Is this the same Krugman that supported the illegal invasion of Iraq? I thought so! NOT ONE PERSON HAS DIED BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. But 1 million Iraquis are dead because of "liberals" like P. Krugman. For more accurate information visit here:

Climate Change Has No Scientific Consensus

http://climate-change.su...imate-chan#ixzz0o1PzpVdA

OMG Cauldron, can't you even come up with anything ACCURATE?

3 second Google search shows Krugman was AGAINST the Iraq War invasion all the way back in 2003, and was one of the first to bring up Iraqi civilian causalities, slamming the corporate mainstream media for ignoring the civilian death toll.

Of course, Krugman accurately predicted the Wall St. derivatives bubble, accurately predicted the housing bubble, and accurately predicted the global economic fallout. Gosh, you'd think ALL those "liberals" who ACCURATELY PREDICTED ALL of the recent Bush Administration disasters would get some credit for being RIGHT. Gosh, you'd think the people who were WRONG would start listening to them now.

You need to find a new hobby horse, because you're so frequently, breathtakingly wrong. Why doncha take your superior data to EVERY major scientific organizations across the entire world, because if there's "no scientific consensus", they --- the real scientists --- ALL disagree with you.

What's your brilliant explanation for this?:

NASA: Easily the hottest April — and hottest Jan-April — in temperature record
Plus a new record 12-month global temperature, as predicted

(Do try to find something that hasn't already been thoroughly discredited and debunked. Remember, you can save us all a lot of time by pre-bunking yourself at SkepticalScience.com!)

Also still waiting on your brilliant riposte that overturns the clear signs of accelerating ocean acidification:

Acidic oceans worsening, experts warn; CO2 impact coming faster than seas can adapt [more here: Nature Geoscience study: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred]

BTW, no one has ever said any deaths can be directly tied to global warming. But they do predict scenarios in which such a situation is possible. Another breathtakingly stupid strawman statistic ya got there...

Cauldron said:

Is this the same Krugman that supported the illegal invasion of Iraq? I thought so!

Your record continues to be stellar, Cauldron. I can't imagine why you're having so much trouble selling your denialism here, what with all the impressive research you've clearly done on all of these issues!

Well,
Nothing to deny here.

But to add; this is from the source of the graphic Brad used:

They could argue that temperatures fluctuate, that one shouldn’t make too much of a particular peak — which is actually true

So as I have said earlier Brad and Des, I am simply skeptical of the C02/temp link and how EXACTLY they correlate. The temperature of Earth is always changing.

As far as the global cooling....Its the opposite extreme, so appropriately, I stay away from it.

Keep up the great Electoral coverage Brad.

I think it is what you do best.

Brian said:

So as I have said earlier Brad and Des, I am simply skeptical of the C02/temp link and how EXACTLY they correlate. The temperature of Earth is always changing.

It's not "changing". It's spiking. After remaining relatively flat for a few thousand years, it's suddenly spiking, outta no where, in the last 60 or so.

At the same time, the oceans are acidifying. For some odd reason.

Finally, it's my opinion (not that you asked) that it makes no difference to me why temperatures are rising or oceans are acidifying. They are, and so where we can reverse that trend, we should. Further, where the use of fossil fuels are both dirty, and increasingly deadly, we should get off of 'em. Period.

Why you would spend so much time re-posting the information on those who want to stay on 'em, continues to be beyond me. But that's your silly hobby horse, and best of luck to you with it.

OK so I was wrong about Krugman and the war. I guess I was thinking about Remnick at the New Yorker. But Krugman supported the bailout of the banks (cautiously!!). Glad he was against the war- kudos.

FACT: CO2 is a minor atmospheric gas. Regulating CO2 only makes wall street and the tax man happy. (Al Gore's solution -ETHANOL- only starves the poorest) What a putz.
FACT: Other planets with no atmosphere are warming
FACT: Monglian winter so cold it destroys their livestock: http://www.nytimes.com/2...asia/20mongolia.html?hpw
FACT: Polar bear pop. increasing
FACT: many glaciers expanding
FACT: medieval warm period warmer than now with NO CARS
FACT: I'm all for small scale solar and wind. Don't hear any of the nitwits proposing that
FACT: Warming is a distraction from chemical/genetic pollution- the real killer and the real danger.
FACT: The globalists are playing you all like a pair of bongos

Cheers,
C

So Brad,

Even if our Earth is going through natural changes you are for unnatural solutions?

Please say it aint so!

These unnatural solutions are often excaberating problems.

As far as fuel sources, I would say we need more diversity, and specifically, locally-based solutions.

Deserts obviously are great for solar, but bringing water in will never be sustainable.

Islands or coastal climates are obviously suited for tidal-powered solutions, yet are vulnerable to the wrath of hurricanes, cyclones, tsunamis.

Mainlands may carry resources like geo-thermal, wind, and other fuel sources, and are normally more vulnerable to eathquakes, tornadoes etc.

Diversity is key, and we must break up big groups like the Rockefeller U.N., Exxon-Mobil, BP, Chase, Goldman Sachs, and the like to really have a true victory, everything else is illusion.

The U.S. used to be quite self sufficient as far as energy was concerned, but somewhere in the 20's-40's that was consolidated. Now mom and pop oil drillers are out of business and we fight wars in foreign lands for the black gold. (Or offshore disasters)

I am very concerned that mom and pop solar, wind and other energy source producers will fall victim to the same vicious cycle, eventually losing out on production to China (input compact flourescents here) that really is WORSE for the envronment. While we will go broke to create the infrastructure and tecnology.

We have to be dynamic in our approaches and critical of what is being SOLD to us.

To say a natural problem is the Peoples fault, and the People should have to pay for the solutions, is criminal, nothing more. (I understand there is still a healthy debate on where the fault really lies, so I am open to that debate)

I would of thought many people would know that by now, but it seems to be eluding many of us still.

Cauldron -

Wow, dude. You'll buy anything, won't you? Or you know better, and you post your bullshit here anyway. Since Desi has taken so much time to debunk your bullshit previously, you surely know by now that of the "FACTS" you posted here, not a one of them actually are. They are ALL long ago debunked, fossil fuel industry propaganda points.

Therefore, since you have now knowingly violated our rules for commenting here, specifically concerning "knowing disinfo", you are officially on moderate. If your posts from now on do not include disinfo, they'll be allowed to go through. If not, sorry. We've got better things to do than to spend time replying to your disingenuous garbage. See ya.

And speaking of disingenuous garbage, your comments are only slightly less asinine and ill-informed, Brian.

Your not yet on "moderate", but you're getting damned near.

And yes, I take your condescending little snark re: "We have to be ... critical of what is being SOLD to us " personally.

If you haven't figured out that that's exactly what we do here, than you either haven't been paying attention, or you have, and yet you don't give a shit. Which puts you in the category with "Cauldron".

Proceed carefully. Since both Des and I have much more important things to do than to your reply to your bullshit and conspiracy theories as well. Thanks.

Brad-

Dont take it personal.

I was asking if you would apply unnatural solutions to natural phenomena or natural events.

As far as everything else you said to me.

It is easy to see that you disagree with some of what I said, but what I'm saying is not too far out there.

I doubt you called your Rep. in support of the Bank bailouts?

I'm sure you dont call your Rep. and have Diebold install eVoting machines in every state.

I'm sure you don't beg for more support to "defeat the evil-doer's" and expand the Terror War.

Well, I still question the alarmisim and SOLD solutions from the Global Interests based on C02/Earth Temp leaders like IPCC and GORE.

I don't see why you can't reason with me on that. But I know you are busy, so I DONT expect it. You have TRULY more serious things to attend to. (No, I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it.)

So you have drawn some lines on what is questionable and what is not. I get it.

Truly not trying to disrupt the day.

You dont even need to post this if you don't want to...

I've been reading your blog since way back when, given you a lot of money and recommended you to friends. I usually said "it's hard to believe a guy named brad from LA is actually cool but it's true". Obviously I a was wrong, like I was wrong about "Bailout" Krugman. Banish me. Believe lies and disitortions so corporate America profits further. Another liberal patsy afraid to actually debate!

I'm proud to say I was banned by Brad Afraid-To-Debate Friedman and his green honey DES. Thanks! I'll put it on my resume you bongo drums!

[This comment is, of course, knowing disinfo, since you haven't been "banned". What I said above was very clear. If you post disinformation, it won't be allowed through. If you don't, your comments will be posted. Yes, you have to follow the very few rules we have for posting here, just like everybody else. I'm sorry you seem to have so much trouble with that. - BF]

Is the graph by the same people who cannot add 2+2, and get 4. ?That have to use a +/- to get it to balance out.
If I remember those e-mails right, the same people were getting their information from the same people, not releasing the correct data to the public, and are still using the same data, the made up data to justify taxing the West into submission, while letting the peoples republic off from the same regulationionary taxes. It has not been hotter in the US of A, where the people live. It's been normal weather, with the 1920's and 30's having been warmer thru the first of the year. With the warmer came the wetter, which is usually a sign ot the nineo being on our side of the pacific. Open your eyes, read the farmers almanac of the past, read last years papers on the i-net. God bless man use your own brain not some shill for taxation.

No, Jim, you don't "remember those emails right".

The climate scientists involved in those emails have been repeatedly cleared of ALL wrongdoing, cleared of ALL allegations of scientific malfeasance, cleared of ALL accusations of manipulation of data --- and the investigations continue. Please try to keep up.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the actual scientists who do the actual work --- unlike bloggers and commenters, they're actually out there doing the real work of gathering field data and synthesizing the results --- disagree with you.

You may be surprised to learn that the U.S. is NOT the whole world. When climate scientists try to discuss the undisputed global temperature trends --- again, the observed warming is an undisputed FACT --- don't be confused by that.

It's funny that you think you know more than the trained Earth systems scientists, across multiple disciplines, from reading the Farmer's Almanac. Seriously, if you believe you are in possession of superior data, you should take your analysis to the world's scientific organizations --- ALL of them disagree with you.

I respectfully suggest that you follow your own advice: open your eyes, and seek out actual scientific sources to get a full accounting of the current field data. The best site we've found that combines NON-partisan, apolitical analysis of the ACTUAL DATA is SkepticalScience.com, where you can read the scientific studies for yourself, compare the gaps in the data, and get a full debunking for yourself of all the standard denier arguments that you have sampled for us here.

Don't be an unwitting shill for the climate change denial industry. Sorry to say it looks like they have you totally snowed.

Adding to my previous comment --- you can shore up your understanding of weather systems at the excellent Weather Underground. Here are recent samples that explain why you're wrong about current weather trends:

2000s: hottest decade on record; dangerous blizzard pounds Midwest

Warmest April on record for the globe

Guess it depends on what your definition of 'normal' is.

Also, just for fun, since both Cauldron and Brain and you are all so convinced that it's all a big conspiracy --- How do you guys explain away accelerating ocean acidification?:

An Ominous Warning on the Effects of Ocean Acidification: A new study says the seas are acidifying ten times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred. And, the study concludes, current changes in ocean chemistry due to the burning of fossil fuels may portend a new wave of die-offs. (Yale 360)

Still waiting for any deniers to come up with ANY actual scientific data that shows otherwise. (And no, claiming a global conspiracy among scientists to deceive you does not count as field data or actual scientific evidence.)

With all due respect, most people who are deniers/skeptics are actually afraid of what they perceive are the policy implications of the scientific data. Don't confuse policy fears with scientific data --- first get a concrete understanding of what the evidence shows and doesn't show from a reputable science-oriented site like Skeptical Science, not a political site.