

Why should the government take so much from people that they have to make that choice...just to line the pockets of politicians who enter office poor and leave rich...off of the money and influence they get from the very people you are criticizing...why is it better for a truly greedy politician to spend that money rather than the people who actually earned it...?

Remember...all those things you condemn...cable t.v., designer shoes, jeans, microwaves...are created by other people...who earn money to make those things for other people...and then use that money to support their families...if you don't want those things...good for you...I just enjoy to no end when people tell other people what they should or shouldn't buy...

Here is an idea...why don't you list all of your belongings...that way I and the other posters here on Martialtalk can decide which of those things you need, or should have...that should be a fun exercise...don't you think?

The reason two people have to work today is the government takes too much money from us...that is the truth...why should people have to live as primitively as cavemen simply to feel pure of heart because you think "consumer society" is a bad thing. It was that society that also created all the good things,in life, from wonder medicines to ice cream and putting on a holier than thou attitude in defense of corrupt politicians is silly...

I'm more than willing to continue this on another thread to prevent thread drift...

Marginal income tax rates 1950 --- minimum 20% maximum 91%
Marginal income tax rates 2013 --- minimum 10% maximum 39.6%

Data courtesy of taxfoundation.org US Income Tax Rates History

Wonderful rant Bill, made my ears bleed a bit with that high pitched whining. Exactly right as usual though.

 

[billc]

Yeah, well if the government didn't take so much of their money

Yeah, I guess in your world you only pay income tax....you don't eat, drive a car, run a business, by stuff, own a house...all of which get taxed, and assessed fees from local, state and federal taxing bodies...but it must be nice for you...

http://www.wanttoknow.info/c/f-what-percent-does-average-american-pay-total-taxes

How much tax do we really pay?






Item Rate Notes
Federal personal income tax 17%
(2011 est. - 18.2%) Top 39.6% rate. Source
State & local income taxes 10.1%
(2009 - 10.6%) State taxes range from under 6% to over 12%. Local taxes run from zero to 2.75%. Source, source, source, 2009 source
Sales tax 9.7%
(2009 - 10.3%) Figure is the average rate. State sales taxes range up to 8% and local taxes run from zero to over 5%. Source, source, 2008 source (broken link as of 2012), 2009 source 2011 source
Social security & Medicaid 7.65% Total rate is actually 15.3% since half is paid by the employer, but we're ignoring that to be kind and to avoid being accused of being too political.
Federal corporate income tax share 3% Based on corporate taxes being approximately 1/6 of personal taxes, and that they are paid by individuals in the final analysis.
Property tax 2.5%
(2007 - 2.7%) Yearly average actual costs range from under $200 in Alaska to almost $1900 in New Jersey. Source
Fuel/gasoline tax .5%
(2009 est. - .6%) Approximately 23% of the 2005 gasoline price is for federal & state taxes. The federal excise tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Per the CPI, about 6% of the average budget is for transportation. Estimated. 2010 estimate, $.45 per gallon average. Source
Other 6%+
(2009-2013 - 8%+) Includes estate tax, fees, licenses, inflation losses, inheritance, deficit allowance, gift, and others too numerous to mention. Estimated.

 

[pgsmith]

Yeah, I guess in your world you only pay income tax....you don't eat, drive a car, run a business, by stuff, own a house...all of which get taxed, and assessed fees from local, state and federal taxing bodies...but it must be nice for you...

What Percent Does the Average American Pay in TOTAL TAXES?

Actually Bill, I live in the real world and have worked hard to earn everything I have, and I have everything I need. I guess in your world you don't have to accept any responsibility for your position in life since it's obviously someone else's fault that you don't have enough money for all of the things that you want. Those darn Democrats have stolen all your money so you can barely afford the computer you spend so much time on. Must be sad for you ...

 

[billc]

Actually Bill, I live in the real world and have worked hard to earn everything I have, and I have everything I need.

Well, you seem ready and willing to judge the work and needs of others so to you I say...how do you know you worked hard for what you have...who are you to judge that...how do you know what you need...who are you to judge that? Since it is up to others to judge the wants and needs of others you would be a poor judge of what you want and need...according to your judgement of others...

 

[pgsmith]

Well, you seem ready and willing to judge the work and needs of others so to you I say...how do you know you worked hard for what you have...who are you to judge that...how do you know what you need...who are you to judge that? Since it is up to others to judge the wants and needs of others you would be a poor judge of what you want and need...according to your judgement of others...

Oh no no no ... I am not judging others. Please point out where in any of my posts I judged others. Who I am judging is YOU. YOU are the one whining and crying about how the sea monkeys, err ... I mean the Democrats, are taking all of your money. You are the one crying about how it's not like the "good old days" when we could get by on a single income. I judged nobody but you, and refuted your ranting and whining and complaining. Then, rather than trying to understand that it's really your own fault and that your complaining is doing nothing to make things better, you resort to trying to put me down for pointing out how faulty your reasoning is.

You occassionally make a decent point, but it's almost impossible to see those few instances for the huge river of rhetorical drivel that you spout. Here's some judgement for you ... I think it would benefit you greatly to ruminate upon the old adage that less is more.

