Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Ralph Gomory: In the United States, innovation has become almost synonymous with economic competitiveness. Even more remarkable, we often hear that our economic salvation can only be through innovation. We hear that because of low Asian wages we must innovate because we cannot really compete in anything else. Inventive Americans will do the R&D and let the rest of the world, usually China, do the dull work of actually making things. Or we'll do programming design but let the rest of the world, usually India, do low-level programming. This is a totally mistaken belief and one that, if accepted, will consign this nation to second- or third-class status.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

DARTHCHENEY

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Too much common sense here, it will be rejected immediately by the same brilliant economic geniuses who brought us to where we are now. Corporate CEOs can now use unlimited amounts of money to convince Americans that outsourcing is good for them, that China is our friend and that corporate profit is prosperity.

The CEO of a company I worked for once claimed that the jobs that the overseas (China/India) design centers would do would be simple, production work, not R&D. This, of course, was bullshit. Wall Street loves outsourcing and rewards like minded CEOs with higher stock prices. The company was soon investing millions in Asia to hire and train engineers there while laying off American ones. This strategy proved to be a disaster as the mostly green engineers either lacked the experience or work ethic. Errors in designs would take many months to discover because the Asian designers would be afraid to lose face admitting errors or asking for help. Engineers in the US would be blamed for the failures overseas and were laid off. This continued until the CEO ran out of people to blame for his failed strategy and was finally booted by the board. But by then it was too late. The company is now a former shadow of itself.

#1 | Posted by danni

That is the problem with Liberals, they feel helpless, and they don't believe in American ingenuity and talent.

In a must read small book, Gomory and Baumol completely skewer free trade theory. Free Trade which benefits both parties depends on captive national capital and trade advantages unique to each competing countries. What we have today is the free flight of capital anywhere, in search of absolute cost advantage, based solely on labor arbitrage. This creates a few monstrous winners and hundreds of millions of losers.

"Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests" forgot the title

ALL jobs, including R&D, follow manufacturing.

Big businesses are always laying off. Always has been that way. In order to make a lot of money in America, you have to either go into business for yourself, or work a job where your compensation is directly derived from your sales. It's always been that way too.

"Free Trade=free lunch. If you believe in free trade, you might as well believe in unicorns.

"That is the problem with Liberals, they feel helpless, and they don't believe in American ingenuity and talent."

Obviously, you didn't bother to read the article. Let me know when you do.

" In order to make a lot of money in America, you have to either go into business for yourself, or work a job where your compensation is directly derived from your sales."'

Microeconomic advice in a thread about macroeconomics. Our trade imbalance won't be fixed by salemen or by someone selling more stuff which was made in China. We have to stop importing more than we export.

In order to make a lot of money in America, you have to either go into business for yourself, or work a job where your compensation is directly derived from your sales.

Which is why I lament the advent of internet-based sales.

It used to be that the one area a smart, charming, convincing but uneducated person could make meaningful coin was to go into commission-based sales. But, that is eroding too.

We have to stop importing more than we export.

The only way we can do that is to be truly competitive on a global-scale. Anything less is masked by protectionism, but only prolongs and exacerbates the inevitable fall.

"Anything less is masked by protectionism, but only prolongs and exacerbates the inevitable fall."

Theory not fact. In reality America has always been somewhat protectionist. OUr trading competitors still exercise protections, especially China.

"Anything less is masked by protectionism, but only prolongs and exacerbates the inevitable fall. "

A government "of the people" ought to more concerned about its citizens than promoting some globalization ideology. It would be perfectly reasonable to cushion the transition to a global economy by imposing moderate tariffs on imported goods, and letting it sunset in 10 years. That would give the American work force some breathing space to adjust, retool, reeducate, to the new realities. Sometimes the pace of change is more damaging than the change itself.

"In reality America has always been somewhat protectionist. "

America was the most protectionist country in the world in the 18th century up to WWII.


Between the 1830s and the end of the second world war, the US had one of the highest average tariff rates on manufacturing imports in the world. Since it had an exceptionally high degree of natural protection due to the high costs of transporting goods to the US at least until the 1870s, we can say that US industries were the most protected in the world until 1945. Even the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 increased the degree of protection in the US economy only marginally. The average tariff rate for manufactured goods after this bill was 48%, still within the upper region of the range of the average rates that had prevailed in the US since the Civil War. It is only in relation to the brief liberal interlude of 1913-29 that the 1930 tariff bill can be interpreted as increasing protectionism, though not by much - from 37% in 1925 to 48% in 1931.

www.globalpolicy.org

In order to make a lot of money in America, you have to either go into business for yourself, or work a job where your compensation is directly derived from your sales.

#7 | Posted by rightisright

...or by manipulating OPM and taking a cut of the total assets, regardless of the result. Did you omit that method of making a lot of money on purpose?

"Too much common sense here, it will be rejected immediately by the same brilliant economic geniuses who brought us to where we are now."

I have a friend who recently got a master's in business who tells me all this crap he learned in class about how developed countries like the US must move away from manufacturing and train everyone in technology based jobs. I try to explain to him that this makes no sense and that we need to produce stuff in this country to have a decent economy and he thinks I'm not listening to him rather than rejecting what he's telling me as complete nonsense.

"Theory not fact. In reality America has always been somewhat protectionist. OUr trading competitors still exercise protections, especially China."

Compared to China we aren't protectionist at all. We buy all their poison shit. They steal what they want from us (intellectual property). We're total suckers.

I don't know why protectionist is such a bad word these days. To me, its a good word. I'd rather be represented by a protectionist (someone who cares about me and mine) than a globalist (someone who cares about nobody).

If everyone were true globalists (no protectionism), the end result would be that rich countries become poorer and poor countries become richer until we all hit this perfect equilibrium where the standard of living is almost the same everywhere.

Our standard of living is way above average. So the end game of globalism would result in a large decrease in our standard of living. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't get it.

A government "of the people" ought to more concerned about its citizens than promoting some globalization ideology. It would be perfectly reasonable to cushion the transition to a global economy by imposing moderate tariffs on imported goods, and letting it sunset in 10 years. That would give the American work force some breathing space to adjust, retool, reeducate, to the new realities. Sometimes the pace of change is more damaging than the change itself.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian

If Righto were present you'd have easily earned the daily 'moment of clarity' award.

That comment is perfectly stated IMO and is 100% sensical.

Null,

If I had ideological power in our government, I would demand that any drastic changes be eased-in gradually. It is the logical approach IMO.

If everyone were true globalists (no protectionism), the end result would be that rich countries become poorer and poor countries become richer until we all hit this perfect equilibrium where the standard of living is almost the same everywhere.

So the end game of globalism would result in a large decrease in our standard of living. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't get it.

#18 | Posted by Sully

Shhh...you're going to make the free trade advocates heads explode.

"Compared to China we aren't protectionist at all."

That's true. China doesn't take orders from the WTO and privatize its companies and allow majority ownership by foreign investors, etc. They don't have any ideological compunctions about engaging in protectionism, either.

the really sick sad thing about it all is that real invention is controlled by the military in this country.

so we pay for it to be invented using socialist means, then complain when other countries use that knowledge to make their own products and sell them to us.

end the the patent protection racket so that the public can compete on its own.

anything less will not help.

"If Righto were present you'd have easily earned the daily 'moment of clarity' award."

Thanks, Jeff. I'm just here to spread peace, joy and enlightenment.

"That comment is perfectly stated IMO and is 100% sensical."

I'm glad you agree with Nulli's point but "sensical"???

#25 | Posted by danni

He made a typo while being sensible.

That is the problem with Liberals, they feel helpless, and they don't believe in American ingenuity and talent.

#3 | Posted by member2586

They have also tied one of our hands behind our back through all their "environmental" laws.

