Easy. It was a rallying cry that got fund raising going amongst the tree hugging liberals for the politicians running for office and it got federal funds I. The liberal schools that would do the research with a predisposition towards proving AGW exists.

Cap and trade. Carbon credits. Al gore owned a carbon credit company

He used as much electricity as a small town when inconvenient truth came out, and when confronted with it, he said he buys carbon offset credits. Them it was shown that he bout them from a company he owned. So he paid himself to use as much electricity as he damn well wanted and hoped that the rest of us would be required to pay him too for using a fraction of the electricity he used.

Yeah, you gotta love the carbon credits scam.

damn philcore and his trickster God.

oops that was way back in page 1.... nvmind.

' It was a rallying cry that got fund raising going amongst the tree hugging
liberals for the politicians running for office and it got federal funds I. The
liberal schools that would do the research with a predisposition towards
proving AGW exists.'

Utter BS.

And carbon credits is an attempt to use the market as a tool to solve the problem. Usually conservatives are massively in favour of the market as a solution to everything, what gives?

It was being used as a tool to solve a non-existent problem and it actually solved nothing. Companies were strong armed into buying something so they could continue doing business. Back in the early and mid 20th century, the mafia did this and called it "insurance." Carbon credit selling was nothing more than liberal sanctioned extortion.

Is God Real ...... or is he Barca?

What did Sunderland do in 1979, that Villa also achieved in 1981?

@nigee did brooking do it in 1980?

@Philcore
'' I take every opportunity I can to compare AGW with creationism. To me they're the same. They start with a conclusion that cannot be questioned, and use hand-waving arguments to explain why the data doesn't fit the predictions.''
Have you seen the stasis reported in the last 15 years GST (Global Surface Temperature) data and, if so, how do you explain it?
Here is one clue for you, amongst several possibilities - how much soot are we pumping up into the atmosphere now compared to 150 years ago, and how might that affect the albedo effect at high latitudes/over glaciars? I am afraid that all of those beavering computer programmers doing their scientific work at the stroke of the keyboard have largely forgotten to incorporate this in their modelling.
That is not to say that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will necessarily have a zero effect GST. It is just that I am not yet convinced, given the very complicated Global climatic system with its intrinsic positive and negative feedback loops, that we can be anywhere near certain what these will be. @Philcore
'' I take every opportunity I can to compare AGW with creationism. To me they're the same. They start with a conclusion that cannot be questioned, and use hand-waving arguments to explain why the data doesn't fit the predictions.''

Have you seen the last 15 years GST (Global Surface Temperature) data and, if so, how do you explain them?
Here is one clue for you - how much soot are we pumping up into the atmosphere now compared to 150 years ago, and how might that affect the albedo effect at high latitudes. I am afraid that all of those beavering computer programmers, doing their scientific work at the stroke of the keyboard, have largely forgotten to incorporate this in their modelling. I predict that none of them will be remotely near in their predictions.
That is not to say that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will necessarily have no effect GST, it is just that I am not yet convinced, given the very complicated Global climatic system with its intrinsic positive and negative feedback loops that we can be anywhere near certain what these will be.
In my view, if we want to get anywhere near to the answer research must be primarily focussed on good practical observational/experimental science. Computational modelling may be cheap in comparison, but particularly when used in isolation; it will invariably give you the answer confirming not an empirical real world, but the prejudices of the programmer. You know the guys who largely input and select which data they choose and, where necessary, apply left field constants/fudge factors when things start to look problematical in terms of their next grant application.

Fullhamish, I agree completely regarding the computer models. It can be a useful tool to analyze data, but it shouldn't be the basis of your theory with a system so extraordinarily complex as the global climate system. It turns into a game of tweaking the model, not because your theory specifies all of the variables and the constants and their mathematical relationship to eachother, but rather to try to fit past data, and then see how the extrapolation goes. This isn't science.

You mention that the model didn't take soot into account. Well worse than that, the original models didn't take clouds into account. Wtf?

@philcore, this is science - the model provides a prediction, the actual climate is the experiment. It gets better at prediction and this is useful.

It is may not be easy, but it is still science.

@orth: Not sure I understand that last sentence. Easy and science have never been equated. Science is most definitely NOT easy. That's why only the most brilliant people are successful at it.

But just to argue a bit more. Science would be: coming up with a theory of how the variables involved in global climate interact with eachother, them modeling those interactions on a computer based only on the theory, not the historical data. Then testing your theory against historical data to see if your theory was correct. Then testing it against future data to see if it remains correct. If it doesn't match, you need to find the theoretical reason for it, revise your calculations then re-model those calculations and try again.

It is not science to tweak the model until it fits historical data with no basis in theory, and then conclude that your computer model (rather than an actual rigorous theoretic model) is accurately describing the data. It fits the data because you made it fit. But as we have seen thus has no predictive ability. There are an infinite number of ways to make a computer model fit historical data, but best off in an infinite number of paths, some rising, some falling, some leveling off. All mathematically fitting the historical data.

Look at the left leg of a Gausian function. If that was your historical data, you'd assume it is an exponential which goes to infinity, but as you look at the middle, maybe you'd think it was a logarithmic function which levels off. Then look at the while function and you see that it goes back down to zero.

This is just fun with math, not science. Sure science uses math to describe and predict ... The two are clearly related, which is why its easy to fool the non mathematically or scientifically minded, but it doesn't make what they've done in the AGW world science anymore than the myriad stock-fitting models which try to predict stock prices based on past performance.