Cheers,

 

[ballen0351]

Oh no no no ... I am not judging others. Please point out where in any of my posts I judged others. Who I am judging is YOU. YOU are the one whining and crying about how the sea monkeys, err ... I mean the Democrats, are taking all of your money. You are the one crying about how it's not like the "good old days" when we could get by on a single income. I judged nobody but you, and refuted your ranting and whining and complaining. Then, rather than trying to understand that it's really your own fault and that your complaining is doing nothing to make things better, you resort to trying to put me down for pointing out how faulty your reasoning is.

You occassionally make a decent point, but it's almost impossible to see those few instances for the huge river of rhetorical drivel that you spout. Here's some judgement for you ... I think it would benefit you greatly to ruminate upon the old adage that less is more.

Cheers,

Well since Bill is not you then you are judging others

 

[billc]

pgsmith:

Blaming people's greed and stupidity on taxes and the government is an excuse, plain and simple.

Hmmm...that isn't judging other people...who you don't know...but seem to be judging...since you judged them to be greedy and stupid...yeah, totally not judging there...

And for you, I'm not the one complaining, I am saying that the government takes too much of peoples money and you are the one condemning their "greed and stupidity" and "judging" them for how they live their lives...and since you have no idea how I live you make a lot of dumb assumptions...

Yeah and this is for you...

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...-the-crushing-tax-burden-on-americas-families

In 1950, the average American family with children paid only 2 percent of its income to the federal government in taxes. Today that same family pays 24.5 percent.
The average family now loses $10.060 per year of its income due to the increase in F5 federal taxes, as a share of family income. This tax loss exceeds the annual cost of the average home mortgage.
A are included the government now takes 37.6 percent of are not aware that they are really working to support Uncle raise their famiy''s standard of living. Among marrieci-couple families the husband and wife are employed, two-thirds of the wie''s earnings go family wi th children federal taxes; only one-third goes to supporting the family 1 2 These figures include federal income and Social Security taxes.
This figure includ es federal income tax. Social Sdty taxes, fedaal indirect taxes, and state and local taxes. The author wishes to thank Chris Edwards of theTax Foundation for providing this infonnation Note: Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflectin g the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.
A If federal taxes as a share of family income were restored to the 1950 levels, the aver age employed mother in a two-parent family could lea ve the labor force entirely and the family would see only a modest drop in post-tax income, compared with the fam iy''s post-tax income under tody''s tax rates.
During the past four decades, the federal income tax burden on a family of four has in creased by over 300 percent as a share of family income. Single Americans and married couples with no children have escaped most of this tax increase.
Measured by average after-tax per capitaincome, families with children now are the lowest income group in America. Their average after-tax income is below that of eld erly households, single persons, and couples without children.

80. Thus, the annual family income loss due to increased federal tax rates for the average family in the last four decades actually exceeds the annual cost of an average family home mortgage.
Family Time Famine. The loss of income due to rising taxes also helps explain why so many mothers have felt compelled to join the work force to make ends meet. For the average family in which both the husbandand wife equal about 34 percent of total family hcome2 The average employed mother, juggling her job and family demands, knows only too well that despite her efforts the paychecks she brings home do not seem to be raising her familys living standard very much. The reason: only about one-third of her earnings actually are taken home for the familys budget. The remaining two-thirds of todays mothers earnings pay the higher federal taxes on family income levied since World War II. In fac t, if federal tax rates as a percent age of family income were restored to 1948 levels, and if the average employed mother in a two-parent family were to leave the labor force entirely, the family would see only a moderate dip in real post-tax income.

 

[Steve]

Since we are playing the rules lawyers, others is plural. Billc is other, not others. Person, not people.

So, since you guys like to fart around with crap like this, he does not, by his own description, judge others. He judges other. He doesn't judge people. He's judging person.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

Since we are playing the rules lawyers, others is plural. Billc is other, not others. Person, not people.

So, since you guys like to fart around with crap like this, he does not, by his own description, judge others. He judges other. He doesn't judge people. He's judging person.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Either way he was wrong

 

[pgsmith]

Either way he was wrong

Nope, not in my opinion I'm not. Just because an article somewhere says that something is true, does not necessarily make it so. Quoting said article, that may or may not be true, as a way of proving a point is rhetorical chest beating, and not actually attempted learning or discourse. This quote is from the very beginning of the article ...

(Archived document, may contain errors)

I gave Bill facts and easily verifyable figures. In return, he gave me a ten year old article written by a partisan organization that offers no proof of the veracity of their calculations. I told the fellow that he would be better served by whining less and working more to change things more to his liking. His response was to whine some more. Don't see how that makes me wrong.

 

[ballen0351]

Nope, not in my opinion I'm not. Just because an article somewhere says that something is true, does not necessarily make it so. Quoting said article, that may or may not be true, as a way of proving a point is rhetorical chest beating, and not actually attempted learning or discourse. This quote is from the very beginning of the article ...
I gave Bill facts and easily verifyable figures. In return, he gave me a ten year old article written by a partisan organization that offers no proof of the veracity of their calculations. I told the fellow that he would be better served by whining less and working more to change things more to his liking. His response was to whine some more. Don't see how that makes me wrong.

That's not what I was commenting on. But I don't really care so ok your correct...better?????