A government "of the people" ought to more concerned about its citizens than promoting some globalization ideology. It would be perfectly reasonable to cushion the transition to a global economy by imposing moderate tariffs on imported goods, and letting it sunset in 10 years. That would give the American work force some breathing space to adjust, retool, reeducate, to the new realities. Sometimes the pace of change is more damaging than the change itself.

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2010-03-02 05:07 PM

Damn, Null. Stop making me agree with you, "socialist!"

FTA: We are moving steadily away from producing what we need in this country. We are also moving away from producing on a scale that enables us to trade for what we do need. Rather than do without, we are increasingly importing things with a promise to pay later. This cannot go on. When our trading partners, especially China, no longer want to loan us hundreds of billions of dollars a year to be paid later, we will have little productive capacity left and we will be a poor nation.

Strewth.

This Gomory guy.

Spud wants to subscribe to his newsletter.

Be Well.

That is the problem with Liberals, they feel helpless, and they don't believe in American ingenuity and talent.

With remarks like this it's obvious why America is loosing it's edge.

If it were not for liberals we would all be in horse carts like the Amish. This dork has obviously never met a real thinker. If he or she did they would likely avoid all liberals like the plague out of pure intimidation. Real intelligent people scare the hell out of conservatives, especially conservatives in a progressive business. They simply can't compete in anything that requires independent thinking.

If it were not for liberals we would all be in horse carts like the Amish

No. That would be present-day 'liberalism', not to be confused with present-day conservatism.

"Protecting" failure is a modern-day tenet of 'lib eralism'.

Modern-day conservatives support an open-market because history has shown, over and over, that treu competitive forces yields the best overall outcome for the human condition.

Treu = True

"Protecting" failure is a modern-day tenet of 'lib eralism'.

Producing it, however, is the speciality of modern-day "consevatives."

#33 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

How so?

They have also tied one of our hands behind our back through all their "environmental" laws.

If it wasn't for environmental laws, America would be a toilet bowl like China, Russia and India have now become. It's bad enough as it is. Is there any fish yet in lake Erie? Will it ever be a wise choice again to eat any fish in the mighty Mississippi? Why anybody would wish worse on us is incredibly stupid, but then considering the source, it can be a construed as a typical response by this excessively numbed individual.

Ring,

Environmental laws are mostly good, IMO.

Having said that, admonishing Carbon-based energy on, shaky-at-best-science, is a travesty.

If it were not for liberals we would all be in horse carts like the Amish

No. That would be present-day 'liberalism', not to be confused with present-day conservatism.

WTF? You think the Amish are liberals now? Dude, get a clue.

How so?
#34 | Posted by JeffJ

I'm not aware of "conservative" successes. The "open-market" you talk about doesn't exist in our society. Corporations have long sucked on the public teat. That's not "conservatisim," is it? Every time a "conservative" gets in a position of power -- I have in mind Reagan and Bush II -- they abandon the so-called "conservative" principles and then are themselves chastized for a lack of ideological correctness.

I am aware, however, of "conservatives" screwing things up to such a degree that those you'd call "liberals" have had to come in and try and clean up the mess, e.g., the Great Depression (after more than a decade of GOPer presidents) and the current Bush Recession.

"Liberals" have no corner on the supply of good ideas, but I think you're taking too much of an either-or, black-white, good-bad, us-them perspective than is warranted by economic and political realities.

WTF? You think the Amish are liberals now? Dude, get a clue.

#37 | Posted by RingMaster

Bad analogy on my part.

My point is that 'conservatives' place a tremendous value on the market itselr.

Moder-day liberalism seeks to protect failing-economic models at all costs - the difference between Ford and General Motors is stark.

This congressional-'investigation' into Toyota's problems is a HUGE conflict of intrerst.

"shaky-at-best-science, is a travesty."

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-03 07:54 AM | Reply | Flag: not real bright

American Physical Society Council Keeps Current Climate Change Statement

In May, Council tabled a motion by Robert Austin that would have replaced the current APS statement on climate change with a new one much more skeptical of the evidence for, and consequences of, anthropogenic global warming. At its November 8 meeting, Council took it off the table and brought it to a vote.

