catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Open forum 11/11/06

with 268 comments

Advertisements

Written by Admin

November 11, 2006 at 6:37 am

Posted in Uncategorized

268 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I haven’t read it yet, but Marginal Revolution is pointing to a new blog with a wonderful sounding name, No – Pigou Club
    http://nopigouclub.blogspot.com/

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 11, 2006 at 7:39 am

  2. Good call Jason!

    Rafe Champion

    November 11, 2006 at 8:35 am

  3. I confess that I have absolutely no understanding of economics. That fact is strongly reinforced when I read words like this from Alan Kohler in this morning’s SMH:

    “In particular despite the huge flow of money into superannuation, or perhaps because of it, Australians are not saving.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/debt-forced-stevens-hand/2006/11/10/1162661896747.html

    I’d always had the quaint notion that superannuation contributions were a principal form of private savings. Just shows how wrong you can be.

    whyisitso

    November 11, 2006 at 8:40 am

  4. whyisitso.

    You need to read George Reismans opus alongside the Nordhaus/Samuelson text.

    If you have them both together you have a fair representative of the mainstream fallacies. And then you have the bloke who has, more then anyone still living, sorted out the relative truth or falsehead of these things.
    >>>>>>>>>

    Sinclair….. Dude… I mean this Coase thing was a bit of a break-through no doubt.

    But no need to be a mindless extremist about these things.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 4:52 pm

  5. welcome back Graeme! I thought you’d gone walkabout or something …

    Jason Soon

    November 11, 2006 at 4:54 pm

  6. Using the gasoline tax as an imperfect substitute for rational road pricing is rather silly. I can go along with that. The legacy of Pigou has overall been a detrimental one. However proper road pricing has nothing to do with imperfect and ill conceived Pigouvian taxation.

    Jason Soon

    November 11, 2006 at 5:00 pm

  7. “You need to read George Reismans opus alongside the Nordhaus/Samuelson text”

    Gee thanks birdy. Not. I guess I’ll just have to continue to be guided in these things by Alan Kohler!

    whyisitso

    November 11, 2006 at 5:27 pm

  8. whisitso.

    I don’t get it?

    I don’t get the joke. I don’t know who Alan Kohler is.

    I was trying to save you time by figuring out the quickest way for you to catch up on your mental handicap. Your economics deficiency.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Humprey.. or his blog… I’m not sure 100% which.. will not let this post through.

    So

    In my frustration……

    I’ll repost it here:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    OK.

    Now the thing is I’m right about global warming and you guys are wrong.

    Before we can sort out the best policy implications we have to get the science right.

    We have three very good summary reports on where the science is now. Or at least at where the science WAS at the time each report was compiled.

    These summary reports are what you get from going to the various specialists in their fields….. Not going to them and asking them their opinion on world-wide taxation. Or on renewables or any of that JIVE!!!!

    But instead going to the various specialties and finding out the concrete facts of the situation.

    In this regard one ought pay scant attention to whether the specialist himself is for or against a carbon tax.

    One ought not consult these guys expect to clarify the state of things within their narrow specialities.

    The three excellent reports, relevant to this subject:

    There is the one by wonderful, brilliant scientist-and-libertarian, Art Robinson (et al)….. which is attached to the Oregon petition.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

    Then there is the new one by that fellow Monkton.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=LKPUPM2TWL1M5QFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0

    And also there is this one by David C Archibald.

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

    Now this last one by David Archibald is very interesting.

    Because as far as I can make out he was just finding out the implications of what was a very strong consensus within the solar science specialists………

    He was merely following through the implications of the consensus forecast to do with SOLAR CYCLES 24 AND 25.

    Now its not David C Archibald who did the original research regarding solar cycles 24 and 25. He merely worked through the implications.

    If Solar cycle 24 was to be a very strong cycle. And solar cycle 25 was to be a weak cycle it would be quite difficult to make a good prediction of how that would pan out in the climate, particularly with all this CO2 around- A new circimstance in recorded history.

    But what Archibald found was just amazing. Because since the solar people were claiming TWO VERY WEAK CYCLES IN A ROW he was justified, and in fact the only conclusion he could come to, was that WE, were entering a very strong cooling phase.

    A strong cooling phase wherein the average global temperature was going to drop by around 1.5 degrees (being conservative).

    Now I ask you? Did you hear that from these tendentious bastards at real-climate? Do you think that THESE assumptions were part of the modelling at the U(nited) N(azis)?

    Do you suppose that this idiot, Lambert at the ultimate anti-science-commie-site Deltoid were going to inform us about this?

    Did Quiggin factor this former solar consensus into his thinking and report this to us at his own hateful blog?

    The state of the science community is so very very bad that this revelation came as a scoop to Archibald. Yet his striking conclusion was pretty inescapable.

    But now it seems a new prediction is out. And instead of cycles 24 and 25 being both weak solar cycles, it appears that solar cycle 24 is going to be a really big bastard. And that cycle 25 is going to be the weakest in centuries.

    I suspect that it will be too difficult to draw any strong conclusions as to how things will pan out with the new forecast. And I do not yet know if this is the consensus forecast. And on top of that I cannot find anyone willing to take a punt on cycle 26.

    But this is not the important thing to note here. The important thing to note is these cranks and charlatans at Quiggins site, and at the UN-division for:

    scientist junkets, and bad-scientist power-seekers, and global taxation……

    The important thing to note is that these cranks at the UN and at Deltoid and in the alarmist community more generally didn’t appear to be the least bit fucking interested as to what the Sun-Watchers had to say.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Alright everybody.

    Now the thing is you guys are not going to be able to come up with evidence for catastrophic global warming.

    What you will find instead is an inbuilt planetary bias to catastrophic cooling which has been around for 39 million years and which has, if anything, grown steadily worse over that time.

    The important thing, when you look in the evidence closet and find it to be bare…. is not to run away…. not to get distracted…. but instead to admit that I’m right and you are wrong.

    And from there, and only from there, can we begin to sort out rational policy.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 5:50 pm

  9. Graeme
    It might be you have too many links in it. You should drop a comment to tell them it’s in moderation.

    Jason Soon

    November 11, 2006 at 5:54 pm

  10. I dropped about 5 comments to that affect.

    Unfortunately I may have to put it down to bad timing. And cannot put the blame on him directly.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 6:02 pm

  11. Whyisitso,

    GMB was being correct in pointing out the mainstream fallacy, Alan Kohler is a journo not an investment advisor so what he says should be judged as an opinion piece only.

    Kohler is confused by equating saving as being money in the bank. Most everybody knows that money in the bank loses value over time so they invest in other areas, property, shares and super.

    rog

    November 11, 2006 at 6:14 pm

  12. Christ, Birdy, are you still pushing this “Solar cycles 24 & 25” paper?

    How do explain away Archy’s ridiculous method of extrapolating temperature variation based on 5 “smoothed out” measurements from rural US weather stations?

    JohnZ

    November 11, 2006 at 6:20 pm

  13. Whats to explain?

    Did you expect him to use city data when there is that heat island effect.

    Would you have done that?

    See he’s a scientist. You are a wanker. Now you might have used polluted data but you cannot expect him to do so.

    And in any case the later years of that data are verified by satelitte.

    What exactly is your problem?

    You are being an idiot.

    What can he do? Is he supposed to purposely pervert his data just to appease anti-science idiots like you?

    No you see I don’t think thats what a scienctist is supposed to do.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 6:25 pm

  14. No no idiot.

    There is nothing ridiculous about the way David has used the data.

    Now it might have been nice if there had been MORE DATA for the earlier period.

    But not Archibald DID NOT abuse the data. You are full of shit. And not worthy to carry a real scientists wet moldy old underpants.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 6:28 pm

  15. OK.

    Now that JohnZ’s bullshit has been dealt with, its important that we press forward and ignore these idiots weapons of mass distraction.

    I’ve left three links to help people come to grips with the subject. All of them astoundingly good.

    But in some ways its Archibalds that is the most astounding in what it reveals.

    And that its conclusions may have been overtaken by new information that has only come to the notice of the public this year is neither here nor there.

    Now notice that JohnZ’s irrelevant and invalid criticism in no way detracted from the main thrust of Archibalds argument…. And on top of that does not constitute evidence for CATASTROPHIC global warming.

    Have you FOUND any evidence for CATASTROPHIC global warming JohnZ?

    No.

    I didn’t THINKSO!!!!

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 6:36 pm

  16. Jason, this is what catallaxy has become: http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2035

    Sad really.

    Boris

    November 11, 2006 at 6:48 pm

  17. Alan Kohler is one of the best economic/business journos around (along with Terry McCrann, who is the best). Alan is looking at savings as a component of the balance of payments accounts. Australia has a current account deficit and, by definition, doesn’t ‘save’ enough. That’s all very well in the class room, but I don’t quite understand what that means in practice. For example, as Kohler says Australians have tonnes of money in super, Australians also have a high level of stock market participation, and Australia has a high level of home ownership. Individual Australians are okay on the savings front, but on the BoP front it doesn’t look good.

    The real question is whether BoP numbers really mean anything. In my (humble) opinion, they don’t. Australia has a floating exchange rate (something the hard core Austrians don’t approve of – they are wrong, sorry Graeme), in that environment BoP ceases to be of any interest. Also, Australians are able to issue debt in Aussie dollars – a big plus. Now Kohler makes the point that all this depends on the credit-worthyness of Australian households. Well, yes. That is always true. However, privatre debt is good, it provides hard incentives. Public debt is a signof moral and economic failure. The commonwealth (for all their other faults) understands this and had no net debt – the states don’t.

    So, at the end of a long story, I’m not worried about low savings manifest in a trade deficit. Kohler shouldn’t be either. Whyisitso’s instincts are correct.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 11, 2006 at 6:53 pm

  18. Don’t be an asshole Boris.

    What’s your point?

    Thats a path-breaking thread.

    Did you know that the alarmists had no evidence for CATASTROPHIC global warming?

    Well you’ve got a climate-science mate. So it may be old hat to you but its not generally known.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 6:53 pm

  19. “The real question is whether BoP numbers really mean anything. In my (humble) opinion, they don’t. Australia has a floating exchange rate (something the hard core Austrians don’t approve of – they are wrong, sorry Graeme”

    What are you talking about?

    Nothing wrong with floating exchange rates.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 6:55 pm

  20. Aren’t you the ‘tight money’ man? Who believes in commodity money? That’s consistent with fixed, not flexible, exchange rates.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 11, 2006 at 6:59 pm

  21. No you don’t fix the price of any money.

    You only standardise the weight of metals. And make sure no-ones debasing the bullion or the metal. Or pretending to have some in store that they don’t have.

    There is no fixing any exchange rates.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 7:03 pm

  22. Okay. But isn’t that imposing a strong form of purchasing power parity on all economies?

    While you’re at it, have a read of this (pdf file):
    http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj25n3/cj25n3-13.pdf

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 11, 2006 at 7:12 pm

  23. No it isn’t.

    Look I never said anything about the United Nazis? I never said anything about a superpower mandating competitive (yet non-fractional-reserve) money.

    There is no mandating anything. We ought to just get the right competition policy going in our country right now.

    No-one needs to MANDATE exchange rates. But its true that there would be totally seamless trade if all metallic monies were 100% backed.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 7:20 pm

  24. Bird, the problem is not that he used rural stations, it’s that he only used 5 of them and all in the one country.
    There are literally hundreds of stations in the US, and thousands worldwide.

    Why did he choose a small, skewed sample?

    JohnZ

    November 11, 2006 at 7:22 pm

  25. Oh come on Boris, the language may have been a tad colourful but it was an interesting debate. don;t tell me you got nothing out of it. GMB and John were just doing their usual dance with each other.

    Jason Soon

    November 11, 2006 at 7:30 pm

  26. You idiot.

    What is your point?

    Are you saying you have other data that you can add to his data-set?

    Are you claiming he left out non-polluted data from his data-set tendentiously?

    If so can you back that up?

    And then how can you reconcile that the hot air balloons and the satelites back this up more or less.

    Now if you have other data because he’s a proper scientist I’m sure he’d welcome the extra data.

    Or is your point that there isn’t enough data?

    Well thats fine but you’ve got to go with what you’ve got.

    “Why did he choose a small, skewed sample?”

    No you see you are lying. Because you are saying you know the data is skewed. Then that means you know that there is some non-polluted data that has been left out.

    Now why don’t you tell him and fax him the non-polluted data.

    Since an authentic scientist only wants to know whats going on he could very easily integrate this with his other data and rework the findings.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 7:33 pm

  27. “don;t tell me you got nothing out of it. ”

    No of course not. I don’t read such long rambles and I seriously doubt anyone does. Furthermore, while I thought I could contribute to this debate I cannot when it is in this style.

    You see when the debate started many people participated, but when it became a chain of insults, most people left. That is what is going on in catallaxy at large. Serious people are voting with their feet. If it’s fine with you then it’s OK. I must admit I do not know what you could do about it. One measure which could help is limit the size of individual comments.

    Boris

    November 11, 2006 at 7:46 pm

  28. Well Boris?

    How would you have dealt with JohnZ’s stupidity and dishonesty.. and still got across the vital point that these nutballs have absolutely no evidence for catastrophic warming?

    What is your method for getting this important stuff across?

    And has this method ever worked. Or instead, is it not the case, that the lunatics have always ALWAYS thrown the debate off track.

    Actually find me a thread where the lunatics HAVEN’T thrown the debate off track.

    A thread that I’m not on where the alarmists have not successfully buggered the thread and thrown it off track.

    I don’t think you are going to find one.

    But just to be sure.

    FIND THREE.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 7:52 pm

  29. If I produced a paper claiming that the earth was warming on the base of 5 measurement points out of thousands available, you and every other sceptic would never let me hear the end of it.

    Archy has chosen a small sample when a large one is available. This is a sure sign of bad science and most likely cherry picking – there’s no point taking the rest of his paper seriously.

    There are better sceptic arguments than this, Graeme. Don’t hitch your wagon to this nonsense.

    JohnZ

    November 11, 2006 at 9:18 pm

  30. Graeme I told you many times that I cannot stand your abuseive style. It is totally incompatible with my personality. Once I see one line of abuse REGARDLESS of the subejct matter or reasons for your outrage, I switch off and move on. I have become a bore on this site, and I do not want to spoil the party you guys seem to enjoy. Thus I refrained from trying to reason you on the thread. I left it to open forum. I cannot guarantee it’s the last time, but I will try to keep my mouth shut. What is sad though is that it prevents rational debate and drives people away.

    Boris

    November 11, 2006 at 9:33 pm

  31. DO YOU HAVE MORE DATA FOR HIM YOU FUCKING IDIOT JOHN?

    yes or no.

    Do you have more data for him./

    On top of that the data is verified by Satelite.

    Now how many times do I have to fucking go over this again.

    Now its not central to the scoop.

    Do you have more data?

    Did you think he ought to have included heat island perverted data?

    Do you have more data or not you fucking idiot?

    Do you have more data?

    Do you know that he excluded unpolluted data and how did you find this out?

    Have you told him about this other data you have.

    Why are you being such a fucking idiot.

    What part of the thesis do you think you are disproving?

    Is your problem that there isn’t enough data?

    Well fucking Boo Hoo. What can be done about this. You have satelite data and data on the ground.

    What is your problem other then your mental handicap.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 10:02 pm

  32. “If I produced a paper claiming that the earth was warming on the base of 5 measurement points out of thousands available,”

    See you are lying aren’t you.

    Where are these thousands of places that started rural, ended rural and have reliable records.

    And on the other hand since it was immaterial to the wider argument why are you still in denial about the information that has been placed before your fucking marxist eyes?

    And where is your evidence for catastrophic warming you pathetic idiot.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 10:11 pm

  33. I want to make sure that the importance of the Archibald study is understood. And not let anyone dream that JohnZ (the commie idiot) has refuted anything.

    What Archibald showed was that if the former forecast as to the suns activities were to come to pass then we would very soon be going into a world-wide cooling period. And by the 2020’s global temperature would have dropped 1.5 degrees C or more.

    Thats all very clear. And this crap that John is coming up with is just the way that these marxists constantly derail threads.

    As it turns out a new forecast for solar cycles 24 and 25 has come out. But it only came out this year.

    Now THAT refutes Archibalds temperature forecast.

    But this idiocy of JohnZ doesn’t detract one whit from the central thrust of Archibalds evidence.

    Its just that JohnZ has been a sort of Quiggin/Lambert groupie for so long he’s got a perverted anti-science idea of what constitutes a refutation.

    GMB

    November 11, 2006 at 10:17 pm

  34. GMB, your appeal to third parties is pathetic. The moment those third parties see your foul language of abuse and insult they will leave this place in disguist.

    It beggars belief that you fail to understand this obvious fact.

    In this way you do a lot of harm to your cause. And I am particularly upset because on this and a number of other issues I largely agree with you.

    Boris

    November 11, 2006 at 10:51 pm

  35. Boris
    can i pick you up on a little thing? You said you don’t read “abuse”. Isn’t that absudly impossible? You have to read it to know it’s abusive, right?

    JC.

    November 11, 2006 at 11:34 pm

  36. Dear Mr Bird,

    You may, perhaps, be the stupidest man alive. You actually think that there are only five rural weather stations in the entire world and they all happen to be in the US. You can download the data for thousands of weather stations here.

    Feel free to analyze it and share your results with us.

    TimLambert

    November 11, 2006 at 11:38 pm

  37. jc, I am not sure this is particularly interesting. But I start reading and the moment I see something disguisting, I switch off. Litterally. And with Bird, I usually don’t get very far.

    I admit that my attitude may be a bit extreme (sorry different background) but I suspect it is not unique.

    Boris

    November 11, 2006 at 11:48 pm

  38. No probs, boris. You go ahead and complain all you like. I was just making that observation, that’s all.

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 12:01 am

  39. I agree, boris. there’s far too many lefties who come on the site and abuse people. it’s going to be even worse now that the Dems won a few seats. in fact they’re starting to get nauseating as well as abusive since the win.

    I agree with you, lefty abuse needs to stop.

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 12:04 am

  40. Something more important than global warming has just happened.

    You all recall sitting in a Docs/dentist office picking up a WHO magazine and feeling sorry for Kirstie Allley after seeing pictures of her turning into a dreadful porker. Remember how you felt shame and dread for her having to go through life photographed with all the flab hanging down. And the brown low top and cut of jeans…. Yuk.

    Well feel sorrow more Kirstie has shed well over 34 kilos and looks a little better despite the fact that she’s still carrying a little too much lard around the legs.

    Heres the link: http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?f=39&g=b1bd71e9-01bb-49d4-855b-4fbaf32236a3&p=aunews_auaca&t=m164&mediaid=27729

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 12:20 am

  41. “You may, perhaps, be the stupidest man alive. You actually think that there are only five rural weather stations in the entire world and they all happen to be in the US. You can download the data for thousands of weather stations here.”

    No I didn’t say that. You are lying. You must be the most dishonest idiot in the world.

    This is how you lunatics operate. This matter isn’t even the least bit important to the revelation that Archibald came up with (now defunct of course due to a changing forecast as to solar activity).

    Quiggin found a single line in the Monkton report that looked like it was inspired by Gavin Menzies and its just Ho Ho, I can go on believing my idiocy.

    You are after-all a DDT-ban holocaust denier and a complete idiot Lambert.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 5:44 am

  42. You going to retract your lie Lambert you fucking idiot-holocaust-denier. Or you going to just keep lying all the time.

    What part of Archibalds review of the literature do you think you are invalidating by this lie?

    That air temperature DOESN’T correlate with solar activity? We already know that it does.

    Archibald wasn’t doing raw research. He was reviewing the literature and seeing what it implied.

    “…the ones who look back in time find that the earth’s climate moves in lock-step with solar activity”

    Got that Lambert you idiot? Thats the take home story here. Have you reported that finding to your Deltoid lunatic crowd?

    You must be the most idiotic dumb-leftist on the net. Beating out very stiff competition.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:10 am

  43. “jc, I am not sure this is particularly interesting. But I start reading and the moment I see something disguisting, I switch off. Litterally. And with Bird, I usually don’t get very far.”

    Stop being such a goddamn sissy Boris. I’m coming up against the most dishonest, idiotic, abusive, slanderous bunch of ideologues the world has seen since the fall of communism.

    This is the alarmist crowd. Who have done more to pervert the normal practice of scientific discussion then anyone alive.

    Anyone who produces work which disagrees with their eroneous view of the situation is ruthlessly abused.

    Look at Miles running down your pal. Doesn’t even know him. Look at fatty-Lambert. Spends his whole time defaming courageous scientists who are socially-minded enough to speak out against alarmist idiocy…. or yet who are even merely reporting their findings.

    And then we have Quiggin. Constantly putting in the rabbit-punch and not the least bit interested in the actual science.

    Its about time they got some of their own medicine.

    Because they are doing immense harm to your country and mine.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:19 am

  44. Bird –

    My claim is that if I’m allowed to pick and choose from the thousands of available data points, I can produce a trend demonstrating anything you like.

    Do you dispute this?

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 7:28 am

  45. Well yes if YOU were allowed to do that you WOULD pick and choose tendentiously.

    Whereas if I was doing it I’d just look on the map to see what looked to be the best and most unpolluted locations with good records going back to 1905 and I’d use that.

    But you cannot use that diagram to sure up your anti-science alarmism. Since he’s not doing raw research. He’s imputing the implications of other peoples research.

    The real scandal that I’m looking at now is that alarmists think its just fine to use polluted data. That is to say data polluted by the Heat-Island effect. Its like we cannot trust these people to do even the slightest thing right.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 7:47 am

  46. HEAT ISLANDS-The alarmists are a bunch of bums:

    Here is how the Wiki puts it:

    “What is controversial about these heat islands is whether, and if so how much, this additional warmth affects trends in (global) temperature record. The current state of the science is that the effect on the global temperature trend is small to negligible—see below.”

    Get it! They just keep asserting that it doesn’t affect the trends. This allows them to use polluted data.

    We get the same crap almost word for word from realclimate:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=44

    “The current state of the science is that the effect on the global temperature record is small to negligible. More information can be found here.”

    Riiigggggghhhhhhtttt. What this means is these blokes are TOTALLY UNREPENTANT about using polluted data.

    Why not compile the rural-only data and then the total data? And then we would know if the main data had been polluted.

    In fact what you want is to actually know that the measuring posts are pretty unchanged in terms of any heat island effects over the time period you are making the comparison.

    You want to know that these posts are nowhere near a big metropolis. Since as the wiki says….. the heat temperature of the city is enough to ensure that there is a great deal more rain 20 miles down-wind from the city.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 8:06 am

  47. Well yes if YOU were allowed to do that you WOULD pick and choose tendentiously.

    So you concede it’s possible that Archy cherry picked his data?

    Every real scientist is afraid of being accused of cherry picking. If the broader results are consistent with his claim, why didn’t he use them?

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 8:35 am

  48. No its NOT possible since if he did that it would conflict with the satelite data.

    And there is no reason why he WOULD do that since its not going to alter the reality of average air temperatures tracking with solar activity.

    The alarmists are the ones who we ought to mistrust for using polluted data.

    Once again you fucking moron. Archibald is taking the work of specialists in various fields and drawing inferences on what the expertise of others reveals.

    Same with Monkton and same with Robinson.
    …………..

    Now while I’ve been waiting for you next stupid, tendentious comeback which you are only use as a stalling tactic to hide the fact that you have no evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming…..

    While I’ve been waiting for that I’ve tracked down James Annans (JC’s man) making and attempting to make bets with various skeptics.

    He got a bet going with these Russian scientists in 2004.

    Now I don’t want to throw too many aspersions on this fellow before I read what he has to say.

    But by golly that was a supremely stupid bet for him to be making in 2004. It may be with the new forecast for solar activity that he’ll win the bet by sheer fucking luck.

    But how could he have been so stupid to make such a bet in 2004.

    Because had there been a down solar cycle there is just no way NOW WAY that the increase in CO2 in the interim could have overcompensated for that.

    So it seems that we have people ruthlessly RUTHLESSLY ignoring the evidence.

    And whether or not he wins the bet is neither here nor there. Actually its a pretty good bet to be making in 2006. And an unbelievably stupid one to be making in 2004.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 8:48 am

  49. Oh FFS bird, you really are obtuse.

    You concede that a dishonest person could manipulate data by using only 5 points.

    Everyone knows this. Why then did he do it? If the broader data agrees with him, why lay himself open to the charge of cherry picking?

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 8:58 am

  50. Look you idiot.

    He was summarising the findings of other scientists. His conclusions are not based on his own compilations of the data.

    Maybe he’s got better things to do.

    I’ll tell you what. You go looking for data from rural places with good records going back to 1905.

    How long is that going to take you?

    Make sure they are well spaced throughout the continent. And they have to be at least (lets say) 40 miles from any major metropolis. They have to be basically country stations.

    Now how long is that going to take you?

    I mean to collate the continuous data from more then five?

    And why would you do this unless you were doing original research.

    You won’t get to the meat of it will you. Too stupid to come to grips with the truth of it. There is tons of work to show that solar activity and average temperatures track.

    None of your ridiculous bullshit here is going to change that basic reality. It isn’t going to alter the satelite data. And it isn’t going to produce evidence for catastrophic warming when no such evidence exists.

    And it isn’t going to change the prediction that Archibald made (which now could well be defunct for other reasons).

    This absolute stupidity on your part is not material to the argument made. And it shows the depth of your denialism.

    Now tell me how you are dismissing Robinsons and Monktons reports?

    Is that on the basis of one sentence of Monktons that looks like it might have come from Menzies?

    And by the way.

    Have you come up with any evidence for Catastrophic warming yet?

    No you haven’t have you? Anything to run away from the truth.

    Have you come up with anything to show that average temperature isn’t closely correlated with solar activity?

    No you haven’t done that either have you.

    Instead here you are getting stuck in an irrelevant cul de sac of stupid.

    Here you are just stuck on stupid.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 9:15 am

  51. So he cherry picked because he was too lazy to produce credible research.

    Got it.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 9:24 am

  52. Sorry Graeme but John has kicked your ass from here to high heaven. This does look like a case of cherry picking and in any case it’s rather a flimsy foundation to base your opposition to carbon trading or taxation on. You have so many other arguments up your sleeve. Why put all your cards on ths one? Or are you coming to think that your other arguments aren’t as sound as you previously assumed?

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 9:36 am

  53. No don’t be an idiot Jason.

    Clearly you haven’t read the pdf.

    And you haven’t read pdf’s of this nature and you are both ignorant of the situation.

    I just got through reading a pdf where they tracked the Alpine areas in central Europe only.

    Now suppose I said…. Oh your fakes. How come the Alpine areas in Europe only?

    You missed out Africa?

    If missing out Africa isn’t central to the conclusions these guys are drawing from the study then that would be me being a JohnZ idiot.

    Look what it is the JohnZ wants. He wants them to moronically, as if they were automatons, take all the data in the States and crunch all the numbers.

    That seems to be at least what he is about.

    Now why would you do that?

    And what would be the result?

    You would expect them to have more of these stations in the North-East from 1905 wouldn’t you?

    So they’d be biasing the data in favour of the North East.

    What would happen then?

    Well supposing it was perverted in favour of the North-East.

    If the North-East is dependent for its warmth on the North-Atlantic current oscillation the ocean oscillation will pervert the data.

    In this case they chose a representative set from the middle of the country.

    Here are the locations expressed in terms of longatude and latitude:

    (31.3N 89.1W) (32.3N, 83.5W) (32.5N, 92.3W) (35.0N, 82.3W) (32.7N, 84.5W)

    Now lets just pull out the latitudes from this in order of the size of the longitude number.

    31.3, 32.3, 32.5, 32.7, 35.0

    This is all around the mid-range of the country.

    That strikes me as the way to do it.

    Best of all you would want a worldwide average. But since you cannot get that sort of data what are you going to do?

    If you mindlessly (as John seems to want) just get all the stations and add them together thats going to bias everything geographically as well.

    Suppose for instance I was taking temperatures of places by the sea above the arctic circle. Well this would be hopelessly biased by where the oscillation of the ocean currents was at. In fact thats why the arctic is melting and the antarctic isn’t. Its because the arctic depends on its whether on both the solar cycles and the ocean currents.

    So to my mind you would pick out a region not so biased by these oscillations and then get a representative set.

    Not just mindlessly start getting roomfulls of tax-eaters to crunch together any data they can get their hands on regardless of context.

    Now this is not the only solar/air temperture study. There are many many of them.

    And none of them could ever get off the ground if Johns idiotic objections are to be taken seriously.

    Actually this is why the denialists/alarmists may well have been able to ignore the absolutlely fucking obvious fact that the sun drives the whole thing.

    Because they would be in a position to atomise and belittle each and every study in the moronic way that you and John are trying to here.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 10:24 am

  54. I could list every study on temperature/solar relationship in that same way.

    In fact I could likely list every pdf study made on the net.

    And if your name is Lambert or Quiggin or JohnZ… That is to say if you are someone who doesn’t wish to go where the chips fall… You could go through pretty much every one of them and make these similiar objections.

    Brunetti 2003?

    Oh Ho ho. He only studied the Alpine regions…..REFUTED

    Monkton 2006…..

    Oh ho ho. He wrote a sentence that might have came from Menzies…..REFUTED.

    This is just silly talk.

    The study took a representative set… of mid-continent stations, spread out longitudinally but pretty close together by latitude…… Away from the the big cities, and I would assume not too close to the coast… but I might check that sometime.

    Now whats wrong with that?

    Thats science. Few single studies pretend to be THE FINAL DEFINITIVE STUDY….. making obsolete for all time further historical research.

    It takes a profoundly unscientific mind to be thinking that you are going to just grab all the data and throw it together. This is not, nor was it meant to be the final word on historical reasearch into mean temperature trends.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 10:35 am

  55. Let me get this straight, Bird.

    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 11:19 am

  56. No.

    Of course not. Now stop being an idiot.

    What a fuckwit you are. The thing that is being measured isn’t even solar activity.

    You are so fucking lost aren’t you.

    Thats like saying. Now tell me Mr Brunetti. Do you think that measuring only the Alps area gives you solar activity for the whole planet.

    By Allah you are stupid.

    Jason is this the idiot that you reckoned was kicking my ass from here to high heaven?

    Now. How you found any evidence for catastrophic global warming.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 11:55 am

  57. Sorry Graeme. But John makes a very persuasive case that this research is flimsy, a cursory literature review at best.

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 12:02 pm

  58. When I come back I’m going over to Deltoid to see if Lambert has come up with an equally silly rationalisation.

    The thing about what Archibald found out is this.

    While there is a lot of noise in the data (not his data so much as data on this subject more generally) and there is a lot of temperature reconstructions, and sun irradiance reconstructions, the absolute accuracy of which I can only guess at….

    ……. The fact is that the solar physicists were predicting two very weak cycles in a row.

    One wouldn’t have told you what you wanted to know. But looking at all these various graphs from these various studies you can see that where there are two exceptionally weak cycles in a row…

    ….. then it BREAKS THROUGH all that noise…. it BREAKS THROUGH any unreliability of the data. Its something you can see on any of the graphs and there can be no mistaking about it.

    That was why he was able to make such a strong prediction.

    This was predicated on cycle 24 and cycle 25 being exceptionally weak.

    Thats the take home story here. Now they think that 24 is going to be very strong and 25 is going to be record-breaking weak.

    And the graphs I’ve seen, including Archibalds, could not allow you to make such a confident prediction.

    But the two-in-a-row is what would break through any imperfections in the record.

    I don’t know what you fucking expected them to do. Just crunch all available data together I suppose?

    You know this estimating the entire global average temperature. Thats no easy thing. I know that you alarmists make light of that. But you ought to have seen from this exercise that such a calculation has to be a pretty hard thing to do.

    Did they have accurate temperatures in Antarctica to make such a calculation?

    Tell me how you’d go about it.

    Just take a brief holiday from being completely stupid and tell me how you’d set up the data for a comparison between temperatures and solar activity.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 12:11 pm

  59. What a fuckwit you are. The thing that is being measured isn’t even solar activity.

    Wrong. From the paper:

    The temperature profile over the period shows three distinct trends: a relatively
    stable period from 1905 to 1953 averaging 16.3°C, a relatively steep decline of 1.4°C
    over the 15 years to 1968 due to a weak solar cycle 20, and then a slight rise to the
    current day with an average of 15.8°C to 2003. The profile indicates that temperatures

    This just gets funnier and funnier. Still going to defend him, Birdy?

    The truly hilarious thing about it all is how gullible you are. You would cite anything written by anyone just as long as the author was on “your team” and confirming your existing prejudices.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 12:13 pm

  60. Third parties this is how they keep the myth of the likelihood of catastrophic warming in the air.

    They keep throwing it back to the other guy like JohnZ is now.

    They just keep throwing it back, throwing it back, throwing it back…..

    It creates the impression of faults in the other guys argument where there are none.

    And all that time that they keep throwing it back they are offering absolutely no evidence for their contention of catastrophic global warming….. the incorrect and fear-mongering hypothesis by which they plan to extort endless trillions of dollars off of you.

    You will search in vain on Deltoid, or Quiggin, or in the posts of JohnZ, or yet even in real-climate….

    You will search in vain for evidence of catastrophic global warming.

    The need to steal and spend your money is simply assumed as a primary assumption.

    A primary assumption like “I Exist”.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 12:17 pm

  61. I don’t know what you fucking expected them to do. Just crunch all available data together I suppose?

    Why yes, that’s exactly what I expect. Afterall, isn’t the main sceptic argument that we don’t yet have enough data to reliably inform public policy?

    If you’re going to write a paper you’re going to have to crunch some data.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 12:17 pm

  62. No no John. You were wrong. And being an idiot as usual.

    This is what you said:

    They weren’t measuring solar activity at the stations.

    They were measuring temperatures.

    So no. You were wrong.

    What an idiot you are.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 12:22 pm

  63. John, I do not have time to read all of the above, but if I recall corretly, the global termperature rise over the last 100 years is 1 F (or 1/2 C). Is this what we are talking about? If it is then sorry this is not something worth talking about. It is within natural variation.

    That’s not to say that we will not cause significant warming in the future. There are indicators (from models) that we will. But to say that it is happenning now, and that all these draughts and storms are caused (or enhanced) by it is a red herring.

    Boris

    November 12, 2006 at 12:23 pm

  64. I sez:

    I don’t know what you fucking expected them to do. Just crunch all available data together I suppose?

    John Z dumass sez:

    Why yes, that’s exactly what I expect.

    So I sez:

    John you fucking idiot. You are not even TRYING to think rationally are you?

    So you would let the bias of where the stations were historically set up fuck up the whole study for you?

    You sir, are a moron.

    Jason. Is this the fellow you reckon has been kicking me from here to high heaven?

    You cannot be serious.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 12:30 pm

  65. John have you got it straight now?

    That the stations record the temperature?

    You weren’t even trying to grasp what was going on were you.

    You were just copying fatty-Lambert in the practice of mindlessly rejecting the science which goes against catastrophic warming.

    Which of course means mindlessly rejecting the science as such.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 12:33 pm

  66. Have you got that straight yet John?

    And while you are getting that straight can you come up with even the slightest evidence for catastrophic global warming.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 12:37 pm

  67. Bird: Archy measured temperature over 100 years at 5 weather stations, had a look at solar records, noticed a correlation and concluded that the sun caused the change.

    In other words, he’s claiming temperature measurements at 5 US stations tell us something about solar output. Ridiculous, no?

    Boris said:

    But to say that it is happenning now, and that all these draughts and storms are caused (or enhanced) by it is a red herring.

    Boris: I didn’t say that, maybe you should take the time to read what I write next time before playing strawman.
    Sorry to be snarky with you, but that’s exactly the sort of thing JC and Bird do and since you call them on it, I’ll call you on it.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 12:43 pm

  68. OK, John, point taken. I will read all that YOU wrote on the subject here and will come back. But not today. I thought what I wrote was relevant to the debate, but maybe I was wrong.

    But it is definitely what Al Gore was saying. My daughter forced me to watch his movie on the plane.

    Boris

    November 12, 2006 at 1:05 pm

  69. See Bird? You want people backing you up, maybe you should adjust your writing style a little? Boris is your potential ally and he has abandoned you because your style is too much for him. Give Boris his dues and write in a way that doesn’t upset him and you might find some people to back you up.

    Why is JohnZ so persuasive? Maybe because he is so polite and sounds reasonable and is willing to admit when he is wrong?

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 1:07 pm

  70. when has John ever admitted he has been wrong?

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 1:37 pm

  71. He hasn’t had any cause to so far. He was right about the fractional reserve=fraud argument too.

    But the point is Bird is even turning off his allies like Boris who are upset by his style.

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 1:39 pm

  72. What are you talking aboout.

    John made a complete fuckwit of himself just before.

    Now he’s pressing on without even a retraction.

    Jason.

    If I cannot get JohnZ to fucking acknowledge when he gets it wrong can I not even get YOU to acknowledge when JohnZ has gotten it wrong???

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:14 pm

  73. Jason.

    How about you just stop fucking lying for a minute and make John acknowledge that he should have made a retraction.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:18 pm

  74. Mr Bird, estimating a global average temperature is hard, but it’s not that hard. Take the data I gave you, just select the rural stations if you are so worried about urban ones, and take an area weighted average. You can do the area weighted average by dividing up the surface into 5 degree by 5 degree rectangles and averaging stations in the same rectangle and then averaging the rectangles. A couple of hours of work. Or you could use the global average temperature from CRU or GISS or NOAA.

    Archibald’s paper would not have made it past the referees in a proper journal.

    TimLambert

    November 12, 2006 at 2:20 pm

  75. “He was right about the fractional reserve=fraud argument too.”

    Fucking hell. You are even willing to lie about that.

    1. I never said fractional reserve was fraud.

    2. JohnZ never had any edge on me in that argument either. He mad a complete cock of himself.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:20 pm

  76. Have you got it straight yet that you fucked up JohnZ?

    Are you clear on that JohnZ?

    Jason.

    Are you clear that JohnZ had it completely fucked up yet?

    Back in post 53 you said:

    “Let me get this straight, Bird.
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….”

    And I pointed out that they weren’t even measuring solar output at these stations.

    And you pressed on being an idiot and didn’t even correct yourself until post 69.

    But its not as if you said…. “My god I was being a complete fuckwit”

    You just keep blathering on.

    What is your fucking argument idiot?

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:27 pm

  77. “Mr Bird, estimating a global average temperature is hard, but it’s not that hard. ”

    How do you estimate global average temperatures.

    Thats pretty interesting actually. No doubt you can do it.

    But you didn’t show how to do it. You went onto something else.

    How would you estimate global temperatures?

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:30 pm

  78. “He hasn’t had any cause to so far.”

    Take that back Jason. JohnZ’s being an idiot the whole damn time.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:31 pm

  79. JohnZ.

    Do you now admit they weren’t measuring solar activity at those stations.

    Can we get even this simplist of backdowns from you.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:33 pm

  80. JC sez:

    “when has John ever admitted he has been wrong?”

    Jason sez:

    “He hasn’t had any cause to so far.”

    Can I have a retraction here Jason. John was claiming that those stations were measuring solar activity. And when I pointed out he was wrong, that instead they were measuring temperatures he said I was wrong.

    But it was John who was wrong. And he hasn’t owned up yet.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:36 pm

  81. “Mr Bird, estimating a global average temperature is hard, but it’s not that hard.”

    Lets here more about this Lambert. About how you get a global average.

    Because that actually sounds like useful information.

    If you can get it.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 2:38 pm

  82. Here’s Quiggin. Quiggin and Lambert do a sort of alarmist nutball duo. They reference eachother a bunch to create evidence out of thin air. But its not evidence for catastrophic warming. It is instead evidence for dismissing anyone who goes against the alarmist line. Neither of them have been able to conjure evidence for catastrophic warming. So these various putdowns are a sort of substitute.

    Its a left-wingers version of evidence.

    So I got to this Quiggin JIVE through the tendentious Deltoid site.

    Anyway Quiggin said:

    “A. The Lavoisier Group presents a “scientific” critique of the IPCC based on the work of the late astrologer and cycle crank Theodor Landscheidt.”

    Anyway I go to the article he linked which is here:

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/BobFosterPolicymakers.html

    Turns out to be a very good article accurate in every respect.

    And how has he managed to run it down?

    Well down the bottome Bob Foster says:

    “Some claim climate is chaotic, and hence, prediction is impossible. IPCC claims that climate is now driven by human-caused GHG emissions, and change can be modelled—if emissions can be predicted. But the Sun has not resigned from the climate-change game. Furthermore, behaviour of the Solar System is not chaotic; and a well-resourced analysis of the relationship between the solar torque cycle and climate might enable us to do what IPCC cannot do—predict climate change. (Theodor Landscheidt has enjoyed notable success in predicting El Niño events by this means—search “Landscheidt” at http://www.john-daly.com for his innovative work.)”

    Now apparently everything Bob Foster has said in this article is being made dependent on everything Landscheidt has ever said in his life.

    I tell you. Quiggin and Lambert are just lunatics. Not willing to face the truth. And casting these universal aspersions-by-association.

    I mean if the fact is that this guy Landscheidt has had success in making predictions its OK to mention his name.

    Nothing else that Bob Foster has said in the article suddenly becomes invalid BY MENTIONING SOMEONES NAME.

    I’ll try to show just what idiots Lambert and Quiggin are for doing this by showing the technique but in another context.

    Supposing I had hit upon the idea (being a lunatic like Quiggin or Lambert) that Warren-Buffet-like “Focus-Investing” was all wrong and a heresy.

    Now suppose I dismissed Buffet on the basis of him mentioning John Maynard Keynes.

    Well you see he does mention John Maynard Keynes and a good thing. Because though Keynes ideas on Macroeconomics were all wrong, utopian and totally misleading he has some very good things to say about investing and had a very good predictive record.

    The equivalent of this is all Quiggin and Lambert ever do. Hopefully the fathead-holocaust-denier will make himself useful and show me how global average temperatures can be accurately measured.

    Niether Quiggin nor Lambert ever come up with any evidence for catastrophic warming. This casting aspersions on the non-alarmists is all they ever do.

    But in this case they have done you a favour. They have linked Bob Fosters article. And its a very good article and I reccomend you read it.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 3:18 pm

  83. Ha Ha.

    Look at this. Here’s Quiggin again.

    “C. The claim that there is no such thing as global average temperature is one of the many errors of Ross McKitrick”

    Well he’s got two links imbedded here. And guess what? They both go back to that fathead Lambert.

    OK Lambert. Lets hear it. How do you get an accurate estimate of global average temperature?

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 3:34 pm

  84. Jason see what I mean…

    Boris

    November 12, 2006 at 3:43 pm

  85. What the fuck are you talking about Boris.

    These two are the biggest slander-merchants on the internet.

    And the CATASTROPHIC warming fear-mongering is the biggest scientific fraud around at the moment.

    Ergo if there was a God it would be HIS work that I’m doing here.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 3:52 pm

  86. Bird,

    Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.
    He then extrapolates future solar output based on these measurements.

    Ergo, he claims that solar output can be measured from 5 US weather stations.

    PS. Nice work on the consecutive posts – you made it up to 9. Sorry Fyodor but I think we may have set a new record!

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 4:09 pm

  87. “Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.”

    1. Thats better. About time you fucking backed down on that one.

    2. No David Archibald did not go on to claim that solar output can be derived from these measurements.

    So thats something else you have to back down on. And actually I’m a bit pessimisstic that you will back down on that.

    You’ve only made one backdown in the entire time I’ve discussed matters with you. And it was only two minutes ago.

    So I think it would be too much to ask that you back down twice.

    You better read the pdf again and see what it is he was really trying to say.

    Now the thing to remember is this. To you or Jason awash in this propaganda that solar cycles don’t matter…. It might seem that Archibald is trying to single-handedly establish the relationship based on this small data-set.

    I don’t see that at all. But then I’m not affected by that lunatic Quiggin calling people “cycle-cranks” and I’ve gone and read these pdf’s. And its pretty clear its the cycles that drive the whole deal and everything else overlays on that.

    So that CO2 most likely has an effect but it would have to sit on top of what the solar cycles are doing.

    Now I didn’t think that Archibald was balancing the whole of the relationship on this data. Because the relationship is established and nothing he could do, as a reviewer of other peoples work, can add or subtract to that vast work.

    So I just thought, well you know, its a bit of a demonstration, a bit of a visual thing to show the relationship.

    Lambert might have a better idea of how to set things up then I would. I would be just wanting to choose stations where I knew that the Gulf-Stream Oscillation wouldn’t bugger the data, or where the big cities wouldn’t bugger the data either.

    Or if I could get a global temperature I would use that. But on first blush I’d be pretty skeptical as to how you’d go about that. Sounds like bullshit to me but I’ll keep an open mind until fathead makes good with a convincing explanation.

    In any case I might have done it just like Archibald if I didn’t know how to do it better. His data set mirrored the one in the 19th century. And one might like to compare like with like.

    But I wouldn’t think that this would be the ultimate data-set and I wouldn’t think that Archibald thought that either.

    To repeat. He was primarily REVIEWING the state of the literature. He was not trying to break new scientific ground.

    So I don’t see what your problem is. The conclusion was valid given the solar forecast. That the forecast has now changed is nothing to do with him.

    However look at the way the solar cycles work? Its pretty evident that you don’t get continuously high cycles.

    And the solar activity recently has been the strongest its been in 1,150 years. Now as you can see from the pattern of these cycles, thats not a forever thing.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 4:29 pm

  88. Here’s a terrific link to some videos about climate change. A great many Canadian scientists are featured here and some others.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 4:54 pm

  89. Actually, I backed down on nothing. I stand by my original statement 100%. Here it is again:

    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….

    Unless you think it’s possible to measure solar output using some magical solar output meter, measurements are always going to be done through a proxy – e.g. observed luminence, intensity of radiation detected by satellite or in this case, temperature.
    When measuring solar output you are implicitly doing so through some other measure. This is very basic science, Graeme.

    Now let’s have a look at what Archy said later in his paper:

    By comparison with the last data point of Figure 3 of 16° C in 2003, the minimum of
    solar activity associated with Solar Cycles 24 and 25 is expected to result in a
    temperature by late next decade of 14.5° C.

    In other words, he is claiming to have established some function which takes solar cycle activity and returns the projected temperature.

    How did he derive it? It seems to be a linear regression (!!) based on results from the 5 US temperature stations!!!
    You simply can’t make this stuff up!

    So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.

    Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Birdy.
    It is so utterly ridiculous that in the absence of an advanced “astroturf nonsense” detector, it forms a useful proxy for filtering out the dumbest of the climate sceptic organisations.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 5:59 pm

  90. ““Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.”

    No he didn’t.

    YOUR HIGH IQ MAKES ME SWOON IN ADMIRATION (EDIT BY ADMIN)

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:15 pm

  91. “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”

    No you fucking idiot. Stop fucking lying.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:17 pm

  92. why don’t you explain why John is lying, Graeme?

    Show, don’t tell.

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 6:19 pm

  93. Dude. Of course I don’t mind you editing. But can you ask JohnZ to stop lying or get the fuck out of here.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:20 pm

  94. And just remember that Boris WHO ACTUALLY AGREES WITH YOU can’t be bothered reading you because of your swearing, whereas he’s said he’s actually going to go to the trouble of reading John.

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 6:20 pm

  95. Why don’t you explain what he’s lying about?

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 6:21 pm

  96. Can you ask John to stop fucking lying and retract his former lies.

    And you might also ask him to try and actually UNDERSTAND the pdf before he starts the Lamberting.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:22 pm

  97. EXPLAIN WHY he’s lying and I’ll tell him to retract if you can convince me he’s lying. All he’s done is quoted Archy and interpreted him. it looks like JOHN HAS READ THE PAPER.

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 6:25 pm

  98. Point of order here jason

    You said:
    “Why is JohnZ so persuasive? Maybe because he is so polite and sounds reasonable and is willing to admit when he is wrong?”

    And :

    “He hasn’t had any cause to so far. ”

    Which one of these comments is right?

    Z isn’t poilte. He is an extremely irritating individual as I’m sure Cato would attest.

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 6:26 pm

  99. Oh for Petes sakes.

    You are doing the same thing you did with Fyodor.

    You come on. You say he’s winning the argument. Like you have actually kept up with it and know whats going on.

    You tell JC there is nothing he has gotten wrong and so doesn’t need to back down on anything. And now you tell us:

    “Why don’t you explain what he’s lying about?”

    So I take it then that you HAVEN’T read the pdf closely. And therefore have no hope whatsoever to tell whether this commie is lying or not.

    You are flosam and jetsam to these people Jason. These commies know that all they have to do is persist in this sor t of lying and associated bullshit and never backing down when they are wrong or have lied…..

    And you are just going to be won over by this….

    Now notice all this time he’s been lying and getting things wrong he HASN’T BEGUN TO UNDERSTAND THE PDF.

    Nor has he came up with any actual evidence for catastrophic global warming.

    So the commie isn’t even the least bit interested.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:28 pm

  100. John is pleasant enough company, JC. I’ve met him twice already, and in the company of c8to. So unless he’s got a Jeckyll and Hyde JIVE going on, I stand by my character evidence.

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 6:31 pm

  101. “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”

    Jason. You have read the pdf closely enough to know that he’s lying about that have you not?

    Well read it then. But don’t pretend he’s beating me in an argument or that he’s not lying unless you’ve actually read the damn thing.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:32 pm

  102. You explain why he’s lying, Graeme. Why should I be doing your debating for you?

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 6:33 pm

  103. “John is pleasant enough company, JC. I’ve met him twice already, and in the company of c8to. So unless he’s got a Jeckyll and Hyde JIVE going on, I stand by my character evidence.”

    The issue is that he’s lying.

    You just need to read the pdf. And then to read what John has said and you will see that he has gotten a number of things wrong. Then hasn’t backed down. Then he’s lied when he says he has nothing to back down from.

    “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”

    There’s a lie there.

    Now can you ask him to stop lying.

    But I cannot show he isn’t lying unless you read the pdf. And you were wrong to do your Fyodor-boosting act. This is incredibly harmful when you do this.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:37 pm

  104. I won’t do that. But I will retract my previous support for him because I have no idea who is representing the PDF better. How is that?

    I, Jason Soon, who is seen by GMB as some sort of FINAL AUTHORITY, hereby retract any statement of support for JohnZ and will refrain from stating an opinion on THE PDF until I have read it carefully.

    Now EXPLAIN WHY HE IS LYING!

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 6:40 pm

  105. “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”

    Look. When JohnZ is lying he’s lying about SOMETHING.

    In this case he’s lying about the pdf.

    So how can I explain how he’s lying if you won’t read it. And how can you make comments to say that he’s winning the argument if he hasn’t read it.

    He got it wrong then he didn’t retract. Then he lied and pretended he never got it wrong. And then he went right beyond the pale and justt started lying outright. Just flat out. Not even caring whether I knew it or not.

    I say he is a compete asshole and should just fucking go away.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:41 pm

  106. He’s lying because he got it wrong. He thought that the 5 stations were trying to measure solar output. But they were measuring temperatures.

    Then he seems to have discovered his mistake and changed his tune without admitting he’d made a mistake.

    But then he made another false claim about what Archibald thought he was doing. He claimed that Archibald was trying to estmate the activity of the sun via the temperature recordings of these 5 stations. He was doing no such thing.

    Now he knows he got at least one of those things wrong. Because he’s changed things mid-stream. But now he reckons he’s backing down from nothing and he just stridently lies knowing that people will likely not read the pdf.

    Now you will notice that no matter with all this carping lying and playing GOTCHA none of these guys will ever put forward evidence for catastrophic global warming. Not Quiggin, not Lambert and not John Z. They just continue the Lamberting process and are not the least bit interested in finding out the truth of the matter.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:48 pm

  107. OK fair enough. JohnZ should now explain himself.

    But see why I didn’t get involved in the Fyodor business?

    My opinion is no better than anyone else’s here in areas like climate science. I don’t want to be obliged to read every frigging PDF you put out to decide who’s lying and who’s not. I’m not a frigging Justice of the Court for chrissakes.

    If I offer my opinion it is like that of any other participant in this thread, right or wrong.

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 6:52 pm

  108. Good.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 6:55 pm

  109. This comes from what I consider to be the best Economics consulting group in the world IBCA (International Bank Credit Analyst).

    Next time Fred Argy argues that Sweden is heaven on earth refer him to this report that came out in September. I didn’t publish it earlier because it was too close to the time of issue.

    Special Report
    Sweden’s September 17 elections will prove to be a watershed event that could mark the beginning of a sea change for the welfare state: The Social Democrats chalked up their worst ever showing in the polls, demonstrating the population’s clear demand
    for change. The newly elected centre-right alliance of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt is already planning aggressive fiscal reforms, including SEK 40 billion in tax cuts, a reduction in unemployment benefits and sick pay. These reforms are reminiscent of the “supply-side revolution” brought about by Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. and Ronald Reagan in the U.S. in the early 1980s.
    A DECLINE IN THE STANDARD OF LIVING
    Sweden is notorious for its high taxes and generous welfare. Chart 1 shows that Sweden has the highest marginal income tax rates in the developed world, at over 65%. Needless to say, such a system has greatly dampened the entrepreneurial spirit and suffocated the vitality of the economy. Although

    SWEDEN: NORDIC REAGANOMICS?

    the unemployment rate has dropped since 1997, the actual picture is more problematic. By some counts, roughly 30% of the labor force are not working, including those who are on sick leave or on extended studies. Of course, the accuracy of such estimates is always subject to great debate, but what is certain is that the standard of living for the average Swede has been in relative decline for years. Chart 2 shows that Sweden’s per-capita GDP has dropped over 33% relative to that of the U.S. since the 1970s,
    and the trend seems to be continuing. In the early 1990s massive welfare spending created a bloated fiscal deficit. Inflation soared as a result. There were also a series of financial crises that hit the system, driving up interest rates and
    pushing down the krona.Most importantly, burdened with high debt levels
    and an extremely high taxes, Sweden has long faced the choice between deflating or devaluing. With such a large debt overhang, the Swedish authorities
    have had a long-term tendency of resorting to currency devaluations to deal with economic stresses created by over-taxation and slow growth. Sweden has endured four episodes of major currency devaluation since 1976 (Chart 2), resulting in a massive loss of the krona’s value. The trade-weighted krona has lost over 48% of its value since 1976. The population may be getting tired of the welfare
    state, particularly the costs that come with it. The election victory of the central right “Alliance For Sweden” was a reflection of an increasing outcry
    for change from the public. The desire for change is also reflected by the fact that the Social Democrat who had ruled the country almost uninterrupted for more than 80 years – had a disastrous defeat in the September elections.
    Of course there is always resistance to fiscal reforms
    from vested interest groups and it is not clear how far the current government is willing to push through some tough measures. However, the trend seems clear: The Swedish people want the system to change, and these changes will likely come from supply-side reforms. If so, the expected restructuring could bring many exciting profitable opportunities for the Swedish asset markets.
    THE U.S. EXPERIENCE
    A quick examination of 1980s supply-side reforms in the U.S. could help paint a picture of what may ie ahead for Sweden. The election victory of Ronald Reagan in 1980 marked the beginning of the socalled supply-side revolution aimed at lowering
    taxes, reducing labor market rigidities and cutting public spending. The economic philosophy of “Reaganomics” is deeply rooted in the Laffer curve, which is based
    on the simple idea that lower taxes create more tax revenues through the stimulation of economic growth. Although the implementation of President Reagan’s economic and fiscal reform package did not yield immediate results in terms of bringing
    down the fiscal deficit, it did lay the foundation for America’s long-term economic revival and disinflationary growth, which has lasted right through to today.
    There are several interesting points to bear in mind:
    _ The implementation of Reagan’s tax cuts marked
    the beginning of a long-run bull market in both U.S. stocks and bonds, as financial markets discounted the positive impact of supply-side reforms on economic growth, profitability and inflation.
    _ The U.S. dollar rose on Reagan’s tax cuts, although
    then Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker’s tight monetary policy also contributed
    to the U.S. dollar’s strength. In trade-weighted terms, the dollar rose 40% between 1980 and1985
    _ It is interesting to note that the rally in both bonds and the dollar occurred at a time when the U.S. still ran large “twin deficits.”To be sure, the combination of Reagan’s tax cuts and Volker’s tight monetary policy is the unique feature of the 1980s U.S. economic policy. The combination allowed corporate America to reap the
    benefits of lower taxes, better economic growth and increased economic efficiency. At the same time, macroeconomic stability increased via tight money, which eventually brought down inflation and created price stability.
    SWEDEN 2006:
    WHAT CAN BE EXPECTED?
    Sweden faces different conditions today than the U.S. did in the early 1980s, but there are also some important similarities. Several points are worth mentioning:
    _ The Swedish economy has been strong since late
    2004, propped up primarily through a cheap and falling krona. Exports have been particularly strong, while domestic consumption and wage growth have been mediocre at best. _ Unlike the high rate of inflation faced by the U.S.economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s, inflation in Sweden has been falling. It is currently at 1.5%.
    _ There is another major difference. Sweden currently
    has “twin surpluses” while the U.S. had “twin deficits” back in the early 1980s.
    Sweden went through a major fiscal crisis in the mid 1990s when the krona also collapsed. Since then, the government has tightened its fiscal policy
    by cutting spending and raising taxes, a policy that reversed the fiscal imbalances (Chart 4). The problem today is that although Sweden runs a small fiscal
    surplus, the country’s unfunded pension and health liabilities have become so big that they are rapidly becoming a ticking time bomb. This means that further fiscal restructuring is needed to boost the economy’s productivity and generate sufficient growth in order to head off another potential crisis down the road.
    In our view, the announced reforms for the next budget should be viewed as a positive first step to solving the economy’s potential insolvency problems
    as a result of the accumulation of large and growing unfunded liabilities. The planned tax cuts and reduction in unemployment/sick leave benefits should also bring workers back into the labor force, free up more disposable income for economic growth and stimulate labor productivity. The practical question is, what should investors look for in the months and even years ahead, and how can they benefit from Sweden’s supply-side reforms?
    Based on the U.S.’s experiences and given
    Sweden’s unique economic structure, several conclusions can be drawn:
    _ Supply-side restructuring, such as those planned
    in the next budget, are bullish for stocks. Lower taxes stimulate non-inflation growth for the economy, enhance corporate profitability and increase the disposable income of the labor force all bullish factors for the equity market.
    _ The planned reforms will also prove bullish for the
    currency market, which is already cheap. The central bank will likely continue to move rates higher in an effort to normalize interest rates, and the incentive to adopt tighter policy will be increased in view of the expected increase in fiscal stimulus.
    _ The fiscal reforms and expected gains in the
    krona should prove to be supportive for the housing market via higher disposable income levels, better growth and stable inflation. However, a reacceleration in housing prices could also increase worries for the Riksbank, creating conditions for even tighter policy and a stronger krona. Another important point: Sweden has more flexibility to implement tax cuts and fiscal reforms than the euro area, which is tied up by the Maastricht Treaty. Moreover, there is no incentive for European authorities to undertake serious fiscal restructuring, and taxes are going up in Germany. Therefore, it is very likely that both Swedish equities and the krona will outperform their European counterparts due to the divergence in fiscal policy. Overweight Swedish equities versus the Euro STOXX, unhedged.
    Bottom Line: Sweden has relied on a cheap currency
    to deal with fiscal stresses and slow growth over the last three decades, but such a policy has resulted in a relative decline in the standard of living for the Swedish people. The recent election results indicate that the Swedes are fed up with the status quo, and the planned reforms could be a watershed event that marks the beginning of the
    end for welfare-like policies and a move towards the right. This is bullish for the Swedish krona as well as for stock prices.

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 6:59 pm

  110. Your honour – not quite sure what there is to explain.

    From the paper:

    By comparison with the last data point of Figure 3 of 16° C in 2003, the minimum
    of solar activity associated with Solar Cycles 24 and 25 is expected to result in a
    temperature by late next decade of 14.5° C.

    And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!

    So to reiterate, Archy estimates the effect of future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.

    And what was my original statement?

    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….

    What was your answer?

    No.

    Of course not. Now stop being an idiot.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 7:13 pm

  111. Your honour, I move for summary judgement.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 7:14 pm

  112. No thats not reiterating you fucking idiot. Thats changing your story.

    “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”

    No he’s not saying that. So lets see the retraction for this lie/mistake. And for the original one where you thought the stations were measuring solar output rather then temperature.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 7:25 pm

  113. JC,

    when I had a budget way back when I had to justify getting all three from the BCA stable.
    great publications.

    you are misrepresenting Fred however.

    Birdy never like taking anyone lying down!!

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 12, 2006 at 7:28 pm

  114. Johan Norberg wrote an interesting article on the decline of Sweden in the last few decades around the time of the Swedish election. I don’t have a link for it but it was in the Financial Review.

    Sacha Blumen

    November 12, 2006 at 7:30 pm

  115. The fucking idiot is trying to morph-lie his way out of this.

    “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”

    No you really must not lie your way into a corner then attempt to lie your way out again.

    “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”
    No you are lying. Retract this lie idiot.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 7:33 pm

  116. Birdy
    You have been using the C-word again. JC – Birdy has been using the C word again. I am not lettting it through. Tell Birdy that he is not a man of honour, JC.

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 7:36 pm

  117. Birdy behave yourself please. You promsied me you wouldn’t use the word….. Please.

    It was a deal and we shook on it.

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 7:41 pm

  118. Thanks JC.

    Now I have retracted my support for John, Graeme. So don’t complain. You two fight it out properly,

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 7:43 pm

  119. ggggggrrrrrrrrrr.

    Now Jason.

    Do you see how that JohnZ lied again!

    This is a bit of a giveaway as to his commie status. These commies have a bit of a code of honor that they never admit when they are wrong.

    Look at Lambert. He’s wrong all the time. But do you ever see him admit it?

    No.

    GMB

    November 12, 2006 at 7:46 pm

  120. I don’t know whether he’s a commie or not, Graeme. He says he’s a libertarian. I only got to know him because he’s c8to’s friend so he has the c8to seal of approval. Maybe c8to got sucked in too? 🙂

    Jason Soon

    November 12, 2006 at 7:50 pm

  121. Homer

    “when I had a budget way back when I had to justify getting all three from the BCA”

    Don’t be cheap, i buy it myself . It’s made me money. It helped me focus on japan equities when no one was looking at them some while ago and I made a decent cracker.

    Thye’re now saying to go back in. The banks there look pretty good and the yields are ok over there.

    They are saying to watch with the Aussie stock market as it is fully priced and commodities coupld be in a little trouble.

    Homer

    What have I said that misrepresents Fredster? He was telling us how scandi was the best thing since plastic boobs ( please note there are none in the family) and we find out the place is a dung heap of socialism.

    Please explain.

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 7:51 pm

  122. Bird, you seem to be fairly slow tonight so I’ll spell this out for you very carefully. Read it in GREAT DETAIL before replying.

    1) Archy takes temperature readings from 5 US stations.

    2) He looks at sunspot activity at the same time and notes a correlation.

    3) He measures the change in solar output during that period. Get it? He measured solar output.

    4) He projects future temperature changes using these results.

    Now, before you hit reply read it again.

    One more time.

    Ok. Now reply with something sensible this time.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 8:26 pm

  123. Just had another read over my post and thought I could expand a point a little. There’s an outside chance we may be able to save 20 “your lying” posts.

    (3) Should read:

    He measured the change in temperature, and through it measured the change in solar output.

    He then used this relationship to project future temperatures based on future projected solar cycles.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 8:48 pm

  124. John
    Is this explanation the same as the time you said house prices here had doubled because of zoning laws?

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 9:40 pm

  125. Ouch! I just felt something nip at my ankle.

    Yip yip yip!

    Shhhhhh. Sit. SIT!

    Stay.

    Good boy.

    JohnZ

    November 12, 2006 at 10:01 pm

  126. JohnnyZ

    Your scaring me . you’re starting to sound like Fyodor with his bird sounds when he ran out oif things to say.

    Get back to topic boy.

    JC.

    November 12, 2006 at 11:13 pm

  127. Make the series of retractions fuckhead.

    What a fucking idiot to be lying about this after all this time.

    You are fucking trying to morph-lie your way back it.

    What a prick you are.

    Don’t carry on until you’ve retracted from your earlier lies and mistakes.

    “Let me get this straight, Bird.
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….”

    Correct your earlier idiocy before morphing your story fuckhead.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 2:45 am

  128. Bird, you’re not very good at playing “gotcha”. Leave it to the pros. Since you seem to have trouble grasping the meaining of the word “proxy”, I’ll spell things out for you:

    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output through a temperature proxy based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 7:20 am

  129. JC,

    Don’t have the money to justify it.

    Fred took one facet of Sweden and said we could look at that.
    Go back to CT and find out yourself.
    You are being grossly unfair to what Fred elucidated.

    You can some things from various countries.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 13, 2006 at 11:59 am

  130. Homer
    you need xxplain how I am being unfair.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 12:04 pm

  131. JC,

    go back to CT and actually read what Fred wrote.

    He doesn’t deify the Swedish economy at all.
    He says in one particular area they do things very well perhaps the best in the world and in that light it is worth doing something similar.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 13, 2006 at 12:34 pm

  132. You mean he mentioned Scandinavia while I mention Sweden.

    Shit. I forgot. Sweden’s in North America…. moved there as a result of global warming.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 1:17 pm

  133. No JC he certainly mentioned Sweden but he specifically mention social equality with unemployment.
    No more no less.
    To say that Fed Argy argues that Sweden is heaven on earth is quite deceiving!

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 13, 2006 at 1:42 pm

  134. Homer

    rgy wrote at length about the virtues of the scandinavian system, telling us unsuspecting innocents how wonderful the place is in term of employment rates and equality.

    IBCA puts paid to that bright idea . They have been financing this boon doogle by devaluation and debt. Unemployment could be close to 30% according to the report.

    Fred thinks the scandinavian model works. This report ays it doesn’t. I believe the report and think fred”s barking up the wrong tree.

    You agree with Fred then?

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 1:53 pm

  135. John Z.

    Retract your lies.

    But do it on a FIFO basis. First in first out. We would want you to retract the old ones before you try morphing them into new ones.

    Why bullshit and lie in the first place?

    Why not just read the pdf? Try to come to grips with what he’s saying there?And not try and misrepresent him?

    You marxists have a funny way of going about things.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 2:30 pm

  136. You’ve yet to provide an argument, Birdy.

    Maybe I could do a guest post on “Big Bird Brain” which covers your cognitive dissonance on this issue.

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 3:19 pm

  137. JohnnyZ says:”
    “Maybe I could do a guest post on “Big Bird Brain” which covers your cognitive dissonance on this issue.

    you mean a post no longer than 13 characters long?

    John, you’ve never made a comment that’s longer than the sound of a vowel. So why should we believe you?

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 3:22 pm

  138. “You’ve yet to provide an argument, Birdy.
    Maybe I could do a guest post on “Big Bird Brain” which covers your cognitive dissonance on this issue.”

    An argument for what?

    You were lying about the pdf and have to retract.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 3:42 pm

  139. Retract your lies JohnZ.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 3:44 pm

  140. What statement did I make about the pdf which wasn’t true? As Jason points out, it’s not sufficient to merely assert something.

    You have to, you know, provide evidence and stuff.

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 3:46 pm

  141. I recuse myself from this hearing (heh – I used a fancy legal word. take that, skepticlawyer!)

    Jason Soon

    November 13, 2006 at 3:48 pm

  142. See you are even being dishonest as we speak.

    I’ve already quoted some of your lies.

    Implicit in your dishonest question is that you don’t know what I’m referring to.

    Stop this Jive fella.

    1. Retract your lies.

    2. Bring on the evidence for catastrophic cooling.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 3:58 pm

  143. I recuse myself from this hearing (heh – I used a fancy legal word. take that, skepticlawyer!)

    But your honour – we didn’t even get to the evidence gathering stage.
    Come to think of it, when arguing with Birdy you NEVER get to the evidence gathering phase.

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 4:02 pm

  144. What? You still going on about solar output?

    Explain to us how you can make a projection of future solar output without actually measuring it.

    No more assertions, no more bluster. I want an argument.

    GO!!!!!

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 4:08 pm

  145. “Explain to us how you can make a projection of future solar output without actually measuring it.”

    1. You eeeeediot.

    2. David Archibald made no forecast for solar output.

    3. How can anyone measure a forecast.

    My goodness. So much stupidity compressed into so few words. You are getting CREATIVE with your dopeyness.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 4:27 pm

  146. Is the advertising going to pass without comment? Do you make money just by us clicking on the ads, or do we actually have to buy something?

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 13, 2006 at 5:13 pm

  147. I have no idea Sinks. I presume click through. c8to is organising all this.

    Jason Soon

    November 13, 2006 at 5:18 pm

  148. if only we could make money from bird and john arguing…

    c8to

    November 13, 2006 at 5:52 pm

  149. You probably could if you could get your pal to take an authentic interest in the REALITY of what we are talking about.

    He seems to have this JIVE going where he wants to lock some statements in. And then subject them to some sort of PANTOMIME of syllogistic manipulation.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 5:58 pm

  150. Nothing is going to beat the spectacle of GMB arguing with John H (sorry John Z) – these are the two most argumentative, opinionated pricks in the universe.

    Jason Soon

    November 13, 2006 at 6:46 pm

  151. JC,
    Fred as far as my reading of him goes is only saying the Sweden can reduce unemployment whilst maintaining social equity in society.

    no bad feat.
    He has never said it is,was or will be economic nirvana.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 13, 2006 at 7:09 pm

  152. For christ sake, Homer, he wrote pages and pages on how the Swedes/Scandis had the economy we ought to copy.

    Now you are implying he didn’t mean that. Stop playing word games.

    Fred loves the Scandi economies otherwise he wouldn’t have written about it. he loves Scandi economies and he has been proved wrong again.
    The only way the Swedes were able to maintain the highest tax in the western world and over the top socaisl security is system was
    1. by lying about the true level of unemployment.
    2. borrowing heavily
    3 devaluing the krona periodically.
    4. bankrupting the banking system in the 90’s.

    IBCA speaks about it. Now go away and tell Fred he’s been backing the wrong horse for the past 30 years. That ought to wake him up.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 7:31 pm

  153. No he didn’t JC.
    He only wrote about one topic.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 13, 2006 at 7:36 pm

  154. Ok Homer, you’re right. Fred was pushing the open labor markets, low social security angle when he was discussing scandi.

    I got it all wrong, Fred is in favour of low labor market regulation.

    thanks for correcting my wrongly held view.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 7:40 pm

  155. Nothing is going to beat the spectacle of GMB arguing with John H (sorry John Z)

    Come on! He went to 9 consecutive posts yesterday! 9! What does a guy have to do to get a little respect around here?

    Anyway, I’m tired of arguing semantics with Bird. Let’s get back to the science.

    The archy paper: Do you endorse his method of forecasting temperature?

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 8:05 pm

  156. Johhny Z

    Do you endorse the Stern report and the subject of gender equality and forced marriage?

    you answer that, doofus, before you ask further questions.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 8:08 pm

  157. “Come on! He went to 9 consecutive posts yesterday! 9! What does a guy have to do to get a little respect around here?”

    TRY RETRACTING YOUR LIES.

    And hurry the fuck up about it.

    And don’t try any fucking updates on what you are claiming you were claiming until you retract your former mistakes.

    What a fucking asshole you are.

    “The archy paper: Do you endorse his method of forecasting temperature?”

    That sort of assholery just doesn’t bottom out.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 8:25 pm

  158. “The archy paper: Do you endorse his method of forecasting temperature?”
    That sort of assholery just doesn’t bottom out.

    You’re a shifty little boy. Answer the question.

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 8:33 pm

  159. You’re a shifty little boy. Answer the question.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 8:34 pm

  160. JC, you have been on the case about the incredibly minor portions of the Stern report predictions about adverse social consequences of climate change with regards to gender roles for a long time now. No-one cares but you. Shut up.

    fatfingers

    November 13, 2006 at 8:56 pm

  161. So you admit you were fucking lying the whole the rest of the time like I said yeah?

    Or being a complete fucking penis-head are you going to claim that you are not lying now? And were not lying then? Which of course is impossible.

    And by the way. While you are framing your confession you FUCKING lying bastard.

    Could you as well give us some evidence for CATASTROPHIC global warming.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 8:58 pm

  162. Does anyone take you up on it, or do they all ignore you? So shut up already.

    fatfingers

    November 13, 2006 at 9:01 pm

  163. Fatso
    Why would anyone take me up on it when its in the report? What is there to debate. So shut the fuck up unless you have something to say.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 9:03 pm

  164. Its not the stupidity that gets to me its the lying…….

    No wait.

    Its not the lying that gets to me….

    Its trying to FUCKINGFIGUREOUT what the FUCK the motive could have been.

    You LIE like this all the time.

    And we are none-the-wiser as to the motive.

    Can you have just a little bit of pity… Can you tell us what’s in it for you.

    Why do you LIE all the time?

    I want to understand no shit.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 9:07 pm

  165. Heh, how predictable 🙂

    I should keep a time stamped blog somewhere so that I can make public predictions of how Birdy will behave. As in “I say this and he’ll say that”.

    Kind of like conducting an orchestra of profanity.

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 9:07 pm

  166. John z. You’re a shifty little boy. Answer the question.

    JC.

    November 13, 2006 at 9:09 pm

  167. Is it too much to ask that you tell me WHY YOU LIED so that I can have the answer before I go to sleep?

    I don’t think thats too much to ask.

    I’m sorry.

    I’m sorry.

    But I don’t think thats too much to ask.

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 9:15 pm

  168. JC
    we’ve all had our laugh about the gender equality bits of the Stern Report, haha
    It’s logically independent of the main argument. Give it a rest, you are boring everyone with that.

    Jason Soon

    November 13, 2006 at 9:16 pm

  169. I call this one “Bird On Strings” in F major.

    As for my “lying”? The short answer is, I didn’t.

    Allow me to summarise (yet again).

    1) Watching sunspots doesn’t tell you anything about temperatures on earth. To do that, you need to measure the actual output. Archy claimed to do this by calculating a temperature baseline and then observing the decline during a known sunspot cycle. From this he “deduced” the effect the sunspots had on solar output. He estimated the change in solar output caused by solar cycles.

    He then looked at future cycle forecasts and used his previously calculated temperature/cycle correlation to project future temperatures.

    All this is there in the paper – you just have to read further than the abstract.

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 9:20 pm

  170. No no.

    Wrong answer…

    To the wrong question.

    Now why did you lie?

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 9:23 pm

  171. By the way its absolute crap that you are talking still.

    But we will go with the first lie first.

    Why did you lie?

    GMB

    November 13, 2006 at 9:25 pm

  172. Go to bed, Bird.

    Perhaps you’ll be able to formulate a coherent argument after a good night’s sleep.

    Remember: If you want to score points you need to actually make them…

    JohnZ

    November 13, 2006 at 9:31 pm

  173. “Perhaps you’ll be able to formulate a coherent argument after a good night’s sleep.”

    From previous experience, I guarantee you no better from Bird-brain in the morning. Coherent is not in his lexicon. It’s all “lie” this and “jive” that, with “fucking commie bastard” thrown in as counterpoint.

    You’re not the first to try to reason with the dreaded Panelbeater. Don’t bother. He has the stamina of a wolf on the hunt, an ability to single-mindedly avoid/ignore/misunderstand every single argument you throw in his path, and a bottomless well of abuse to draw from. I really don’t know why Jason spends so much energy trying to reform him (though I admit he has made some progress), especially as I think the readership suffers for GMB’s presence.

    You are better off engaging with people who actually debate the issues, believe me. JC used to be one of them, but GMB has proved a bad role-model, and now he just flies in the Bird’s slipstream. There are plenty of people worth debating – Jason of course, Sinclair, Rafe, skepticlawyer, c8to, whyisitso, derrida derider, the multiplicity of Andrews, Liam, C. L., Bring Back {flavour of the month}, and many other less-frequent commenters, are worthwhile stoushers.

    fatfingers

    November 14, 2006 at 12:23 am

  174. John. You didn’t own up to all your lies you fucking prick.

    Who do you think you are fooking asshole?

    You weren’t going to get them past me fella.

    So why did you try them on in the first place?

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 2:08 am

  175. That was meant to be ‘fooling’.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 2:09 am

  176. “There are plenty of people worth debating ….”

    No there’s no point debating ANYONE if he’s going to lie all the time. Don’t be an idiot fatfingers.

    What is the point if he’s going to lie all the time. May as well be sitting round with you in some sort of marxist prayer-group-equivalent.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 2:13 am

  177. OK, I’ve gone through the entire thread, GMB. For the life of me, I can’t see where JohnZ has lied. I’ve only seen where you disagree with each other.

    And if we’re going to bring up lies, how about this doozy from you about Lambert?

    “You are after-all a DDT-ban holocaust denier”

    You do remember the extensive thread we produced making you realise there is no DDT-ban holocaust, don’t you?

    fatfingers

    November 14, 2006 at 8:55 am

  178. “I never said fractional reserve was fraud.”

    ????????????

    fatfingers

    November 14, 2006 at 8:58 am

  179. Thats right. I never did fatty.

    Right now its socialism. Its not fraud. Its socialism. Fractional reserve has driven out non-fractional-reserve (bad money drives out the good)…..

    And the financial system wherein we have that set of circumstances is an interventionist or socialist financial system.

    “OK, I’ve gone through the entire thread, GMB. For the life of me, I can’t see where JohnZ has lied.”

    Try reading the pdf.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 2:21 pm

  180. Isn’t it amazing that he’s gone on about this for nearly 100 posts and hasn’t yet referred to specific sections of the PDF which contradict my argument.

    Pathetic.

    JohnZ

    November 14, 2006 at 3:31 pm

  181. No its not amazing.

    You’ve just got to stop fucking lying.

    Now your “argument” as you so ridiculously put it, because you are such an asshole, has changed.

    Its a measure of just how important Kyoto and a global tax must be to you commies that you have gone so fucking far out of your way to misrepresent this pdf.

    I mean what a wanker. David Archibald deserves better then that. This was a massive scoop in a way. And yet you are so motivated by Kyoto and the idea of giving up yet more sovereignty that you will pretty much do anything… Anything. Anything to stop people from reading this thing and understanding the message.

    Or else how do you explain your behaviour.

    Now fucking retract your lies you bastard.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 3:48 pm

  182. and answer thr question i left for you too.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 3:51 pm

  183. “Isn’t it amazing that he’s gone on about this for nearly 100 posts and hasn’t yet referred to specific sections of the PDF which contradict my argument.”

    What argument.

    What argument.

    What argument is that.

    Is that the one you had yesterday. Or the different and contrary one you have to day.

    They are not arguments they are lies.

    What argument?

    What argument?

    Whats your fucking argument you fucking lying idiot?

    Whats your fucking argument?

    Tell me your fucking argument you shithead?

    What’s your fucking argument.

    Why won’t you tell me your fucking argument?

    You haven’t layed out any sort of argument at all.

    Can I ask you to tell me your argument?

    Is that too much to ask you commie shit-for-brains.

    Hurry up and tell me your argument.

    Is there anything you WON’T lie about?

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 3:53 pm

  184. Graeme
    Pls show where John is lying. You haven’t convinced me.

    Jason Soon

    November 14, 2006 at 3:55 pm

  185. Now your fucking tring to pretend you’ve made an argument. That didn’t involve you just merely lying about the contents of the pdf.

    And you are trying to say you had that argument and that I won’t engage with this argument of yours.

    Well the fact is you will have to:

    1. Retract your earlier lies. Because I’m not dealing with any new misleading bullshit from you until the earlier lies are cleared up and retracted.

    2. You’ll have to actually have a fucking argument in the first place. What is your argument? The argument thats been going for 100 posts.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 3:57 pm

  186. Show us how John is lying.

    SHOW, DON’T TELL

    SHOW, DON’T TELL

    SHOW, DON’T TELL

    SHOW, DON’T TELL

    SHOW, DON’T TELL

    SHOW, DON’T TELL

    SHOW, DON’T TELL

    SHOW, DON’T TELL

    Jason Soon

    November 14, 2006 at 3:59 pm

  187. Relentless lying:

    OK. Up until 57 he had merely being annoying. Acting as if the study was meant to be this scrupulous original research rather then what it really was. Which was communicating a startling implication as to what the Solar physicists were finding out within their own field.

    Startling because the great wall of sound from the leftists had blocked it out.

    Now as a demonstration of the issues involved I thought it was fine. You had 3 European measuring points in another century. And there is a 20th century comparison.

    The research is all out there. Archibald is not a solar physicist. He is not suddenly doing original solar physicist work. What he’s doing is explaining the implications of what the solar physicists are doing to the laity. And by gum its a scoop.

    Dumbass merely annoying at this point and showing he isn’t the least bit interested in the implications of this.

    “Let me get this straight, Bird.
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country…”

    Right. Off he goes with the nonsense. He lies here and is accusing Archibald of claiming to have measured solar output on the basis of these 5 stations.

    Archibald is not a solar physicist and he’d hardly try to do that. Thats just silly. But John keeps on insisting that this is what Archibald thought he was doing.

    Getting a global estimate as it were from these five stations.

    Well to be fair. JohnZ might not be lying at this time. He might instead be getting it wrong.

    Which is fine. Just so long as you check and report back that you’ve got it wrong and now understand what is going on.

    The 5 stations are not supposed to prove anything much. They are there to “provide a baseline”. Their temperatures are not meant to be a global average or anything.

    A baseline is all he’s claiming for them. He’s testing their sensitivity to what OTHER PEOPLE HAVE FOUND ABOUT SOLAR ACTIVITY DURING THAT TIME.

    So its a sensitivity test. You don’t need to take all of North America for that. And if you did you would likely get bad results since some areas in the North-East would be unduly influenced by the pulsing of the Gulf Stream.

    A sensitivity test, or a baseline is what it is. He’s not trying to make it anything it isn’t.

    You either want the whole globe for that or somewhere not affected by the ocean currents.

    Now one might have taken up Lamberts suggestion I suppose. But the main gig here is the communication of an important scoop. If people can understand the implications here another, more extensive study might be arranged.

    I mean you don’t want to confuse people with all this “homogenising” and regional averaging when its only a baseline and not claiming to be anything else.

    Now he’s also not trying to prove here, on the basis of this study alone, that there exists this relationship between solar activity and climate. Thats the solar physicists job.

    The relationship exists and is known already. He doesn’t need to prove it. Since its only leftist nutballs denying it. Once again he is reviewing and finding the implications of the specialists work. Not trying to compete with them.

    Next he mentions that the later part of the data is corroborated by the satelite.

    Now he is not estimating solar activity. Thats given to him by the specialists. He’s not doing hardly ANY of the shit that JohnZ will accuse him of as we proceed.

    At 61 John continues to insist that the thing being measured is solar activity. Its not. Its temperature.

    Then he quotes something that backs me up and not him but pretends it backs him up.

    61.

    I sez:

    “What a fuckwit you are. The thing that is being measured isn’t even solar activity.”

    He sez:

    “Wrong. From the paper:……”

    So here he’s got the wrong end of the stick. But thats not necessarily lying. It might be just stupidity.

    Well thats fine. But when he finds out his mistake I expect him to acknowledge it.

    OK next is just some silliness and ignorance about how you’d handle the data. But never mind.

    Now I reiterate in 64 that they weren’t measuring solar output. They were measuring temperature.

    In 67 I reiterate it that they are measuring temperature and ask him if he’s got it straight now. So far he thinks I’m wrong.

    Its at post 69 that he changes his mind BUT WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT.

    He should have backed down.

    Now he sez:

    “Archy measured temperature over 100 years at 5 weather stations, had a look at solar records, noticed a correlation and concluded that the sun caused the change.”

    Well thats not right in its entirety either. But do you see?

    He now knows that the station is measuring temperatures. Not solar output. But he’s then going to have people believe that he thought this all the time.

    Coming up is a pretty good statistical tip from Lambert. Still it misses the point really. But it might be that Lamberts suggestion might have made things better. Still the idea that one can always do things better doesn’t invalidate everything that one does.

    Just to reiterate. John thought that he was trying to estimate solar output with those 5 stations. He wasn’t doing any such thing.

    But he then figures his mistake. But will not admit he had it wrong.

    At 88 he says:

    “Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.”

    Well Archibald didn’t claim that. Here John is flat out lying. Because he already showed that he knew that Archibald got his solar information from elsewhere.

    Lets look at it again. JohnZ gets it wrong. Then gets it mostly right. Then goes back to his original thesis which he knew to be wrong.

    Johns Original misunderstanding.

    1.”Let me get this straight, Bird.
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country…”

    Then he must have realised he got it wrong. He now has it that Archibald is getting the solar records from the experts.

    2.”Archy measured temperature over 100 years at 5 weather stations, had a look at solar records, noticed a correlation and concluded that the sun caused the change.”

    He knows its not true but he returns to the original thesis that Archibald is ESTIMATING solar activity. Rather then getting it from elsewhere.

    3.”Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.”

    No he didn’t. But here John has returned to his nonsense about Archibald claiming he is estimating solar activity. Rather then getting that from the experts.

    Now it might look like a subtle regression to you if you haven’t read the pdf first.

    But John and I both knew he was bullshitting.

    Lets look at it again with another line put in.

    “Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.
    He then extrapolates future solar output based on these measurements.”

    No he doesn’t derive solar output using that stuff. And no he doesn’t go on to extrapolate solar output. Here John is lying because as I showed you before he had changed his mind without a retraction.

    2.”Archy measured temperature over 100 years at 5 weather stations, had a look at solar records, noticed a correlation and concluded that the sun caused the change.”

    You see! He had already sorted it out that Archibald wasn’t estimating solar output like John had accused him of doing.

    But in every case he twists it into a put-down of Archibald. Its always a putdown. Thats the consistent thing. But he claimed that Archibald had made a bodgy solar output forecast. Then he says (rightly) that Archibalds getting his solar data from the experts ( and somehow makes THAT a putdown).

    Then though he already knows otherwise he regresses back to the putdown of Archibald based on the idea that Archibald was extrapolating sketchy data into a solar output assumption and then further extrapolating into a forecast.

    This he says AFTER he’s already corrected himself.

    What can you do when people just will bullshit like this. Naturally its not something that third parties are easily going to pick up.

    But I picked it up. And he would have known what he did no question.

    At 91. He lies again and makes another false accusation directed both at me and Archibald:

    “Actually, I backed down on nothing. I stand by my original statement 100%. Here it is again:

    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….”

    No you see. He’s lying. I don’t think that. And Archibald didn’t claim that. And yet there this bastard is lying about us both.

    But its alright you see. Because he’s framed it as a question. So its no a REAL lie right? Its a Clinton-statement. It cannot be used in a perjury trial.

    But he’s lying about me and Archibald both.

    And I’m sorry. But that NOT alright.

    More from 91.

    “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”

    No he didn’t do that. John is lying. And John knows it.

    ITS AT 112 THAT JOHN CHANGES WHAT HE IS SAYING WITHOUT A BACKDOWN AND DESCRIBES THIS AS A REITERATION.

    Now he swaps his point of view with me.

    He doesn’t say GRAEME YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.

    He should have admitted I was right all along. But instead of doing that he changes his story entirely. Words it in such a way as to make it sound pretty much the same.

    And fucking goes on talking, without a retraction, pretending that he didn’t make a mistake or lie in the first place.

    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!”

    THATS WHAT I’VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL THE FUCKWIT THE WHOLE TIME.

    So now he, instead of admitting he was wrong, HAS DISHONESTLY STOLEN MY POINT OF VIEW, MADE IT HIS OWN, AND IS THEREFORE LYING THAT I DISAGREE WITH THIS POINT OF VIEW.

    This was MY point of view. This wasn’t his point of view. When you come over to the other guys point of view you are not meant to do a leftist reversal.

    Thats a false accusation and a lie also. Because he’s accusing me of not having my point of view and claiming that he always had this point of view.

    But he was wrong. Then he stole my point of view. And he has never retracted.

    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!”

    Can you imagine someone THIS dishonest?

    Now it gets worse then that.

    He steals my point of view. Then he
    CHANGES THE WORDING OF HIS LIE to make it true. And then he runs his original lie next to it. Relying on the similarity of the sentence structure to pull the wool over any third party reading it.

    So he’s lied about me. Lied about his former opinion. Lied about Archibald. And lied about himself since he’s pretending he didn’t change his mind.

    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!

    So to reiterate, Archy estimates the effect of future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.
    And what was my original statement?”

    OK.

    I’ll split that up into truth and lies.

    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!
    (TRUE. MY ORIGINAL POINT OF VIEW. STOLEN WITHOUT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT JOHN HAD IT WRONG)

    So to reiterate, Archy estimates the effect of future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.

    THE EFFECT OF…THE EFFECT OF THE EFFECT OF.

    See how those three words change the meaning of the statement?

    His original position is what you have if you take the three words out. That was a false accusation about both me and Archibald.

    “So to reiterate, Archy estimates THE EFFECT OF future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.”

    SO TO REITERATE. SO TO REITERATE.

    See how he’s lying again. You’d never pick it up. Thats why I’m so angry. Because he’s lying flat out and using this slight of hand.

    But he says he’s REITERATING.

    Its a lie that he’s reiterating. He’s instead stealing my point of view and lying about his former point of view.

    “SO TO REITERATE, Archy estimates THE EFFECT OF future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.”

    Now I’ll take the words out here to remind you of his original position.

    “….Archy estimates future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.”

    That would be the lie. That was his original position. He knows he’s lying. He knows I know he’s lying. But he knows he can pull this sleight of hand.

    Now dig his little masterpeice when its taken together. The whole thing. It will read perfectly naturally.

    Even though he’s stolen my point of view. Is pretending I’m saying something else. Hasn’t admitted he’s wrong. Is lying about his former thesis. And rolling it altogether in such a way as to smoothly decieve everybody.

    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!
    So to reiterate, Archy estimates the effect of future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.
    And what was my original statement?
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….
    What was your answer?
    No.
    Of course not. Now stop being an idiot.”

    Now don’t ask me to PROVE that these guys are lying again. It takes such a long time. He will be happy that he’s made me waste all this time.

    And you would be doing better just to say to him that repetitive lying is unacceptable.

    Thats not the full scope of his lying by the way. But it just takes so long to put it in a clear enough way.

    It will have taken you long enough to read how he pulled this constant lying off. Let alone how much time it wastes me having to explain it.

    Why not just tell him to fucking stop lying.

    Its tag-team bullshit now. I’ve got Humphreys on the other site.

    The commies are trying to hit me from all directions at once no doubt.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 6:03 pm

  188. Birdy
    That has to be the longest comment in blog history. Well done.

    You don’t need to prove that Johnnyz has dishonest tendencies, most readers know that.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 6:13 pm

  189. You know.

    I don’t think they do.

    If you’re in the thick of it you know he’s lying straight away. And you know that he knows it also.

    But when you read it back its pretty difficult to explain it.

    It makes me so angry.

    And its derailed the scoop.

    The scoop being that on the basis of pre-2006 solar forecasts……. Well the solar forecasts were for such a severe downturn in temperature that we would have been in real trouble.

    And yet all this crowded out by global warming alarmism of the time.

    Now the good news is that the forecast for the next cycle might not be so bleak.

    In fact the new forecast (I don’t know whether there is consensus) suggests there will be one strong cycle then the weakest cycle on record.

    But if you’ve been looking at all these graphs like I have been for the last weak you would see that one downturn… no matter how small, likely isn’t enough to really bugger things if there is a recovery in the one after.

    But Archibald is right. Because while I don’t know how to calculate these things when you get two stand-out cycles in a row thats enough to cause a turnaround from what I’ve seen.

    So this forecast (though its now been updated) ought to have completely stomped the alarmists.

    But its also a scoop because it didn’t stomp them. Which goes to show the momentum of the alarmist cause and their determination to derail anything which goes against their aims.

    If you go and check out the data yourself I think you’ll find the same sort of thing. The graphs for the localised data don’t always correlate perfectly.

    Until you get two standout cycles in a row. Then the effect cannot but be felt in a pretty serious way.

    Well thats my very strong impression so far anyhow.

    1 cycle you might not see manifest in local data.

    2 cycles reinforcing eachother you are going to see it for sure.

    If anyone finds a study that says different I’d like to see it to make sure I’ve not got the wrong end of the stick.

    This is why Archibald is able to be confident in this strong predictiton.

    Not because he’s just jumping to conclusions on his own data.

    But because he’s done what I’ve done and seen what I’ve seen but presumably with a great deal more depth.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 6:30 pm

  190. Right, you have made a very impressive case Graeme.

    John may have gone totally off the beam in how he has chosen to read this PDF. He owes you an explanation.

    WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY FOR YOURSELF, JOHN Z? ARE YOU A LIAR?

    PLEAD YE YAY OR NAY? OR PLEAD YE NEGLIGENCE?

    JUDGE DREDD

    November 14, 2006 at 6:33 pm

  191. Birdy
    I just read the entire missive. You’re right he is bullshitting. He’s twisted and turned it in such a way as to make out your lying and trying to cover up for Archie.

    That’s the work of a leftist lying twat. Liberatarians want to ge to the truth of things. Zman has just made up his mind that we’re all going to boil to death and anything to the contrary can’t be right.

    It’s funny how you see this sort of herd mentality in a trading room. There’s one of the traders with his head down staring at a loss. You go up to him and no matter what you say the guy is married to his loss. He can intellectualize the entire loss and explain it away… that it’s the market that’s wrong. Zman is that trader.

    The herd instinct with AGW is also pretty familair to me. It’s like the cabby telling you which stocks to buy…. you know you are pretty close to the top.

    This mass hysteria is like all those bozos selling Aussie dollars when it got to 48.50 cents looking for it to go to 38 cents.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 6:41 pm

  192. Judge Dredd – one of my favorite characters of all time. With Holo Jones and Dr and Quinch and, of course, the VCs. The original Rogue Trooper was good too – and Venus BlueGenes, a woman to die for. Ahh, yes, the 80s.

    C8to’s program seems to think you’re Jason Soon. Maybe. The real JD would have shot GMB, and JohnZ, and a whole stack of others by now. That’s why we love him.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 14, 2006 at 6:57 pm

  193. “This mass hysteria is like all those bozos selling Aussie dollars when it got to 48.50 cents looking for it to go to 38 cents.”

    Exactly. But thats the more innocent side of it.

    There seems to have been a mass move to the carbon tax.

    I mean on one level its economic rationalism right?

    I mean if it does get too hot and CO2 was so high it was even above a level that the plants like that would be the best way to bring the CO2 down I suppose.

    As long as it was a tax-substitution and not a tax cut.

    But thats how I’d think. Even if its simply a way to pre-empt any spending programs.

    But there’s something very fucking spooky going on when you go over to Prodeo and there is Mr Broken-Window-Man Paul Norton playing this carbon tax up and sounding like Milton Friedman in Free To Choose.

    So whats going on?

    They want a global tax these lefties. They want to put a series of small committments around us. Then all they need to do is run a massive fire-all-of-your-guns-at-once campaign to get this tax transferred to the UN or some other bogus stuff like that.

    This is what this mania reminds me of. Something Quiggin said the other day:

    “A day to remember all who have died, and continue to die, in war. Let us hope that one day we can bring an end to this evil.”

    I wonder if these guys dream about an international tax when they say stuff like that.

    I mean its incredible. The upshot that up until this year the solar physicists forecast would have meant a serious downturn.

    And no-one heard about it. No solar physicist seems to have spelled it out for us.

    A couple of Russians made predictions along this line its true. But the strength of their case (at least given the former forecast) was not explained to people at all.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 7:01 pm

  194. Since I have recused myself from this trial, Sinclair, my Honourable Colleague Judge Dredd will sit in my place. He is, of course, not my sock puppet:-)

    I actually have a few Batman meets Judge Dredd comics at home – like this one
    http://www.amazon.com/Batman-Judge-Dredd-Judgement-Gotham/dp/1563890224

    Jason Soon

    November 14, 2006 at 7:04 pm

  195. Bird your post could have made the same point in 10% of the space. I’ll try and respond to the relevant bits.

    You suggested several times that Archy is merely collating other reports. This is partly true but he’s also making a crack at his own research. I think it’s reasonable to assume that anything in the paper that has not been referenced is original research.

    The 5 stations are not supposed to prove anything much. They are there to “provide a baseline”.

    Wrong. From the paper: “To provide a baseline for projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar cycle 25 in 2024, data from five, rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to
    2003 was averaged and smoothed.”

    Get that? He’s projecting future temperatures based on these measurements.
    To make it crystal clear:

    By comparison with the last data point of Figure 3 [US temperature data] of 16° C in 2003, the minimum
    of solar activity associated with Solar Cycles 24 and 25 is expected to result in a
    temperature by late next decade of 14.5° C.

    There you have it. Irrefutable proof that he’s making temperature projections based on 5 data points with less than a century of data. ridiculous.

    Now, to return to the solar output semantics. Solar output cannot be measured directly – only estimated though a proxy. So when I say estimate in this context, I am implicitly saying “estimate through use of a temperature proxy”.

    Note that solar cycles are not the same thing as solar output. Solar cycles are something we track based on the number of observed sunspots. Other factors may also vary the total energy output.

    So when archy looks at temperature data and says “[…] a relatively steep decline of 1.4°C
    over the 15 years to 1968 due to a weak solar cycle 20
    , he is measuring the change in solar output and using it to derive a sunspot/temperature relationship.

    Now, I don’t know if you know anything about stats, but the idea that you could establish this sort of relationship based on a very short period of time and only 5 data points is utterly preposterous.

    JohnZ

    November 14, 2006 at 7:18 pm

  196. No stop it man.

    Don’t be getting into any more bullshit.

    Don’t you think you’ve done enough bullshitting?

    I didn’t see a retraction there.

    Don’t talk about anything unless you make the retraction first.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 7:20 pm

  197. No stop lying.

    Don’t do any more lying until you’ve retracted those other lies and come clean.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 7:23 pm

  198. You fucking bastard.

    Every time I read your bullshit it gets more dishonest.

    Don’t be telling me things that are true when I’m not disputing them…. in such a way as to imply I’m disputing them.

    Thats just another lie too.

    Now Ok. It looks like you are not flat out lying about the pdf now.

    You instead are lying about your former point of view and lying about the point of view I’ve always had.

    You are, by implication, trying to swap places with me.

    You’re a fucking asshole fella.

    Make your retractions or fuck off.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 7:26 pm

  199. Right thats it.

    I’m going to repost the proof of you lying.

    And you are going to retract your lies.

    “Relentless lying:
    OK. Up until 57 he had merely being annoying. Acting as if the study was meant to be this scrupulous original research rather then what it really was. Which was communicating a startling implication as to what the Solar physicists were finding out within their own field.
    Startling because the great wall of sound from the leftists had blocked it out.
    Now as a demonstration of the issues involved I thought it was fine. You had 3 European measuring points in another century. And there is a 20th century comparison.
    The research is all out there. Archibald is not a solar physicist. He is not suddenly doing original solar physicist work. What he’s doing is explaining the implications of what the solar physicists are doing to the laity. And by gum its a scoop.
    Dumbass merely annoying at this point and showing he isn’t the least bit interested in the implications of this.
    “Let me get this straight, Bird.
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country…”
    Right. Off he goes with the nonsense. He lies here and is accusing Archibald of claiming to have measured solar output on the basis of these 5 stations.
    Archibald is not a solar physicist and he’d hardly try to do that. Thats just silly. But John keeps on insisting that this is what Archibald thought he was doing.
    Getting a global estimate as it were from these five stations.
    Well to be fair. JohnZ might not be lying at this time. He might instead be getting it wrong.
    Which is fine. Just so long as you check and report back that you’ve got it wrong and now understand what is going on.
    The 5 stations are not supposed to prove anything much. They are there to “provide a baseline”. Their temperatures are not meant to be a global average or anything.
    A baseline is all he’s claiming for them. He’s testing their sensitivity to what OTHER PEOPLE HAVE FOUND ABOUT SOLAR ACTIVITY DURING THAT TIME.
    So its a sensitivity test. You don’t need to take all of North America for that. And if you did you would likely get bad results since some areas in the North-East would be unduly influenced by the pulsing of the Gulf Stream.
    A sensitivity test, or a baseline is what it is. He’s not trying to make it anything it isn’t.
    You either want the whole globe for that or somewhere not affected by the ocean currents.
    Now one might have taken up Lamberts suggestion I suppose. But the main gig here is the communication of an important scoop. If people can understand the implications here another, more extensive study might be arranged.
    I mean you don’t want to confuse people with all this “homogenising” and regional averaging when its only a baseline and not claiming to be anything else.
    Now he’s also not trying to prove here, on the basis of this study alone, that there exists this relationship between solar activity and climate. Thats the solar physicists job.
    The relationship exists and is known already. He doesn’t need to prove it. Since its only leftist nutballs denying it. Once again he is reviewing and finding the implications of the specialists work. Not trying to compete with them.
    Next he mentions that the later part of the data is corroborated by the satelite.
    Now he is not estimating solar activity. Thats given to him by the specialists. He’s not doing hardly ANY of the shit that JohnZ will accuse him of as we proceed.
    At 61 John continues to insist that the thing being measured is solar activity. Its not. Its temperature.
    Then he quotes something that backs me up and not him but pretends it backs him up.
    61.
    I sez:
    “What a fuckwit you are. The thing that is being measured isn’t even solar activity.”
    He sez:
    “Wrong. From the paper:……”
    So here he’s got the wrong end of the stick. But thats not necessarily lying. It might be just stupidity.
    Well thats fine. But when he finds out his mistake I expect him to acknowledge it.
    OK next is just some silliness and ignorance about how you’d handle the data. But never mind.
    Now I reiterate in 64 that they weren’t measuring solar output. They were measuring temperature.
    In 67 I reiterate it that they are measuring temperature and ask him if he’s got it straight now. So far he thinks I’m wrong.
    Its at post 69 that he changes his mind BUT WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
    He should have backed down.
    Now he sez:
    “Archy measured temperature over 100 years at 5 weather stations, had a look at solar records, noticed a correlation and concluded that the sun caused the change.”
    Well thats not right in its entirety either. But do you see?
    He now knows that the station is measuring temperatures. Not solar output. But he’s then going to have people believe that he thought this all the time.
    Coming up is a pretty good statistical tip from Lambert. Still it misses the point really. But it might be that Lamberts suggestion might have made things better. Still the idea that one can always do things better doesn’t invalidate everything that one does.
    Just to reiterate. John thought that he was trying to estimate solar output with those 5 stations. He wasn’t doing any such thing.
    But he then figures his mistake. But will not admit he had it wrong.
    At 88 he says:
    “Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.”
    Well Archibald didn’t claim that. Here John is flat out lying. Because he already showed that he knew that Archibald got his solar information from elsewhere.
    Lets look at it again. JohnZ gets it wrong. Then gets it mostly right. Then goes back to his original thesis which he knew to be wrong.
    Johns Original misunderstanding.
    1.”Let me get this straight, Bird.
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country…”
    Then he must have realised he got it wrong. He now has it that Archibald is getting the solar records from the experts.
    2.”Archy measured temperature over 100 years at 5 weather stations, had a look at solar records, noticed a correlation and concluded that the sun caused the change.”
    He knows its not true but he returns to the original thesis that Archibald is ESTIMATING solar activity. Rather then getting it from elsewhere.
    3.”Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.”
    No he didn’t. But here John has returned to his nonsense about Archibald claiming he is estimating solar activity. Rather then getting that from the experts.
    Now it might look like a subtle regression to you if you haven’t read the pdf first.
    But John and I both knew he was bullshitting.
    Lets look at it again with another line put in.
    “Agreed that the 5 US stations measured temperature. Archy went on to claim that solar output can be derived from those measurements.
    He then extrapolates future solar output based on these measurements.”
    No he doesn’t derive solar output using that stuff. And no he doesn’t go on to extrapolate solar output. Here John is lying because as I showed you before he had changed his mind without a retraction.
    2.”Archy measured temperature over 100 years at 5 weather stations, had a look at solar records, noticed a correlation and concluded that the sun caused the change.”
    You see! He had already sorted it out that Archibald wasn’t estimating solar output like John had accused him of doing.
    But in every case he twists it into a put-down of Archibald. Its always a putdown. Thats the consistent thing. But he claimed that Archibald had made a bodgy solar output forecast. Then he says (rightly) that Archibalds getting his solar data from the experts ( and somehow makes THAT a putdown).
    Then though he already knows otherwise he regresses back to the putdown of Archibald based on the idea that Archibald was extrapolating sketchy data into a solar output assumption and then further extrapolating into a forecast.
    This he says AFTER he’s already corrected himself.
    What can you do when people just will bullshit like this. Naturally its not something that third parties are easily going to pick up.
    But I picked it up. And he would have known what he did no question.
    At 91. He lies again and makes another false accusation directed both at me and Archibald:
    “Actually, I backed down on nothing. I stand by my original statement 100%. Here it is again:
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….”
    No you see. He’s lying. I don’t think that. And Archibald didn’t claim that. And yet there this bastard is lying about us both.
    But its alright you see. Because he’s framed it as a question. So its no a REAL lie right? Its a Clinton-statement. It cannot be used in a perjury trial.
    But he’s lying about me and Archibald both.
    And I’m sorry. But that NOT alright.
    More from 91.
    “So, yes, Archy is claiming that he can estimate solar output based on 5 US temperature stations.”
    No he didn’t do that. John is lying. And John knows it.
    ITS AT 112 THAT JOHN CHANGES WHAT HE IS SAYING WITHOUT A BACKDOWN AND DESCRIBES THIS AS A REITERATION.
    Now he swaps his point of view with me.
    He doesn’t say GRAEME YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG.
    He should have admitted I was right all along. But instead of doing that he changes his story entirely. Words it in such a way as to make it sound pretty much the same.
    And fucking goes on talking, without a retraction, pretending that he didn’t make a mistake or lie in the first place.
    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!”
    THATS WHAT I’VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL THE FUCKWIT THE WHOLE TIME.
    So now he, instead of admitting he was wrong, HAS DISHONESTLY STOLEN MY POINT OF VIEW, MADE IT HIS OWN, AND IS THEREFORE LYING THAT I DISAGREE WITH THIS POINT OF VIEW.
    This was MY point of view. This wasn’t his point of view. When you come over to the other guys point of view you are not meant to do a leftist reversal.
    Thats a false accusation and a lie also. Because he’s accusing me of not having my point of view and claiming that he always had this point of view.
    But he was wrong. Then he stole my point of view. And he has never retracted.
    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!”
    Can you imagine someone THIS dishonest?
    Now it gets worse then that.
    He steals my point of view. Then he
    CHANGES THE WORDING OF HIS LIE to make it true. And then he runs his original lie next to it. Relying on the similarity of the sentence structure to pull the wool over any third party reading it.
    So he’s lied about me. Lied about his former opinion. Lied about Archibald. And lied about himself since he’s pretending he didn’t change his mind.
    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!
    So to reiterate, Archy estimates the effect of future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.
    And what was my original statement?”
    OK.
    I’ll split that up into truth and lies.
    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!
    (TRUE. MY ORIGINAL POINT OF VIEW. STOLEN WITHOUT THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT JOHN HAD IT WRONG)
    So to reiterate, Archy estimates the effect of future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.
    THE EFFECT OF…THE EFFECT OF THE EFFECT OF.
    See how those three words change the meaning of the statement?
    His original position is what you have if you take the three words out. That was a false accusation about both me and Archibald.
    “So to reiterate, Archy estimates THE EFFECT OF future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.”
    SO TO REITERATE. SO TO REITERATE.
    See how he’s lying again. You’d never pick it up. Thats why I’m so angry. Because he’s lying flat out and using this slight of hand.
    But he says he’s REITERATING.
    Its a lie that he’s reiterating. He’s instead stealing my point of view and lying about his former point of view.
    “SO TO REITERATE, Archy estimates THE EFFECT OF future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.”
    Now I’ll take the words out here to remind you of his original position.
    “….Archy estimates future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.”
    That would be the lie. That was his original position. He knows he’s lying. He knows I know he’s lying. But he knows he can pull this sleight of hand.
    Now dig his little masterpeice when its taken together. The whole thing. It will read perfectly naturally.
    Even though he’s stolen my point of view. Is pretending I’m saying something else. Hasn’t admitted he’s wrong. Is lying about his former thesis. And rolling it altogether in such a way as to smoothly decieve everybody.
    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!
    So to reiterate, Archy estimates the effect of future solar output using 5 rural US weather stations with records going back 100 years.
    And what was my original statement?
    You think it’s possible to estimate solar output based on 5 stations with records going back 100 years at one latitude in one country….
    What was your answer?
    No.
    Of course not. Now stop being an idiot.”
    Now don’t ask me to PROVE that these guys are lying again. It takes such a long time. He will be happy that he’s made me waste all this time.
    And you would be doing better just to say to him that repetitive lying is unacceptable.
    Thats not the full scope of his lying by the way. But it just takes so long to put it in a clear enough way.
    It will have taken you long enough to read how he pulled this constant lying off. Let alone how much time it wastes me having to explain it.
    Why not just tell him to fucking stop lying.
    Its tag-team bullshit now. I’ve got Humphreys on the other site.
    The commies are trying to hit me from all directions at once no doubt.”

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 7:30 pm

  200. Now retract your lies before you go onto anything else.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 7:31 pm

  201. I see. The Batman – judge Dredd team – ups were okay, JD by himself is fantastic. ‘America’, I think, is the all time classic.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 14, 2006 at 7:37 pm

  202. I can feel a fyodor mini me coming on with johnny Z here.

    Johnnyz ,Don’t even try to copy the Fyds he is the master of lying and distortion. You can’t compete.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 8:00 pm

  203. The thing is JohnZ.

    If you get something wrong. Don’t DIG IN. The first time is not a lie. Its a mistake. Its when you DIG IN like that then the whole thing becomes just one lie after another.

    And why begin something like this with a hanging judge attitude.

    Surely its useful to know this stuff.

    Its just like the other debates. You were interested in running down something in all cases. At no time have I seen you show an interest in the truth of the matter.

    Interested in some sort of word-play. Or in being seen to be winning by third parties. But not actually interested in the truth of the matter.

    Thats just weird fella. Thats how real leftist ideologues behave.

    GMB

    November 14, 2006 at 8:19 pm

  204. I have to admit that to start off with I wasn’t entirely convinced by GMB’s line of argument.

    I thought that JohnZ was making some good points. Something about solar powered hot water heaters being really cost effective and heating stuff up quicker, IIRC.

    GMB disagreed. Apparently he’s a gas man. Gas hot water, gas room heaters, gas BBQ. Everything’s gas, gas, gas with GMB. He loves the stuff. He must be a regular junkie for propane.

    But rhetoric-wise, in terms of the Socratic arts, GMB wasn’t really giving as good as he was getting from JohnZ. JohnZ was scoring body blows on GMB with his superior logic, accuracy, honesty and just general trustworthiness. All the third parties that I have discussed the matter with are in agreement that JohnZ was pulling way way way ahead of GMB.

    But then GMB made the following point, which I consider not only decisively incisive but also just so damn sexy in terms of the elegance of its formal logic that I think I might wet myself:

    “And what data is in Figure 3? Rural US temperature data! What does he do with that data? Combine it with solar cycle forecasts to estimate temperature a decade hence!â€?
    THATS WHAT I’VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL THE FUCKWIT THE WHOLE TIME.
    So now he, instead of admitting he was wrong, HAS DISHONESTLY STOLEN MY POINT OF VIEW, MADE IT HIS OWN, AND IS THEREFORE LYING THAT I DISAGREE WITH THIS POINT OF VIEW.
    This was MY point of view. This wasn’t his point of view. When you come over to the other guys point of view you are not meant to do a leftist reversal.
    Thats a false accusation and a lie also. Because he’s accusing me of not having my point of view and claiming that he always had this point of view.
    But he was wrong. Then he stole my point of view.”

    Well, all I have to say to JohnZ after reading that is:

    Q-E-MOTHERFUCKING-D, BITCH!!!

    GMB, you are a genius! Retarded, but a genius nonetheless. I’d buy car insurance from you ANY DAY OF THE GODDAMN WEEK. I would bear you children, even if it meant I had to carve a vagina into my leg with a steak knife. I want to be your daddy. So bad. Stop me before I hurt myself.

    And a note to JohnZ: STOP ACCUSING GMB OF NOT HAVING HIS POINT OF VIEW, YOU LYING FUCKWIT!!!

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 8:40 pm

  205. Predictions for the next 100 posts:

    – GMB will abuse and accuse till he’s worked himself into a frenzy. His utter failure to convince anyone of anything will be attributed to my machiavellian writing skills rather than his utter lack of critical thinking skills.
    This will carry on for another 100 posts til everyone presses him to actually addresse the argument. The resulting post will be 10 pages long, and like the previous one fail to address anything of relevance.

    – Jason will stir the pot some more – those google ads are pay per impression.

    – Sinclair will continue pretending to be here for the comic talk.

    – NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh may or may not return with more “3rd party” commentary. He will probably be accused of being Fyodor’s sock puppet.

    – Jc will continue yapping in the background. Everyone will ignore him.

    JohnZ

    November 14, 2006 at 9:07 pm

  206. Stop changing the topic, JohnZ you lying fuckwit.

    All the third parties I have discussed this with think that you have a teeny weeny peeny.

    I think GMB has been very patient with you. Too patient. Too forgiving. Too reasonable.

    Personally, I wouldn’t give you the sweat off my balls if you needed it to press your pants.

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 9:20 pm

  207. He does have a point about the sweat, John.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 9:26 pm

  208. Hey JC, will you be my friend?

    I need a fawning sycophant to second everything I say and chime in with the occasional unfunny, unimaginative insult. Needs to be someone not very bright. Doesn’t need to be able to spell, or construct a comprehensible sentence in the English language. A capacity for logical thought is not essential. Critical thinking and originality would actually be a minus.

    I think you fit the bill perfectly. Interested?

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 9:34 pm

  209. But you have John as the prime candidate, NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh, so why me. He’s far more suited to what you need, NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh, than I could possibly offer.

    I left two spaces between between AA and 1.2v, NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh, is that right?

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 9:44 pm

  210. JC, the only empty space I see is between your ears.

    I think you must have a lower signal to noise ratio than anyone else on the interweb. You are a complete and utter waste of bandwith that could be put to much better use. People trying to get their Japanese tentacle porn or what have you see their download speeds measurably reduced because of all the drivel you incessantly churn out.

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 9:52 pm

  211. Why is that, NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh, because I’m trying to be light hearted while you come across as a self evident blowhard who proves a broken clock can at least be right once a day.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 9:57 pm

  212. NiMH: I recommend a small dog – they’re loyal, don’t get in the way and are fun to play with when you get bored.

    Reading your posts and hearing the 3rd party consensus convinces me that I’m done for.

    I mean, if you think about it it IS reasonable to forecast global temperatures by noticing that lines on separate graphs are briefly correlated and projecting the correlation decades into the future.

    Can’t we all just be friends?

    JohnZ

    November 14, 2006 at 9:59 pm

  213. The fact is you are right about Bird. The fact is that in one short para you used word “I” eight times.

    The fact is that you come on the site handing out judements here and there which is difficult to understand as we have to wade though all the “I’s” and then you go postal.

    good thing we have gun control.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:04 pm

  214. JohnZ, is that really JC in the video? I imagined him being hairier, for some reason.

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 10:07 pm

  215. John
    what he is saying is that you stole bird’s ideas claimed as your own and then tried to club him with it.

    That’s a fair point that you need to grapple with and no amount of horse shit is going to avoid that. Its true.

    You say:
    “I mean, if you think about it it IS reasonable to forecast global temperatures by noticing that lines on separate graphs are briefly correlated and projecting the correlation decades into the future.”

    Do you even understand what you are saying here. You are in fact saying that you don’t believe in projections. That being the case it immediately places you in the camp of the deniers.

    If you disagree with Archibolds projections tell us why. But don’t tell us you find it hard to believe lines drawn on a chart because that’s how the howlers are making their case.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:14 pm

  216. “I” again. me me me

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh , you’re obviously an English major with a postal problem. Could you see if you can construct a para without referring to I all the bloody time. It gets nauseating after 7 “I’s”

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:18 pm

  217. Nimh: It’s him alright. Let’s just say there’s been a little too much “plucking” going on in the Bird household.

    JohnZ

    November 14, 2006 at 10:24 pm

  218. JC, I think that should read: “construct a para without referring to ME all the bloody time”, you illiterate moron

    And I didn’t refer to YOU, I referred to ME. I mean not me, but not you either. I. Not as in “I referred to I”, because that’s bad grammar, but as in “YOU referred to ME”.

    Do I make myself clear?

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 10:31 pm

  219. Sorry apologise, NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh , you used ” i” or ” me” 22 times the short paragraph. 25 times if we count the abusive comments.

    couple that with the postal reaction and I reckon we have here the makings of a Son of Sam.
    Ummm thank god for gun control.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:31 pm

  220. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,

    including “myself”, me and other

    That’s a grand total of 38 times in few short comments.

    Turned the count meter on now as my head is spinning with this fast count.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:35 pm

  221. “And I didn’t refer to YOU, I referred to ME. I mean not me, but not you either. I. Not as in “I referred to I”, because that’s bad grammar, but as in “YOU referred to ME”.

    Do I make myself clear? ”

    As long as you put the gun down and promise to be nice, Sam.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:37 pm

  222. Wow, JC. You are a real idiot savant, aren’t you? You can’t write a sentence in the English language but you can count.

    All the way to 22. Good boy!

    Do you read the phone book in your spare time? Oh that’s right, you don’t have any spare time. You spend every waking hour spamming blogs with asinine comments.

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 10:41 pm

  223. Mimhy
    Thats better. you left out that horrible word. Now try to unstrap the bomb jacket without causing harm to any of us.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:45 pm

  224. JC
    why do you keep rising to the bait?

    At least Bird only gets worked up over issues of substance.

    You two are boring the rest of us but it’s really up to you to ignore the troll, JC.

    Jason Soon

    November 14, 2006 at 10:47 pm

  225. You really are a gutless wonder, aren’t you JC?

    You love to dish out insults, especially as part of a team, but when it’s just you copping a hiding you get all meek and submissive.

    You have no stomach for a fight.

    I bet you sucked up to the bullies in high school, didn’t you? You were too small to be one yourself, but they were the blokes you admired, weren’t they?

    Pathetic.

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 10:50 pm

  226. This is hilarious. Son of Sam here is doing the Abott and Costello by himself and a loaded gun.

    And I didn’t refer to YOU, I referred to ME. I mean not me, but not you either. I. Not as in “I referred to I”, because that’s bad grammar, but as in “YOU referred to ME”.

    “Me is on first”
    “no, not me, I is on first.
    “but I is on second, I’m on first.”

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:53 pm

  227. Sorry jase
    you’re right. Just having a little fun. Sorry again.

    JC.

    November 14, 2006 at 10:55 pm

  228. “Bird gets worked up over issues of substance”?

    Oh so sorry for lowering the level of debate. Jason, if you think serious debate involves people calling each other “lying fuckwits” over and over and over again, then there is little chance of you ever realising why catallaxy is rapidly becoming a laughing-stock of a blog.

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 14, 2006 at 10:55 pm

  229. I guess you don’t know how blogging works, Nimrod 1400 or whatever you call yourself. I don’t write the Open Forum. That’s why it’s called an Open Forum.

    So in theory you’re entitled to spill whatever shite you want. But I’m trying to get JC to break out of his cycle.

    Jason Soon

    November 14, 2006 at 11:01 pm

  230. Was that nabakov disguising himself as a battery pack?

    http://www.apexbattery.com/1-2v-aa-1400mah-nimh-b-t–hhr140aab2b-battery-alkaline-nimh-nicad-batteries-other.html

    It sounded like the old “high Tory” private equity specialist. And he would be the genius who would turn himself into a monikered battery.

    JC.

    November 15, 2006 at 12:23 am

  231. JC,
    And a low quality one at that. A good rechargeable battery will give you around 2500mAh – so, whoever he (or she) is, they are only a little over a half charge.

    Andrew Reynolds

    November 15, 2006 at 1:18 am

  232. “Predictions for the next 100 posts:…”

    Stop right there.

    You’ve been caught lying. So where’s your fucking retraction you asshole.

    Fuck off.

    GMB

    November 15, 2006 at 1:55 am

  233. You fuck off too Nabakov.

    Look at this prick. Busted flat out lying. And now what’s he going to do.

    Well.

    HE MIGHT OFFER A BOGUS BET one supposes. Or have some extended period of stupidity to dull the edge off it that he was busted lying like that.

    GMB

    November 15, 2006 at 1:57 am

  234. “Oh so sorry for lowering the level of debate. Jason, if you think serious debate involves people calling each other “lying fuckwits” over and over and over again…”

    Fuck off idiot. If you leftist lunatics are going to lie over and over and over again that forces me to point it out that you are lying over and over and over again.

    What you want an exemption?

    No chance. If you want to lie fuck off and lie to and about someone else.

    Incredible. You lefties want to be given the standing right to lie.

    You’re an idiot. Beat it and take the proven liar JohnZ with you.

    GMB

    November 15, 2006 at 2:02 am

  235. Oh Birdy, is this the best you can do? Trying desparately to avoid discussion of the science and preferring to talk past me rather than address my points.

    Pathetic.

    JohnZ

    November 15, 2006 at 10:03 pm

  236. Well to be fair, Nimrod 1400 was distracting everybody plus Bird has ADD 🙂

    Jason Soon

    November 15, 2006 at 10:07 pm

  237. “Bird gets worked up over issues of substance”

    No he doesn’t. He just gets worked up whenever he encounters resistance. It doesn’t matter if the argument is good or not.

    Jason, I’m curious – can you tell by IP whether NiMH is also a commenter by a different name?

    fatfingers

    November 16, 2006 at 12:24 am

  238. fatty
    he argues his case for what he believes to be right. What do you that’s different? Never seen you change a view. Maybe you ought to hold yourself to the same standard you expect of others. it ‘s called being a straightshooter.

    JC.

    November 16, 2006 at 12:37 am

  239. “Oh Birdy, is this the best you can do? Trying desparately to avoid discussion of the science and preferring to talk past me rather than address my points.”

    1. NO thats what you are doing. You are always running from the science. Busted again for leftist projection.

    2. Hurry the fuck up and make your retractions. You have been busted lying. Own up.

    Fatfingers you fucking idiot.

    You saw how he’s been busted lying fair and square. And this is your attitude.

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 1:57 am

  240. I’m going to take your refusal to address my points as a sign of defeat.

    STOUSHING SCORE:

    JohnZ: 4
    Bird: 0

    JohnZ

    November 16, 2006 at 5:48 am

  241. Jason Soon

    November 16, 2006 at 7:51 am

  242. I find blanket generational attacks one of the few things more boring than generalised political rants about “the left” or “the right” .

    Steve Edney

    November 16, 2006 at 9:15 am

  243. “he argues his case for what he believes to be right. What do you that’s different?”

    Nothing. Except I can do it without going completely librarian-poo.

    “Fatfingers you fucking idiot. You saw how he’s been busted lying fair and square. And this is your attitude.”

    GMB, I was so happy to see a breakdown of the thread by you showing step by step how you thought JohnZ was lying. It was not Demosthenes quality, but a vast improvement on your typical methods. I applaud your effort. But you lose points for reposting at 201 what is just a mouse twirl away anyway.

    However, JohnZ has made a strong case at comment 197. Can you respond?

    My conclusion – you are right about JohnZ being confusing (maybe even to himself) about temperature/output/activity. But you make too much of it, as it’s essentially a diversion.

    You are wrong in claiming that JohnZ’s central thesis (that you can’t make predictions about solar activity/energy output from a tiny handful of temperature measurements) is invalidated by his not being clear.

    fatfingers

    November 16, 2006 at 9:55 am

  244. I’ll repost it again if this bastard tries to change the subject.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now when these marxists do this sort of thing they win either way.

    Because look at what JohnZ has managed to do.

    He’s managed to set up a wall of sound stopping you guys from sorting out the magnitude of David Archibalds revelation.

    At the same time as the alarmists have created so much momentum for their total bullshit that a lot of the most dependable people are rolling over under the pressure……

    All this time when Lambert has made it the mission of his life to mislead the world by lies, damn lies, filthy lies, statistics, Lamberting and other slanderous ploys…..

    All this time that this utter bullshit alarmist stupidity has been going on…

    …….. Well Archibald has the scoop that the Solar forecast prior to 2006 implied that we were going to start cooling very soon. And that we would keep cooling for a very long time.

    Thats a situation where the weather would be freezing in November and giant Ice-Bergs would break off Antarctica and float up to New Zealand and beyond.

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 3:58 pm

  245. !@#$%^&*…….

    What is wrong with everyone?

    I’m watching the fucking news.

    And we have this cold snap coming off the Antarctic.

    And we have this ice-berg snapping off the Antarctic and floating to New Zealand….

    And we have the coldest November overnight minimum in 100 years…..

    And the conclusion on the news is not that its Antarctic cooling…….

    But that its global warming.

    Now we have to stop this bullshit. Its swallowed the whole fucking world and its turning everyone into retards.

    On this thread nearly all of you are tertiary educated.

    Can you not get your act together and come out in an unequivocal way against this crank-science crap?

    If Humphreys doesn’t get his shit together on this issue you should pull out of his party.

    He’s probably some sort of crypto-commie anyway.

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 4:12 pm

  246. Graeme
    Global warming is a bit of a misnomer. The theory predicts long term trends of warming but in the meantime the climate can go all haywire. What’s happening now isn’t inconsistent with climate change.

    Jason Soon

    November 16, 2006 at 4:15 pm

  247. Yeah well thats them just bullshitting you.

    Yes its true that if the Northern Hemisphere ocean currents oscillate down to a lower level of flow then usual…… (and that COULD happen since the heat differentials driving these currents would be less)…

    Then you might have a decade or so of cooler weather in some part of the world dependent on that stream…..

    But on average those same places would be warmer.

    Thats a short-term thing on the way to milder weather. Thats the opposite of what the norm would be.

    For it is the very heat differentials that drive the winds that drive these currents in the first place.

    So how can less heat differentials lead to unstable weather except in transition.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    BUT ASIDE FROM ALL THAT HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY APPLY TO OUR PART OF THE WORLD.

    The strongest current in our part of the world GOES AROUND THE ANTARCTIC.

    Now you people cannot be taken in by this fraud.

    At least one of the alleged experts they consulted ought to have said this is NOT global warming this is Antarctic cooling.

    Its fucking freezing down there. The South Island of New Zealand and down froze this winter.

    You cannot pin it on a down-oscillation in the Gulf Stream.

    What are you pinning it on?

    This is cooling.

    This is not warming its cooling.

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 4:43 pm

  248. BTW Birdy calling John H a crypto commie is just plain fucking ridiculous. He’s been a libertarian activist for a long, long time. He’s more of a libertarian than you are.

    If John H is a crypto commie I’m Leon Fucking Trotsky.

    Jason Soon

    November 16, 2006 at 4:52 pm

  249. Yeah but you were the guy who reckoned Nick Gruen had impeccable libertarian credentials.

    I’m not saying he’s a commie. I’m saying he might be one. But the thing is he MAY AS WELL BE ONE if he doesn’t get his act together on industrial-CO2 and Defense.

    If he backs up the Lamberters and the throw our-weapons-away-crowd then it doesn’t matter if he’s not picking up a cheque from Beijing and one from Tehran.

    “If John H is a crypto commie I’m Leon Fucking Trotsky.”

    Anything you want to tell us Jason?

    Something thats been weighing on you for a long time?

    It can be too much pressure leading this double-life fella.

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 5:05 pm

  250. Seriously.

    Who out there thinks this cold snap is the result of GLOBAL WARMING?

    Seriously.

    Whose going to make that case?

    It was made on the news by the experts and the journalists.

    The EXPERT/JOURNALIST nexus whose driving this SHIITE with fatty Lambert doing a lot of the pushing.

    But whose going to make that case right now?

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 5:09 pm

  251. Let me.

    Global warming causes bad weather and good weather. it is repsonsible for deep freezes and hot , unbearable summers. It causes flood and drought. Global warming is responsible for my cars tires having to be replaced.

    The rain caused the roof to leak and the builder to have a fissy fit over repairing it. If he had a heart attack over the repairs, it would have been indirectly caused by global warming.

    The price of sea food going up is caused by global warming as a result of a rise in sea levels.

    Iran’s attempt at nukes could indirectly be attributed to global warming.

    Even the recent incidence of forced marriages and gender inequality is as a result of global warming. See Stern report.

    Quiggin trimming his beard…. that’s global warming, fella.

    JC.

    November 16, 2006 at 5:39 pm

  252. Hone your reading skills, Birdy:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2065#comment-4751

    There’s your answer.

    Mark Bahnisch

    November 16, 2006 at 5:39 pm

  253. If John H is a crypto commie I’m Leon Fucking Trotsky.

    But you’re Asian. unless, unless global warming caused you to turn into Leon Trotsky. Could happen. there’s nothing in the world that cannot be attributed to global warmng, fella.

    JC.

    November 16, 2006 at 5:45 pm

  254. Can I just say that I love the Google ads? First time I logged on today there were ads for tax policy seminars. Just now there was an ad for the . Marvellous!

    Andrew Elder

    November 16, 2006 at 5:48 pm

  255. Yeah Mark.

    Hardy fucking Hah Hah.

    You ever once thought of being a responsible human being Mark.

    Instead of being a real asshole who wants to fuck with peoples lives?

    How about that Mark?

    You’re an adult now for fucksakes.

    Now as you see you jerk.

    I answered Jason.

    Why be such an asshole and redo Jasons post when I’ve already answered it.

    And for that reason since you are such a hateful bastard and want people hurt for no good reason so you do your best to derail the truth whensoever it pokes up its head……

    Because of your irresponsibility in these matters I HAVE TO FUCKIING REPOST.

    And now attempt not to be such a NAUGHTY BOY DISTRACTING ME WITH YOUR NICE PECS (EDIT BY ADMIN)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Seriously.
    Who out there thinks this cold snap is the result of GLOBAL WARMING?
    Seriously.
    Whose going to make that case?
    It was made on the news by the experts and the journalists.
    The EXPERT/JOURNALIST nexus whose driving this SHIITE with fatty Lambert doing a lot of the pushing.
    But whose going to make that case right now?

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 5:57 pm

  256. Yeah well thats them just bullshitting you.
    Yes its true that if the Northern Hemisphere ocean currents oscillate down to a lower level of flow then usual…… (and that COULD happen since the heat differentials driving these currents would be less)…
    Then you might have a decade or so of cooler weather in some part of the world dependent on that stream…..
    But on average those same places would be warmer.
    Thats a short-term thing on the way to milder weather. Thats the opposite of what the norm would be.
    For it is the very heat differentials that drive the winds that drive these currents in the first place.
    So how can less heat differentials lead to unstable weather except in transition.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    BUT ASIDE FROM ALL THAT HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY APPLY TO OUR PART OF THE WORLD.
    The strongest current in our part of the world GOES AROUND THE ANTARCTIC.
    Now you people cannot be taken in by this fraud.
    At least one of the alleged experts they consulted ought to have said this is NOT global warming this is Antarctic cooling.
    Its fucking freezing down there. The South Island of New Zealand and down froze this winter.
    You cannot pin it on a down-oscillation in the Gulf Stream.
    What are you pinning it on?
    This is cooling.
    This is not warming its cooling.

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 5:59 pm

  257. Come on Elder.

    Make the case in your own words.

    Lets hear your reasoning.

    And how about letting us know with great clarity and firmness if YOU ARE FUCKING SERIOUS OR NOT.

    I mean you people really have lost your minds right?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    WON’T ANYBODY TAKE ON MY CHALLENGE!!!!!

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 6:02 pm

  258. Oh right.

    I though newint must be short for NEW WINTER. I had in my mind a bogus global warming explanation for Antarctic cooling.

    But you were just dropping in a commie magazine.

    Well thats a good example to set for these crypto-commies that surround us all.

    GMB

    November 16, 2006 at 6:07 pm

  259. The magazine was advertised in the Google Ads on this very site! Talk about laugh.

    Andrew Elder

    November 16, 2006 at 6:13 pm

  260. For some reason my drugs post isn’t showing up in the recent comments. I’d be interested in your input. Go here.

    skepticlawyer

    November 16, 2006 at 6:13 pm

  261. We were also advertising a gallery devoted to selling Leunig’s work on Jason’s ‘Leunig Left’ post.

    skepticlawyer

    November 16, 2006 at 6:14 pm

  262. Only if there’s a Google Ad for some drugs SL!

    Andrew Elder

    November 16, 2006 at 6:27 pm

  263. Classic, Andrew E!

    But yair, some of the ads are, ahem, interesting.

    skepticlawyer

    November 16, 2006 at 6:36 pm

  264. was it Schumpeter who said ‘the capitalist will gladly sell you the noose with which to wring his neck’?

    Jason Soon

    November 16, 2006 at 6:46 pm

  265. Lenin.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 16, 2006 at 6:54 pm

  266. This is good for a laugh. Leftwrites fantasise about what happens after the Socialist Revolution
    http://www.leftwrites.net/2006/11/13/socialism-more-than-just-being-mates/#more-459

    Comment by Robert Bollard

    November 13, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

    Just to take a few simple ones. Mortgages would be dealt with pretty quickly I would think as that’s just money owed by workers to the bourgeoisie. Bad luck banks! Spot the home owner. The economy would collapse to a large effect, varying dependent on the size and economic clout of whatever section of the world’s economy was under workers’ control. But the effects would be mitigated by internal redistribution. People would have to be paid salaries. But, as much as possible there would be a process of moving certain essential commodities – staple food, housing, public transport, childcare etc out of the money economy.

    >>>>>>>>

    And what would happen to people working producing non-essential commodities which are still part of the money economy? Say, someone working for a software company? Presumably they’d have the office running collectively but they’d be a good chance their whole chain of clients and contractors would break down and hence their profits. How would they get paid? Would the nationalised banks be directed to pay them salaries or would they be redirected into more essential areas of the economy? It’s just that there must be a huge section of the economy producing non-essential commodities so I’m wondering what would happen to them initially.

    >>>

    software is non-essential??? WTF do these people think they’re typing into?
    >>>>>>>
    Comment by Tristan Ewins

    November 15, 2006 @ 7:13 pm

    I don’t think the reformist project has completely given the ghost. Sure, it’s in retreat. (witness the defeat of social democracy in Germany and Sweden – mind you – if the SPD had been willing to work with the Left Party there would have been a left-wing government) But at the same time the Scandinavian countries retain strong socialist traditions, and the Conservatives must be vey careful in winding back those countries’ welfare culture. Also, in Germany the Left Party is on the rise – a response the the SPD’s attack on the German welfare state, and poverty/unemployment in East Germany post-reunification. Meanwhile, socialism and social democracy are on the rise in Latin America.

    I think terms like ’statist’ are very dangerous. There is a constant war of ideas going on – and words like this – that are tailored to become ‘fashions’ – cripple the Left – and deprive it of options, ideas and any sense of continuity with its traditions.

    Yes – in a planned economy there were no price signals… And yes – this was a bad thing… But there were things the Soviets did well – and yes, they were very good at running a war economy… To compare the US economy to the Soviet economy is also kind of beside the point – the US was (and is) a major Imperialist power – with oil interests in the Middle East, ruthless exploitation of Latin Amercia and the Third World etc… The USSR did not have many of the natural advantages of the US, and its failure to match US material living standards ought not be seen as an absolute failure per se. What is notable is the rise of crime, nationalism, regional strife, poverty and inequality in the former USSR in the post-Soviet era.

    Furthermore, if socialism is built within the broader context of liberal democracy, there is no reason why government-run business enterprises cannot be held accountable through the ballot box, and through competition with co-operative and private enterprise. And no – as a liberal socialist I don’t see the banning of ‘bourgeois’ parties as an option. We should not accept the traditional opposition of ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’. We can – and should – have both.

    Similarly, in a wage-earner fund model of socialism – comrpising regional funds run by communities and unions – there is direct public involvement in economic decision-making – and a participatory model for democratic planning. The other prospect – of co-operative ownership – promises direct worker control of enterprises – and can be combined with industry planning to have the best mix of markets and planning.

    Jason Soon

    November 16, 2006 at 9:10 pm

  267. ya gotta love the little commie devils over there.

    I think they’re cute. They’re almost collectible in a few years. Buy one and keep it in the home.

    JC.

    November 16, 2006 at 10:10 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: