That’s right. Now that global temps are falling the “Global warming” cabal now scream that it isn’t about actual global temps rising but, other as of yet undefined “change”.
ROFL

Always nice to see when someone can’t tell the difference between weather and climate.

However, in this case, it may be both. It has long been known that the North Atlantic is dominated by the Gulf Stream, making Britain quite a lot warmer than Labrador, at the same latitude and also by the sea.

Since the gulf stream is already 30% slower than it used to be, this may well be an effect of a slowing gulf stream.

So, remember to keep the global in global warming. It’s not about every place on the map and it’s not about individual years. But, keep trying, you probably only have about 4,900 posts to go before you get lucky again.

http://tinyurl.com/8msdav
http://tinyurl.com/7aaoxt

Note the dates on these from 2005, so clearly not a case of explaining something after the fact, but a case of forecasting.

OMG. I’ve worked there on & off for the last decade. I didn’t think I’d ever see this.

I say bring back global warming. This global cooling is worse.

CO2 is not a “pollutant”. It’s an essential gas for all life on earth. …

Well, most nutrients are essential for life. BUT, in too strong a dose they will kill you.

People need iron, copper, sodium, manganese, and many other elements, yet any one of those in high enough concentration will kill you. The same with CO2.

The earth’s biosphere has evolved to live with 0.04% CO2. At higher rates some plant life will die off while others will flourish. Humans will die if exposed to CO2 at 1.0% for over several hours. 10% will kill within minutes.

The same with water. We need water to breath but too much water will drown people. Consuming too much water will also kill. Too little water hinders breathing and total lack of water also kills.

Farmers spread nitrogen on their fields to make them grow. Too much nitrogen “burns” the field and nothing grows.

1) Is there anyone left who still thinks the original article makes any point at all?

Maybe some troll such as in post #157. (that is funny)

True enough that CO2 is essential. But, humans and most of the other animal species on this planet were not around then and may not be able to survive if it gets that high again.

Our pre-industrial level of CO2 has given us a planet with an average temperature of 15 degrees C instead of -18 C. Can we survive at higher temperatures? Maybe. We’ve never tried.

We’re in the middle of a huge mass extinction right now, human caused, of course.

Large warm-blooded species fare very poorly in mass extinctions. Humans are a large warm-blooded species. If you want to guess who might survive this, look at those species who survived the P/T extinction 250 million years ago, e.g. turtles, horseshoe crabs, crocodilians, etc.

Don’t look at species that are essentially brand new, like us at a mere 200,000 years old.

I tip my hat to someone I admire for his intelligence and life choices.

And I to you. Should we now join in the homoerotic buggery circle mentioned above?

With respect to the serious topics on this thread:

1) Is there anyone left who still thinks the original article makes any point at all?

2) I will assume there are still those who do not believe a tax break is a subsidy, and who do not believe that the government when it gives one tax break must ask the rest of us to pick it up. However, is there anyone out there who does not believe that the Export Import Bank handing a physical check (or a wire transfer or an ACH transfer) to an oil company is a subsidy?

3) Is there anyone out there who thinks subsidizing oil companies is a good idea?

NO NO, far from it. My point is that several people made the claim above that the thread was about something else. The tangents the thread did evolve into though were relevant and well presented but the claim that a definition of “subsidies” or a discussion or “Art Vandellay” was now “the thread” I found annoying.

That special interest groups have hijacked the opposing scientific responsibility of challenging Climate Change is not off topic when exposing a bad article purporting a claim. Your post about “subsidies” was timely and relevant.

If anything, I should apologize for not being more specific. But, your humility is appreciated and acknowledged. And, I tip my hat to someone I admire for his intelligence and life choices.

I thought we had settled that the arctic sea ice article was pointless in the extreme and said nothing at all about global warming. Therefore, the tangent was a welcome one to me.

In fact, I think I may have been the first to mention subsidies in post #57 in response to a stupid remark made earlier by Paddy-O in post #46. If this line of conversation has annoyed you, I apologize.

The thread is about the Arctic sea ice extending to a historical level. The definition of a subsidy or ‘dro’s fascination with Sienfeld are distractions.

Accountants are notorious for their spin using numbers. Instead of comparing apples to oranges why not compare the oil companies to other American energy and manufacturing producers.

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006

… the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.

Not a subsidy?

the president is protecting oil company profits at the public’s expense. In December 2007, he threatened to veto the entire energy bill because of its tax package, even though it included incentives for “a new generation of clean energy technology” that he extolled one month later in the State of the Union address. The reason for the veto threat? The energy tax package would have closed tax breaks for big oil that are worth slightly more than $1 billion annually.
The big five oil companies made over $123 billion in net profits in 2007; the closed loopholes would be less than one percent of their 2007 profits.

There are plenty of other references out there. Because of the DU Spam Filter though, I’ll leave you with just these two.

#117 You do now [sic] who Art Vandelay was, don’t you?

No. I didn’t know that level of detail about Seinfeld. Sorry. I was trying to have a serious conversation and forgot that you don’t know how.

Don’t worry though. I do know how to google. Apparently you do not.

However, I assume from your completely idiotic remark that you have conceded the point about subsidies.

#127 – Sea Lawyer,

#122, you only have an advantage if somebody else has a corresponding disadvantage. If all the members of the industry are taxed at the same rate (i’m assuming they are since the paper only refers to the oil industry as a whole) regardless of what other, unrelated industries are taxed, who has a disadvantage? Doesn’t matter anyway, while a state of advantage my be the result of receiving a subsidy, it is not the definition of what is one.

Actually, this is not at all the case. The oil companies pay a far lower rate than other industries. That has indeed been the topic of this whole thread of conversation. Oil companies pay about 16% while publishers pay 23%. Human beings, those who actually have “inalienable rights” on the other hand pay dramatically more.

Though I know you have trouble with the concept of a tax break that costs money to those who have to make up the difference being a subsidy is against your ideas, will you at least concede that the real live money handed directly from the federal government to the oil companies qualifies as a subsidy?

If not, will you at least concede that we have never had a free market economy and that the financial rules are heavily stacked in favor of big oil? This is the real point of the conversation anyway.

>>SL==sorry you didn’t chime in.

Maybe SL is taking Contempt’s way out, like when he (Contempt) made that ridiculous allegation about “vote fraud” in Minnesota, complete with imaginary numbers, then just STFU when I called bullshit on him.