The result: the motion was soundly defeated, with no one voting in favor and only one abstention. Even Austin voted against it.

aps.org

Time series of measured annual arctic sea-ice extent and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 for 1900-2007.
www.rtcc.org

Annual sea-ice extent 1900-2007 (observed: green, and IPCC modelled mean ensemble: black)
www.rtcc.org

1859
Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.
www.aip.org

1859 Jeff.
Do try and keep up, dipshit.

Fuck you, Zat.

How is that bullshit 'Hockey-stick' graph and your pee-reviewed pool contributing to your hypothermia and overall bullshit that defines your life treating you today?

"shaky-at-best-science"

A shadowy scientific elite codenamed Jason warned the US about global warming 30 years ago but was sidelined for political convenience
www.timesonline.co.uk

"Today the scientific argument about the broad principles of what we are doing to the Earth's climate is over. By releasing huge quantities of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere we are warming the world. "

"Since the early 1990s there has been a furious debate about global warming. So-called climate change "sceptics" have spent years disputing almost every aspect of the scientific consensus on the subject. Their arguments have successfully delayed significant political action to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. Recent research reveals how the roots of this argument stretch back to two hugely influential reports written almost 30 years ago.

These reports involve a secret organisation of American scientists reporting to the US Department of Defense. At the highest levels of the American government, officials pondered whether global warming was a significant new threat to civilisation. They turned for advice to the elite special forces of the scientific world a shadowy organisation known as Jason. Even today few people have heard of Jason. It was established in 1960 at the height of the cold war when a group of physicists who had helped to develop the atomic bomb proposed a new organisation that would to quote one of its founders "inject new ideas into national defence". "

"So the Jasons (as they style themselves) were born; a self-selected group of brilliant minds free to think the unthinkable in the knowledge that their work was classified. Membership was by invitation only and they are indeed the cream. Of the roughly 100 Jasons over the years, 11 have won Nobel prizes and 43 have been elected to the US National Academy of Sciences. "

Who the fuck are you Jeff?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Zat,

How much fun are you having stick-handling the hockey-stick graph on the surface of your frozen pool?

You are a fucking joke.

You parade behind science yet you have utter and complete disdain for the scientific process when it comes to casting a critical eye on your religious theory.

You are as bad as Al Gore - I have shown the hockey-stick graph as fraudulent, yet here you are.

Grow some balls.

Poke the Goddess, drive the 911 S4 at 150 mph and fly the shit out of the Cessna and, in the process, gain a modicum of thoughtful clarity and get back to me on this.

Also - Take the Durango off-road in a meaningful sense.

Do try and keep up, dipshit.

#40 | Posted by Zatoichi

Hilarious!

AFTER I provided to you Mann himself denouncing the hockey-stick graph - here you were touting it after being shown its irrelevancy.

You are the complete antithesis to the scientific method, yet here you are being touted by lefty -douchebags.

"Modern-day conservatives support an open-market because history has shown, over and over, that treu competitive forces yields the best overall outcome for the human condition."

Baloney, they support anything and anyone who tells them they can have wealth without taxes. They support the build up of the Chinese military for crying out loud. These people aren't conservatives, real conservatives like Goldwater, Eisenhower or Nixon would never support elimination of all regulation, the destruction of America's manufacturing capacity, and especially not the reduction of taxes which left us with trillions of dollars worth of debt. Americans have been brain washed into thinking coporatism is the same thing as conservatism. Conservatives didn't give up patriotism, corporatists don't believe patriotism should even be a consideration.

"Baloney, they support anything and anyone who tells them they can have wealth without taxes. They support the build up of the Chinese military for crying out loud. These people aren't conservatives, real conservatives like Goldwater, Eisenhower or Nixon would never support elimination of all regulation, the destruction of America's manufacturing capacity, and especially not the reduction of taxes which left us with trillions of dollars worth of debt. Americans have been brain washed into thinking coporatism is the same thing as conservatism. Conservatives didn't give up patriotism, corporatists don't believe patriotism should even be a consideration."
#46 | Posted by danni

QFT

I have shown the hockey-stick graph as fraudulent.

No, you haven't.

The "hockey stick graph is a hoax" meme is about as retarded as the whole "Climategate has killed the AGW debate".

Be Well.

We are headed towards an economy like South America. 10% of the population will be lucky and have a high standard of living and the rest of us will be living in squalor.

"10% of the population will be lucky and have a high standard of living and the rest of us will be living in squalor."

And then the 10% will be angry when those living in squalor decide to elect someone like Chavez. Mass poverty precedes attempts to redistribute wealth. Home ownership and economic security insure the rights of the wealthy to retain their wealth and freely enjoy it. What good is it to be wealthy in a society where you are in danger every time you leave your house? Small government folks need to look at Mexico right now and ask themselves if that is the future they really want.

Home ownership and economic security insure the rights of the wealthy to retain their wealth and freely enjoy it.

2/3 of the homes in this country are occupied by the owner and that has been a stable number for 50 years. That doesn't sound like a trait of the "wealthy" to ensure their rights. The wealthy enjoy other benefits that insure their rights....mostly their ability to steer legislation.

Eberly did you read what she said? If 90% are too poor to afford homes the wealthy will be in danger of having their wealth taken away. The masses will say fuck you to the aristocrats and elect a guy like Chavez that will strongarm your money in the form of high taxes or he will send in the military to take it by force. I actually love the idea of kicking in the door's of the greedy rich and confiscating their items of value. I might even pocket a few items for black market sales.

Whenever innovation threatens union jobs...

...guess who wins?

I actually love the idea of kicking in the door's of the greedy rich and confiscating their items of value.

you just claimed to have ideas that benefit America on another thread.

This sounds like a good one.

LOL

you pants pissers will never grow up. this isn't going to happen. and if you read what I posted, home ownership has remained steady for 50 years. why suggest it's all crumbling down tomorrow?

answer....you are a pants pissing whining libtard who cannot accept consequences for your decisions in life.

Govt redistributing your wealth is good for the masses. It just isn't good for you.

Govt redistributing your wealth is good for the masses. It just isn't good for you.

#55 | Posted by jackass

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot all agreed with you.

"why suggest it's all crumbling down tomorrow?"

Perhaps because we have the highest unemployment since the Great Depression, half of the homes in America are worth less than is owed on them and our nation's balance of trade is completely out of balance with wealth draining at an alarming rate. You mention that home ownership has been steady for fifty years, funny thing about that, the policies of Democrats are what made that happen. All of the things that helped people buy homes, the VA, FHA, Fannie and Freddie are all government programs that Republicans have been trying to kill for all of those fifty years. Before SS and Medicare how long do you think elderly Americans could retain any wealth or a home???

"Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot all agreed with you."

None of us like those guys so don't create an environment which would enable someone like that to gain power. Affluent populations don't bring in crazy dictators, they don't need them, they don't want them. Poor populations are the breeding ground for tyrants. As it always has been always will be.

"Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot all agreed with you."

None of us like those guys so don't create an environment which would enable someone like that to gain power. Affluent populations don't bring in crazy dictators, they don't need them, they don't want them. Poor populations are the breeding ground for tyrants. As it always has been always will be.

#58 | Posted by danni

I agree.

I wonder if $7 per gallon of gasoline will make us more...

...prosperous.

Or, a breeding ground for tyrants?

Half of homes are upside down?

Sure. Okay

Korea draws our cartoons even. We have exported every American industry.


Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot all agreed with you.

#56 | Posted by BENDOR

Adolf and Benito were right wing fascists. Mao was a Maoist and Pol Pot was just crazy. You obviously don't know anything about these people because the only thing they have in common has nothing to do with any economic beliefs.

Adolf and Benito were right wing fascists. Mao was a Maoist and Pol Pot was just crazy. You obviously don't know anything about these people because the only thing they have in common has nothing to do with any economic beliefs.

#62 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

Please rephrase using simple English. These guys didn't all support redistribution of wealth and gun confiscation?

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong.

Okay then...

...I'll do it first.

I'm wrong. Now someone, anyone, please show me that Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot did not all...

...support (nice word) wealth redistribution and gun control.

Their dreams of a Government ("social and economic justice") were sweep into the dustbin of History because...

...they were bad, but their ideas were good?

"Govt redistributing your wealth is good for the masses. It just isn't good for you.

#55 | Posted by jackass

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot all agreed with you."

Bush and Obama too! The bailouts were a massive redistribution of wealth.

I love that "conservatives" only have a problem with the redistribution of wealth when it goes from rich to poor but middle class to rich makes perfect sense to them. Bonus points on the idiot scale for "conservatives" who think this way but who themselves aren't rich.

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot all agreed with you."

Bush and Obama too! The bailouts were a massive redistribution of wealth.

I love that "conservatives" only have a problem with the redistribution of wealth when it goes from rich to poor but middle class to rich makes perfect sense to them. Bonus points on the idiot scale for "conservatives" who think this way but who themselves aren't rich.

#65 | Posted by Sully

Sully. I absolutely agree with you.

This is not a RED vs. BLUE issue.

Bush sucked (on most things).

I like the notion in this article...however, I have to doubt that we have wise enough government officials to implement it....what do you chose to import? What do you chose to deny so that you stay balanced? Who gets to make that decision? Are they competent? How would we know? Would they be transparent about it, or would they help their crony companies like GE? Nice idea...except that it can't be implemented competently....How about instead we educate our people decently and let them figure out on their own how to make a living in a dynamic world?

I love how conservatives have some magical ability to determine the validity of a scientific consensus even though they don't have a PhD between them. They are infinitely smart, after all, as a result of their conservative opinions. They know more than top-of-their-field professors (with Nobel Prizes, even), they can "see beyond" the "facts" to the "truth". They don't need any stinkin' degrees. And, of course, all real scientists are just grant-grubbing phonies who have only invested the majority of their adult lives (and probably significant money in student loans) in pursuing an understanding of the world around us out of a love of knowledge (and perhaps some personal recognition). Forget the fact that none of them will ever make the kind of money that the MBA CEOs make, or the Wall Street bankers, or the hedge fund guys. Don't you think the scientists are "smart" enough? Or maybe they just value other things than money.

Projection is a powerful thing. If you are greedy and duplicitous, then obviously everyone else must be, too.

Projection is a powerful thing. If you are greedy and duplicitous, then obviously everyone else must be, too.

#68 | Posted by WhoDaMan

You must be absolutely livid then that the MMGW climate scientists...

...brought so much shame and discredit on all of you.


You must be absolutely livid then that the MMGW climate scientists...

...brought so much shame and discredit on all of you.

#69 | Posted by BENDOR

Are you referring to the Faux News manufactured scandal that has already been discredited?

#69 | Posted by BENDOR at 2010-03-03 02:50 PM
You must be absolutely livid then that the MMGW climate scientists...

...brought so much shame and discredit on all of you.

Pray tell what qualifies you to have an opinion that anyone should grant any credibility? Are you a climate scientist? Have you even taken any courses or done any actual work that would qualify you?

- Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
- There has been no global warming since 1995
- Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
- Not "standard practice" to release data and computer programs to others for review
- Himalayan Glaciers will not be melted by 2035

I could go on...but are there any conclusions left in the 2007 IPCC Report on Climate Change...

...that have not been refuted?

This was not an oversight or a mistake. It was a deliberate act of scientific fraud.

And the fact that you are not madder than hell at your fellow scientists, but hold the messengers accountable instead, brings your own credibility in question.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk

#72 | Posted by BENDOR at 2010-03-03 06:40 PM | Reply | Flag: makes up shit

Pray tell what qualifies you to have an opinion that anyone should grant any credibility? Are you a climate scientist? Have you even taken any courses or done any actual work that would qualify you?

#71 | Posted by WhoDaMan

"45 beaver pelts, I remove glacier from farm land", pronounced Al Gore's ancestor.

"fuck you", replied mine.

Actually more data have confirmed the hockey stick back 800,000 years with the addition of a technique that pushes the CO2 record back 15 million years.
"Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago"
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/ portal/ucla/last-time-carbon- dioxide-levels-111074.aspx

As for "no warming since" 1995 ...

Instrumental record: data.giss.nasa.gov

And don't come back with that "cooked the books" bullshit. It's all open records.
Example: This section allows you to select, from the databank, an image from the original record book containing the raw meteorological data for any given month between December 1794 and June 2000 but excluding April 1795 to June 1795 and June 1825 to December 1832.

Data from July 2000 until February 2010 is available in digital format rather than as a scanned image.

climate.arm.ac.uk

Global land and sea average temperatures by year, 1995-2009.
i179.photobucket.com

Slope's positive.
Deal with it.

Slope's positive.
Deal with it.

#75 | Posted by Zatoichi'

I am.

Laughing my ass off as the MMGW scam unravels.

And thanking God on the foresight of the founding fathers to schedule an election this November.

How convenient.

Time series of MEASURED annual arctic sea-ice extent and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 for 1900-2007.
www.rtcc.org

MEASURED ice area is in fact much lower than already predicted.

Annual sea-ice extent 1900-2007 (observed: green, and IPCC modelled mean ensemble: black)
www.rtcc.org

How about much less glacier since 1992?
farm2.static.flickr.com

I was there in 1995.
The difference is startling.

Time series of MEASURED annual arctic sea-ice extent and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 for 1900-2007.
www.rtcc.org

MEASURED ice area is in fact much lower than already predicted.

Annual sea-ice extent 1900-2007 (observed: green, and IPCC modelled mean ensemble: black)
www.rtcc.org

How about much less glacier since 1992?
farm2.static.flickr.com

I was there in 1995.
The difference is startling.

Zat...

...post all of the data you want.

Nobody really believes it anymore - the credibility of the climate scientists is gone.

Even you can't tell whats real and whats hokum.

Be mad at the "scientists" that did this to you.

Next time, I'll bet they take their responsibilities a little more seriously.

I was there in 1995.
The difference is startling.

#78 | Posted by Zatoichi

And if you'd been there in 1495...

...you might still be encased in ice.

When do you think the glaciers starting shrinking, last Thursday?

"45 beaver pelts, I move glacier off farmland", pronounced Al Gore's ancestor.

"fuck you", replied mine.

Zat...

...you are a very gifted person. Smart. Passionate.

May I suggest you move on to something more useful?

Say...

...the probability of abiogenic oil?

Or production of ethanol at the local community level...

...using indigenous crops?

We need energy, not unassailable who-are-you-to-question-me pronouncements from gas bags.

Or a new moon mission...

...to mine H3?

Bendor, are they paying you by the post or by the word?

Zat, you're wasting your time. A fact couldn't sneak past the stupid in this one.

Are you referring to the Faux News manufactured scandal that has already been discredited?

#70 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

Discredited? On what planet?

Copenhagen was a bust...

...the head of the IPCC is stepping down...

...the head of the GRU has already stepped down...

...and Phil Jones climate models have been shown to produce positive slopes, no matter what data is feed into them.

Looks like MMGW is discredited to me.

Modern-day conservatives support an open-market because history has shown, over and over, that treu competitive forces yields the best overall outcome for the human condition.

#31 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

with exception the 19th century robber barrons and child slavery.

"Half of homes are upside down?

Sure. Okay"

I thought I heard that on TV, not nearly that many, only about 22%. Can't be right all the time, memory cells getting older.

I'm guessing I'll just have to start buying lottery tickets as my ticket for financial independence.....

/sarc

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable