AGW Supporters always ignore this question

[Luzr]

... and the trend starts before CO2 is a "problem". The trend is the same after CO2 becomes a "problem". The trend, around which temperature is oscillating, is not different before or after CO2.

Actually, this can be taken into question.

Response to CO2 is logarithmic - that means that modest rise in the first warming period can have as big effect as much more rapid rise in the second period.

But of course, it is obvious that there is strong natural cycle and causes superposed to any man-made warming.

[Luzr]

However I DO think there is no reason NOT to reduce emissions.

One suggestion: Maintaining high CO2 benefits Earth biosphere.

[bcglorf]

The primary purpose of the war was to insure that Iraq would not have the capability of starting World War III by nuking Tel Aviv.

I think the greater fear was he might nuke areas that were hardly populated at all. He could hit more than half the global oil supply much more easily than Tel Aviv, and that would give him the global economy as his hostage. Flaming Kuwaiti oil fields show that would have been no idle threat.

If this thing unfolds the way it was planned, George W. Bush may be mentioned with Presidents like Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln.

The way it was planned? A month before the invasion of Iraq, members of the Iraqi opposition(in exile of course) spent much of their meeting with Bush explaining that their were two factions within Islam, Sunni and Shia, and how that mattered in Iraq. When it came time to choose an administrator to run things in Iraq, Bremer was given two weeks notice that the job was going to be his. He also had no prior experience with Iraq.

The plan was:
1.Remove Saddam
2.?
3.A stable and democratic Iraq.
4.Democracy spreads through the Middle East.

Somehow it turns out that everything went to pot at step 2.

I think the removal of Saddam was long overdue, and I'm glad Bush finished what his father should have finished earlier. I am also convinced that it was one of the few of Bush's blind ignorant flailings that was good based on blind dumb luck and not any amount of insight and planning. The good decisions made during his time happened in spite, not because, of he and Cheney.

[IntLibber]

However I DO think there is no reason NOT to reduce emissions.

One suggestion: Maintaining high CO2 benefits Earth biosphere.

Quite so. Without high CO2 levels, global crop yields will crash and billions will starve. Agriculture is highly dependent on CO2 fertilization to maintain high productivity.

[MSimon]

bcglorf,

Despite lack of definition at step 2 we have arrived at step 3.

Sometimes will can overcome ineptitude. See Lincoln, A.

And the plan was not just about Iraq. It was about making self government attractive in the ME. Grand strategy. It seems to be working. Slowly (cultures do not change fast - slow is probably the best we can expect).

BTW no plan survives contact with the enemy.

And things always look better with 50 years of hindsight (if you are on the winning side). Read about the ineptitude caused by politics in WW2. Yalta is a prime example. Screwed by our "friends". The Brits tried to warn us. But they were evil colonialists. Water under the bridge now.

[Diogenes]

The primary purpose of the war was to insure that Iraq would not have the capability of starting World War III by nuking Tel Aviv.

I think the greater fear was he might nuke areas that were hardly populated at all. He could hit more than half the global oil supply much more easily than Tel Aviv, and that would give him the global economy as his hostage. Flaming Kuwaiti oil fields show that would have been no idle threat.

That too. I have read that the original architects of the plan were Israelis, and the thinking behind the plan was developed in the 1990s.(Under Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli right and the American right are allies.) These guys migrated into jobs at the Defense Department under Paul Wolfowitz, and pointed out the mutual advantages to both Israel , the US, and the world in general. I read this years ago in a column written by William Safire, and for that reason I consider it credible. Either reason makes it a sensible thing to do.

If this thing unfolds the way it was planned, George W. Bush may be mentioned with Presidents like Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln.

The way it was planned? A month before the invasion of Iraq, members of the Iraqi opposition(in exile of course) spent much of their meeting with Bush explaining that their were two factions within Islam, Sunni and Shia, and how that mattered in Iraq. When it came time to choose an administrator to run things in Iraq, Bremer was given two weeks notice that the job was going to be his. He also had no prior experience with Iraq.

The plan was:
1.Remove Saddam
2.?
3.A stable and democratic Iraq.
4.Democracy spreads through the Middle East.

Somehow it turns out that everything went to pot at step 2.

I think the removal of Saddam was long overdue, and I'm glad Bush finished what his father should have finished earlier. I am also convinced that it was one of the few of Bush's blind ignorant flailings that was good based on blind dumb luck and not any amount of insight and planning. The good decisions made during his time happened in spite, not because, of he and Cheney.

I have no great disagreement with this assessment. It fits what I observed well enough and is plausible. Bremer was a disaster, and as a proxy for Bush, much of the blame has to land on George W. But yeah, it looks like Bush stumbled into doing something sensible. Fortunately he was in the right party to have the right contacts to actually GET sensible advice. If he had been in the OTHER party, he would have only had the counsel of idiots to listen to.
(Freddie Mac, Fannie May, CRA, The "Great" Society, Housing Projects, Social Security, Social experiments in the military etc.)

[TallDave]

The plan was:
1.Remove Saddam
2.?
3.A stable and democratic Iraq.
4.Democracy spreads through the Middle East.

Read Feith's War And Decision for a good insider's account. If anything, they overplanned. For instance, Jay Garner had reams and reams of planning on dealing with various humanitarian crises that never arose.

The problem was they didn't adjust well to changing realities (esp. Bremer and Rumsfeld), and stuck to their "light footprint" plan way after they should have realized it wasn't working. The conventional wisdom as late as 2006 was "Iraqis need to handle Iraqi problems, and we need to keep our distance." It took Petraeus to turn all that on its head and win the peace.

In any case, to establish a relatively liberal democracy in the heart of Arabia was an astounding achievement that will cast ripples for decades to come. It's already creating huge problems in Iran, and less publicly the Syrian border tribes are clamoring for more representative gov't (40 years of "emergency powers?" really?).

Also, even with all the mistakes Iraq was never going nearly as badly as people seemed to think. By our standards, it was horribly violent, but at the height of postwar violence the average Iraqi was still much better off than under Saddam (which was reflected in Iraqi polling, where Iraqis generally had a more favorable impression of how things were going in Iraq than Americans did about America), and by any historical standard our casualties were quite low (for comparison, more American soldiers died over the same amount of time during a period of the 1980s when we weren't even at war). We lost tens of thousands in Vietnam and Korea, and it looks like we get out of Iraq with <5K KIA (December 2009's number was zero) and having accomplished considerably more.

http://icasualties.org/

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx

[clonan]

This is an interesting way of looking at it. Years ago we did the same thing with Rubber from the Philippines and sugar from Hawaii. The US military has long been utilized to insure commerce. Is it wrong to do this with oil? Especially when we don't even get any of the oil we're protecting? I could make the argument that it is wrong to use the military UNLESS we get the oil.

Or we say that a military as large as ours is not necessary and can then pay off the entire national debt in 3 years and reduce taxes by 50% in the 4th year.

The primary purpose of the war was to insure that Iraq would not have the capability of starting World War III by nuking Tel Aviv. The secondary purpose (unstated) was to create a democracy that would topple all the nearby Monarchy's (cough Saudi Arabia cough) and dictatorships by creating a prosperous democracy and thereby precipitating a Domino effect of Democracy. (Once oppressed people's could see how happy the Iraqis had become, they would demand democratic reforms)

And the fiction of they were involved in 9/11 or "they hate our freedom" or nuclear weapons or spreading democracy are the mantras of the right. Perhaps you forgot how the Bush white house changed the propaganda about once a month for the 6 months before and after the invasion...

(It's happening in Iran.)

Actually, he was losing power and was on his way out UNTIL we invaded Iraq. That gave Iran a nationalistic ferver which is only now receding. Iranian youth has always loved the current CA governator... Only the fear of invasion drove everyone in the country to support the sociopath in power

The Ministry of Oil was protected because it was the most important ministry to help Iraq become prosperous. WE didn't need it. The Iraqi's needed it. To us it's just a building with records and officials. To Iraq, it is a major source of their income.

Yes and the ministry of water or agriculture or police or nuclear energy or security or transportation or ... or ... or ... wouldn't help the Iraq people. How about guarding KNOWN stockpiles of nuclear materials.

So instead of protecting all the things the locals needed to survive we let them be destroyed and only over the last year were these functions really been re-established and it STILL is hit and miss for services.

Oil helps the cause, but it is not the cause of the cause. We aren't getting any oil from Iraq, and we spent far more money than we will ever get back in oil, and that's IF we ever get any oil from Iraq.

Then why did they pass a law saying that only thoes who were involved in the initial invasion could purchase oil rights or sell oil equipment? That MUST have helped the Iraqs rebuild the infrastructure right? Then why are they producing less now than BEFORE the invasion? Could it be possible that Shell and Exxon were dragging their feet so they could drive up prices...say a 2008 oil price spike??

No my friend, what we have witnessed is a very clever act by a man who may one day be called great. For the first time in History, a US President has actually done something that MIGHT someday bring peace to the middle east. Prior to this time, every US President simply sat on their @$$ and bemoaned the lack of peace in the Middle east. George Bush took action. Yes, it had a bunch of bumbles and stumbles in it, but no one before did ANYTHING that might actually have a chance of working.

Quite to the contrary friend. Bush's actions have strengthened the religious extremism by making it look like an active religious war. Bush was the best recruitment tool Al Qaeda ever got! He pumped money into countries that already dislike us by driving up oil prices and pulled out of the peace process with Isreal.

The best way to reach peace in the middle east is to get off of oil! Only the constant flow of money allows the current dictators to remain in power...get off oil and get peace

If this thing unfolds the way it was planned, George W. Bush may be mentioned with Presidents like Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln. Not sure he deserves it because it wasn't his plan. At least he had the good sense and audacity to put it into action.

I think it is FAR more likely that he will be ranked alongside Nixon since he reduced the spread of democracy, reduced the standard of living for 10s of million, allowed the spread of nuclear arms (N. Korea), rolled back or reduced almost every environmental law on the books and encouraged religious bigotry inside the US.

I like Wind, Solar, and Geothermal power. Even if we developed them as you say, how would they help transportation? It appears to be the consensus that the major problem with Electrically powered transportation is the fact that batteries simply cannot be made small enough and with a large enough storage capacity to be truly practical.

I actually thought the Picken's plan was a pretty good idea. Move transportation on to natural gas, and free up some oil needs. Eventually we'll get those usable batteries.

I have no problem with using Gasoline. But why do we have to drill for it? With a 2 Trillion dollar investment (or the development of polywell??), renewable will be as cheap as coal and you can then use THAT power to synthesize gasoline out of atmospheric CO2 and it will be almost as cheap as drilling for it. Plus bio-diesel (not corn ethanol of course) is pretty close right now.

Then transport won't support dictators and won't contribute to any global warming without serious disruption.

Later

[MSimon]

Clonan,

Evidently you are unaware of what happens when an empire no longer protects its lines of supply and the lines of supply of its allies.

Decline and Fall

Desolation Row

And why don't we make our allies carry more of the burden? Simple. It is best not to build up potential competitors. These are all lessons learned between 1914 and 1945. The world is a much more peaceful place since we started applying the lessons learned.

Besides who do you want to fill the power vacuum? China? Russia? Iran?

China trusts us to keep the oil it buys from the ME flowing. Would it be better if that trust was gone? If we were gone from the scene?

Yes. Keeping such a military is expensive. A year or two of world war would wipe out all the potential savings and then some while disrupting trade patterns for decades. You can't afford it.

You might do well to learn the lessons of American Grand Strategy 1900 to 2000.

Here is the very best place to start:

Strategy: by BHL Hart

If you have not read it I will say flat out you are not competent to opine on Strategy or Grand Strategy. I re-read it at least every 6 months.

[MSimon]

And the fiction of they were involved in 9/11 or "they hate our freedom" or nuclear weapons or spreading democracy are the mantras of the right. Perhaps you forgot how the Bush white house changed the propaganda about once a month for the 6 months before and after the invasion...

Pardon my French: Its the Koran stupid. i.e. their ideology vs. ours. The dream of a world wide dictatorship. The caliphate.

But perhaps this will grab your gonads. Mein Kampf (Arabic Version) has been a ME best seller for 60 or 70 years. Year in. Year out. You can fact check my @$$.

What? You think they are reading it for its historical value?

And lest you think I'm some kind of bigot. Ali Eteraz is a friend. Sand Monkey (from Egypt) is a friend. And I have posting privileges at Muslims Against Sharia. I was one of the first people they contacted to write for them when they started the blog. I'm Jewish.

In a word. You don't know what the h3ll you are writing about.

Oh. Yeah. Prepare for Incoming.

Because I know for sure Tall Dave has Muslim friends and if he sees your drivel you are going to take some heavy blows.

I note you are a 9/11 Truther. Fine. Explain the Jockey Shorts bomber? OK I get it. An Obama dirty trick. Fair enough.

[Josh Cryer]

I'll note that once clonan sufficiently answered the question (that indeed, there is a significant trend if you look at the data properly), the thread went way off of its original topic.

One can hope for an extended cooling trend, however.

The mention of the "912 experiment" (never heard it called that before) and China's cloud making is quite interesting.

[MSimon]

With a 2 Trillion dollar investment (or the development of polywell??), renewable will be as cheap as coal and you can then use THAT power to synthesize gasoline out of atmospheric CO2 and it will be almost as cheap as drilling for it.

Atmospheric CO2? I see your science education is lacking too. Where did you go to school? You ought to sue for a refund. But OK. What is the energy cost of extracting a Gigaton of CO2 from the atmosphere? What is the minimum concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for plant life? What is the optimum?

Just FYI this board is mainly populated by Engineers (with an occasional physicist thrown in). Engineers are 80% to 90% conservatives or libertarians. You are going to have a hard slog politically. And if your science is not up to snuff you are going to get creamed. Badly. Of course if you have at least a minimum of humility we can further your education. If you want to be arrogant you have to bring something. Because posers don't last.

The standard half life for those of similar persuasions as yourself on this board is roughly two weeks. The odds that you will last 20 weeks is one in a thousand. Why? Losing arguments continuously is no fun (unless like some of us you enjoy hard pounding - it is an acquired taste).

And let me add. I'm pretty much self taught. Started when I was 10 in electronics. That would be 55 years of studying science. About 40 years as an engineer.

[Josh Cryer]

It actually surprises me that more of you engineering types aren't after the whole wind turbine business, it's one of the fastest growing green businesses in the world. I mean hell, just installing the things requires a crapload of engineering skill.

[MSimon]

Josh,

I'll note that once clonan sufficiently answered the question (that indeed, there is a significant trend if you look at the data properly), the thread went way off of its original topic.

You know better than that. Correlation does not prove causation.

To even get that far you have to rule out all other causes. And that has not been done. Clouds are imperfectly understood (the sign of the feedback is not even agreed to let alone the amount). UV is not well understood. Volcanoes are not properly assigned a term. And then there are things we are unaware we are ignorant of.

Warming? When the PDO is positive. Cooling? When the PDO is negative. It is now up to the warmists to prove that the variation is not natural. That has yet to be done. And let me note that the warmists now say any cooling observed is natural. OK. Now prove the warming is not.

A little history:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/special ... andIce.pdf

And with ClimateGate calling the whole field into question your proof had better be iron clad. Because there is good evidence of suppression of opposing views in the peer review process. Jones and Mann are under investigation for fraud. Heh.

And you know the holes. Predicted equatorial tropo warming not observed (bad theory or bad data - so say the Real Climate/ClimateGate folks). I like bad theory. Ten years of no warming - not predicted. Cooling (if it happens - the beginnings are evident) not predicted.

And as you point out: with China and India and the EU increasing their CO2 output it doesn't matter what we think. Politics wins. Unless you are prepared to go to war over CO2.

Hide The Decline

Josh,

I do believe you could work out a logistics plan for deploying Polywell (if it works). Clonan? Hope and Change. Which is not a plan.

[Tom Ligon]

Simon,

As I understand it, Hitler is particularly popular in Iran. While Arabs are technically semetic, close cousins of the Jews, Persians are predominantly Aryan. Some people in northern India, also Aryan, also supposedly have the same fascination.

Realize, of course, that Hitler's theories on race were horse$#!+, still, his tendency to elevate Aryans does make a few from the Indo-Iranian areas rather proud, and so perhaps more easily seduced by his writings.

A couple of books on the shelf behind me show that Hitler considered Persians to be the same as Arabs, and therefore Semites. His notion of a proper Aryan was the blonde-haired blue-eyed Scandanavian. Hitler absolutely detested the Gypsies (Roma), and they are virtually pure-blooded Aryans.

People delude themselves easily. I think if some of the people who think Hitler is great knew more about him, he'd lose much of his charm.