Oops....Busted

Well, well!

Greed does strange things.

Well I hope he's socked away a good portion of his proceeds, it's a good bet he's on his way out....ok he's already out....maybe he'll write a book now claiming he was manipulated by big oil...lol

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/06/exxonmobil-soon-climate-change-denier

"Soon received in 2004 the Peter Beckmann Award from Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP) for "outstanding contributions to the defense of scientific truth".^[24][25]"

^{How embarrassing......}

"Willie Soon has received more than $1.3 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a Greenpeace report^[3] based on FOIA requests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, he has has received at least $230,000 from Koch Family Foundations .^[3]"

^{This man has no shame....}

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Willie_Soon

Hey when the're right, the're right....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/21022015/documents-reveal-fossil-fuel-fingerprints-contrarian-climate-research-willie-soon-harvard-smithsonian-koch-exxon-southern-company

http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/latest-oil-and-gas/2015/02/21/Deeper-Ties-to-Corporate-Cash-for-a-Doubtful-Climate-Scientist/stories/201502210154

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/01/26/harvard-smithsonian-climate-change-skeptic-accused-violating-academic-disclosure-agreement/Y1uMQ8yuLpYCjOHGckRArO/story.html

Last but not least....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

So are palm readers from time to time. Every dog has their day, but using one for amassing a fortune in the stock market has yet to produce dividends.

They were not the primary source of information, which came from the freedom of information act, submitted by Greenpeace...

And Greenpeace is another really reliable organization that is not full of zealots for the environment? Had friends who had a disagreement with a few of them, they found their boat scuttled the next morning, there is no talking with them. Its their way or the highway (or sunk) in this occasion.

Don't shoot the messenger before you read the message....

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/02/21/science/document-climate.html

Yes....

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/01/26/harvard-smithsonian-climate-change-skeptic-accused-violating-academic-disclosure-agreement/Y1uMQ8yuLpYCjOHGckRArO/story.html

"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work."

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as "deliverables" that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

Bear in mind that these papers in question, are dealing with climate change, an area out of his area of expertise, disputing the claims of others who do work in this field...

The nattering naybobs (NN) cannot or will not examine measured data or article details that disagree with their beliefs. This is true regardless of how easy or difficult are the links you provide. The NN will not care what formal training an author has or methodology is used in a paper. They only care if the paper agrees with their belief. A NN will virtually never admit to any facet that disagrees with their belief. The rare time a NN gets cornered into agreeing with a disagreeable facet, they will forget ever agreeing. A NN will not even notice a self contained contradiction in an article if the article conclusion agrees with their belief.

Trying to argue with a NN is like pissing into the wind. It might give you a brief warm feeling but later the clinging smell should remind you that you didn't win anything you really want.

They are good tools for sharpening your position though....

Red: so exactly which side is the NN's most of the time? Which sides likes to "tweak" or "twerk" the data from the actual readings to make it fit with their pet theory?

I can for one, come nearer believing the sun has something to do with global warming that car exhaust or cow flattulence, or for that matter all the CO2 emitted from the oceans in the last hundred years, or the methane from oceanic up-wellings.

Bottom line: You just can't believe anyone, because it's all tainted, or at least believe what makes you happy, and pee on every one else.

Side? I said nothing at all about any side that the NN are on. You, James Stewart, misread my comment and put your own spin on my comment by implying that the NN are only on one side of this lopsided debate. I add the attribute of this being a lopsided debate now because you just proved that people will sooner misread a comment and speak from false impressions than think about what has been said.

Pardon me, Red: I guess NN's can be on either side. I put spin on your comment? Didn't mean to. Kinda hard to spin something up that has the consistency of "catsup"! I actually do have a sense of humor about all this. It just seems colder than usual today for late February, so I am sayin' if it is Global Warming, bring it!

I do seem to recall that all the coastal developments, and cities should be 20' under water now, not to mention New Orleans that is already 20' below sea level, and basically has always been.

I think that what has been said is (loose translation here): "if the Koch brothers fund it, then those of us in the liberal media expect it to be eveil, and full of Tom Foolery".

Actually, I think the Koch brothers have about as much to gain if there is Global Warming as if there is not. Based upon their ability to invest in winning expanding branches of engineering technology, they seem to be keenly adept.

I myself, am working on alternative energies (in my private time) with two three active projects now. Progress is slow as Ribbon Cane Molasses in February in Northwest Texas (ele. 3300'). At least I will have my bicycle with alternator sized alternator, etc to fall back on for the power in my shop building, but my wife will have to pedal her own, if she wants to watch her courtroom drama each day.

Yeah, yur right, I have a closed mind, and act like I am back in middle school elementary school, but I am nearly old enough for second childhood, so there ya go.

By the way, I don't have to re-design neutrons to get any of my stuff to work, or be workable for others.

Yes NN can and are on both sides of any heated debate. You didn't put much of a spin on my comment but you did put one on. You also added the spin in an effort to clarify my comment but as I hope you now see, no clarification was needed.

You bring up a few additional misunderstandings in your reply. The dramatic 20 foot rise in sea level is from a calculation of all of the frozen glacial waters on this planet, particularly the enormous ice collection of Antarctica, were to completely melt and flow into the oceans. I don't believe anyone of merit claimed that all of the glaciers should have melted by now but if someone did I would not value their comments very much on either side of any debate for making such a preposterous claim. [There is a debate that if this actually happened the ocean rise would not be as much because the tectonic plates of Antarctica would rise from the lack of weight on them which would probably deepen many of the seas, but I digress.]

There is also the misunderstanding about local weather conditions being a link to climate change. A global change in average temperatures will not mean a similar change to every local location. An increase in global temperatures will make it more likely that record breaking conditions of all types (highs and lows) will be more likely.

On the other side of the coin you are exactly right that discrediting somebody for getting funding from the Koch or any other conservative group is just the croaking chorus of another group of NN.

The objection I have with with Willie Soon is not that he took money from anyone. I object that that the periodical that published his papers required a disclosure of any possible conflicts of interests. He did not disclose this funding. I also dislike Dr. Soon's use of the Smithsonian's Astrophysics association title after they publicly asked him not to use their name for work on climate change that they consider outside his field of expertise that they call on him for.

I see that we basically agree, whew! I know I have a way to using words to push people's buttons, and I seem to be adept at that, or just successful in an accidental sort of way.

I think both sides are perfectly capable of cherry-picking data, fidgeting with data they don't like (either change it outright or simply hide it), and then turn around and blame the other for the same behavior.

That brings me back around to politics. I think nearly all man-made climate change could be eliminated by eliminating the climate in Washington, D.C. that emits (1) foul odors, (2) foul practices, (3) foul optics (looks bad), and (4) is generally voluminous in its amplitude, and microscopic in actual information content.

Perhaps the Pharoahs did have it right: pay off the monument workers with bread, beer, and roasted goat (or the fatted calf). I can't remember the last time I ever heard of Washington, D.C. exporting anything, much less used up politicians. Can used up politicians be used as pendulum counter weights? Clock weights? I already know they serve no useful purpose in life while in office, but what about after?

Have any of the rest of you actually had to vacuum up that dusty spent hot air from news stations (from politicians, mostly spent ones that keep lingering on) out of the bottom of your TV's? I know there cannot be another suitable explanation for all that, as the dust is much higher in our TV room than others rooms where TV is off most of the time. Wifey only watches courtroom drama, who dun it shows, or news channels. I like cartoon based movies - Iron Man 12 would be fantastic.

As far as politicians and democracy in general I yield to the wisdom of one of the greatest political minds of the last century, Winston Churchill.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

The relatively recent shift to complete deadlock to spite the other party is reprehensible. If you know our history, this is nothing new. In fact cross party gridlock is a pivotal part of the founding fathers plans. [I believe this comes up in the Federalist Papers but I do not remember where right now.]

If one examines the preponderance of evidence regarding climate change and the preponderance of evidence now associated with the good doctor, not to mention the overwhelming evidence of the existence of air pollution, I think there is no denying that the climate is getting hotter.

So, the preponderance of evidence about climate change elevates Mother Jones to the level of a scholarly magazine?

I did not cite Mother Jones as providing the preponderance of evidence. I could play the kramarat game and post dozens of more credible sources, but as demonstrated here, a closed mind is impenetrable and we all have our reasons for believeing what we do.

It leaves us adrift in a sea of claims with no resolution in sight.

It leaves us on opposing sides of an important issue, with neither side admitting that they are wrong.

Just like every other discussion on this subject, it is a waste of time to debate.

Glad you could make here. ;-)

When a significant amount of the politics evaporates from the subject serious work will get done. Until then I just don't care that much.

it will still need years and years and years of good solar radiant flux density data

You'll note that one side is almost entirely proactive and the other side defensive. The curiousity might not be scientific but you have to wonder, what do they think they're up to ? I suspect that a driving force might be that Miss Grundies of both genders need new frontiers now that conventional morality has, in the main, bitten the dust.

It leaves me dispirited that policy is being made on such a shoddy basis.

It seems years since I first heard of the preponderance of evidence. I keep hearing about it. But, I've never seen it. I have seen a few items that people say is evidence. I've never figured out why they consider it evidence. It doesn't seem like evidence to me. I must either be really stupid or from the wrong religion. Probably both.

Maybe if you studied climatology as a profession, it would be clear....Here's some evidence that you can feel free to dispute....

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/06/top-ten-global-warming-skeptic-arguments-debunked

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108

Why is Government funding considered to be "Pure", and Industry money considered to be "Dirty"? I trust Industry much more than I trust the Al Gores' of Government. Look at the sources for the EPA grants, and the legislation pushes behind them. The Government has far more money available than any specific Group, but it has been corrupted by the Environmental Groups to a large extent, I am afraid… There is now a start to investigating the corruption of temperature statistics with the end game trying to prove "warming". It will be interesting to see how it plays out...

Because government works for the people and industry works for profit...

It's easy to make that statement. I'll betcha you can't prove it..

There was Healthy Families for medical insurance for children in place before ACA. It was $12/mo and $5 copay. There was no excuse for people to not have that for their kids and people that didn't qualify for Healthy Families made enough to afford Health Insurance but chose not to have it.

I would venture to say that in reverse.. People work for the Government, and do anything to hang onto their jobs and pensions and perks, even though they may not produce a viable product… "Let's just produce more "research papers", and call it a day" …..Industry is governed, for the MOST part, by the need to produce workable, viable products or solutions, or the company does't continue to exist. It needs to innovate and keep upgrading. Buggy whips aren't selling well, but I am afraid our Government orders a lot of "Buggy whip" type products, or else they won't get their funding for the next year. Our Government wastes more money than the GDP's of many countries, and is not very accountable for that money. This goes for both Party's.. I know ..I worked on several projects that were virtually obsolete, in necessity, but the money had been allocated, and had to get "used"..We had no choice , as discontinuing the project wasn't in the multiple choice options.

You sell government employee's short using cherry picked anecdotal evidence.....private companies go out of business all the time, become obsolete overnight, are compromised by one bad apple....I don't see any difference, except the government generally has better benefits and pays a living wage...and is less prejudiced...

Would you compare Google or Apple, or Tesla, to your hypothesis?

Cherry picking again?

Governments and private companies do not pay salaries. Governments steal tax from citizens. Private companies get it from their customers. Governments and their employees are not held accountable for their actions. Oh yes, when a government owned sewage plant overflows, who pays the fines? Ask RedFred, happens frequently in and around Oyster Bay, and occasionally in the Southwest Sewer District.

Do you put other people first in your job?

I put the customer first, but the reason I do that is to grow the business, which also serves the employees.

If you feel that government is an altruistic entity I would point out there are millenniums of history that show otherwise.

Our founding fathers understood this very, very well after living under the yoke of oppression and did a pretty clever job of protecting the people from their government. However, those protections only work as well as the citizens that elect their representatives.

As it has been said, the penalty for not being involved in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors.

Our founding fathers were not trying to protect us from government, they were trying to protect us from despots who may appear in government...We created the government to serve the people's needs as a whole, the system of checks and balances to keep it on course....and the right to bear arms should the system fail....which it has not....

I don't think the government is very representative of the people's wishes, but that is ultimately the fault of the citizens, not the system.

Did we also forget to mention that government has an apparent and de facto monopoly? We the people of the United States should file a class action anti-trust lawsuit against the government - oh wait, that's right they have that fancy word for, na na na na boo boo, you can's sue me.

The actual truth is people sue the government all the time for all kinds of ridiculous claims and bogus injury settlement (mainly environmental ones for animals that really could care less that there is a government, or an EPA). The Department of Justice (pronounced Hoostice) then settles out of court with the organization's lawyers, with a wink, wink, nod, nod. All parties walk away happy - the "greenies" get their "go" money, and the government surrepticiously gets to fulfill its nefarious agenda.

If you really trust the government right now, please do raise your hand.

You still believe that myth? What truck did you fall off of?

Do you really think that government employees are not people, too.

Hence the phrases "climastrology and its proponents climastrologers".

The issue(s) are is what is causing it and can man do anything to mitigate it? The answer to both is the same man can do nothing to prevent it. That does not mean we should trash our home, it does mean that tripling the price of fossil fuels to fund bio snake oil is not productive.

The humility level in here seems higher than ever before? Seems to be.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2569215/Humans-not-blame-global-warming-says-Greenpeace-founder-Patrick-Moore.html

Why would the founder of Greenpeace then refute human caused climate change. Speaking of not paying attention to actual data. Even if CO2 goes up 1000%, I do not think it can result in a higher surface temperature, or one in the stratosphere, or the equatorial upper troposphere.

There are too many assumptions required, which IMHO are not good science.

Money can buy elections and it can buy people, but it can't buy Mother Nature.

You can deny that all day long, but it won't change the temperature rise.

It won't keep Polar Bears from drowning.

Oh, I forgot, Lake Erie is frozen over:

Lake Erie almost frozen over - USA Today

While it may feel like a worse than normal winter, December and January marked the sixth-warmest winter on record, according to data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which has been tracking weather since 1895.

"Money can buy elections"...

That may have been true at one time but is less of an influence nowadays...We have numerous examples of one candidate outspending another, but still losing the election....The internet has increased access to funding sources, voting records, candidate's associations and anything else you might imagine....It is far more important to be distinguished looking, sophisticated, an inspirational and charming speaker, well schooled on the issues, and have no extreme opinions on anything....Now that's not to say you can win with no money, or even little money...any candidate must be well funded if he or she expects to win, or even compete....but the amount of money raised after a certain point, has little to no effect....

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MoneyGame.html

"Money can buy elections and it can buy people, but it can't buy Mother Nature."

True. Just the reports about mother nature.

What USBport states is true. I don't know the who-pays-who scorecard, but to think that it happens only on one side of the political fence is silly.

A couple of things :

What we need is global data, including that at the link.

If I were responsible for data that was to be referenced in such a hot topic, I would present it in idiot-version, with time, location, measurements, and computations in clear tables, but where's the cache in that. Typical.

"What we need is global data"... NASA will be continuing to take care of that, and they will provide data that will be (1) precise, (2) accurate, and (3) global with respect to seeing surface temperature all over the planet, and (4) global with respect to temperatures in the middle and upper atmospheres. NASA will also be in the unique position to get a very accurate picture of total insolation for the planet, since they can accurately map in the albedo effects of snow and cloud formations.

Ain't sciunce wunnerful?

In the meantime, I still don't want some panty-waisted politician telling me I can't run my gas mower, or string trimmer this summer. What is he gonna do when he is out of Washington? Hire out as a billy goat, and munch the grass for pay?

I still have a vestitgial fondness for things spacey that was fostered primarily by science fiction. The first I heard of the Greenhouse Effect was from Isaac Asimov. Forward from there :
the school of Harlan Ellison came to dominate sci-fi in print (no man is an island = resistance to conformity is ridiculous)
the Star Trek brand got cannibalized on TV (takeaway : it's good to be king)
Star Wars rules in sci-fi cinema (meet the new boss, same as the old boss except dumber)
These all completely displaced the old stuff, with its much sharper vision of individual freedom. Combining those with my perceptions that Warp Drive is about as likely as cold fusion and space activity is primarily about military supremacy, I hope I can be excused for a lack of hip-hooray about anybody's space agency. The final frontier is right here on Terra.
That being said (I love saying that), if there's enough support for something like SETI, surely to heaven there should be enough for getting a handle on good solar radiant flux data. Can we agree that it's the KEY to any intelligent discussion of global climate that isn't just another swim in the mind-f**k pool ? We should be clamoring for NASA to at least piggyback the means for this data acquisition onto their agenda.

NASA has already been doing that for the last 10 years with SORCE.

The problem is that 10 years is much too short to get any meaningful data as climate is a long-term process.

To combat that we take data from a wide variety of sources, most of that is not so accurate, and try to normalize the data so that it presents a broader picture. That process is fraught with pitfalls and sometimes errors.

The second problem is knowing what data to take. The more we learn the more we find other contributing factors that were either not accounted for or incorrectly accounted for.

All of this has been confounding our modeling process and while many like to point out the certainty of what is happening, the truth is our understanding (and our models) are much too immature to correctly predict the future.

The third problem, which may prove to be more dangerous, is politics and the aspiration of power. Regardless of whether anthropogenic climate change is really a threat or not, that doesn't stop individuals and groups from using it as a mechanism to secure both your money and your freedom to foster power on a large scale.

Somewhere lies a middle road in all of this, but I do not trust the political leaders of this world to find it.

If I am correct I think that sums up the climate change debate nicely.

It is already on NASA's agenda (to measure all the inputs to the "global" climate model). They already have the ability to monitor solar irradiance and solar reflection from satellites that have been in orbit for many years now, and there is already a preponderance of data.

Much of the data that NASA already has in hand appears contradictory to the man-caused climate change model put forth by "mainstream" climatologists (what makes a climatologist anyhow?). The evidence is already out there, that really supports the concept that whatever is taking place globally is just a hiccup compared to the magnitude of climate changes in Earth's history. This means to me, sit back, take a deep breath of clean air, and enjoy the ride, it is the only one we get.

Lyn--Polar bears have been removed from the endangered list, by the Canadian Govt, for years…Why? Because they are on a NO HUNT LIST!!!! Not because of Environmental changes…..Please research your data--You are better than that..

Polar bears are still on the threatened list, and are still hunted illegally....but the main threat is loss of habitat due to ice melt, from global warming.....

Canada, after repeated attempts from the Environmental front groups, still refuses to list them as endangered. The populations that were considered in danger, went to 2 , from 4, and that was from hunting restrictions, not Climate change. The bear populations are now at 20, 000, to 25,000 and are well out of endangered status. The Enviros, for lack of a better term, want the number lower so as to get more money to "investigate", and more gas for for their Zodiacs and pre-paid "Environmental vacations"…

"...but the main threat is loss of habitat due to ice melt, from global warming....."

Ok, are we talking "threat" or actual losses here. I can see that a few cherry-picked photos of a polar bear clinging to a small ice floe in what appears to be open water is worth a thousand words, but does it show what is in the background? How does anyone know whether or not there is a shoreline, a massive ice berg, or closed ice nearby? Drama points to the proponents on that one, but evidence of actual measured arctic ice (polar bears do not inhabit the south polar region, at least not naturally) reveals increases in thickness and coverage of ice except for some small intercoastal areas on the Pacific Ocean - Alaska islands areas.

Often I see this vase sweeping conclusion by the proponents that we have less than 15 minutes to act to "save the polar bears". The polar bears, trust me, will save themselves, and are true masters of their environment. Anyone who has worked in the northern reaches of Alaska can tell you, polar bears can and will take humans who are not paying attention.

All I am saying is here is that both sides would be well-served in giving "the drama" a long rest.

Just remember that the ancestors (Brown Bears) of the Polar Bears wiped out the short-faced Bear at the end of so-called Mega-fauna epoch. In Alaska, it appeared to be East meets West in a nasty grudge match.

So, if things keep getting colder, just wait, and the Arizona Black Bear will be meat for the Polar Bear. LOL

The polar bear is closely related to the grizzly (brown) bear. This highlights the hysteria of the global warming activists. (The sentence structure implies the wrong thing here but I hope you know what I mean.) The loss of arctic ice will undoubtedly cause the loss of many polar bears that try to survive with just their old tricks. The species itself will likely just again morph back to a grizzly. Since grizzly territory already contacts polar regions this will probably be a relatively smooth transition. As for the black bear well I wouldn't bet against these nimble, elusive creatures.

And at least the Koch brothers acquired their wealth legally, not by manipulating the stock market and ripping off investors, like George Soros did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Insider_trading_conviction

So what are George Soros' motivations? vs. the Koch brothers?

Don't even bother to try to claim that he's making money off of climate change. There's nowhere near the money in climate change that there is in oil & energy. The Koch brothers have far more motivation to deny climate change to keep their pockets filled.

Climate change or climate change policies ? If you can analyze the net effects and the motivations of the key players it's worth more than a few lines.

Hahaha. Yeah, right. Soros has nothing to gain from the man-made global warming hoax:

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/12/cleantech-hits-the-jackpot-george-soros-to-invest-1-billion-in/

Investment carries with it no guarantee of return....

but a really good bet if you know how to work it

often involves government guarantees

As an investor I can tell you investing in green technologies is risky business, government involvement or not...certainly not someplace I would put my money....but Soros can probably afford to take a loss....

..."Cleantech is currently clustered in six industry sectors: energy, water and waste water, advanced materials, energy efficiency and manufacturing, transportation and agriculture. The largest of these sectors is energy and can range from biodiesel, clean coal and fuel cells, to wind and solar energy."...

Would you invest in any of these area's?

..." $multi-millions George Soros has poured into 'climate change' funding, 'environmental' research, and 'environmental' groups "....

Please list these examples that Mr Soros has spent so much money on....if you can...

What I need to do is work up a racket in which the Koch brothers fund me generously for not pointing out other stuff that they fund. Alas, I'm not a sufficiently (in)famous journalist.

You do realize that this will not change the mind of anyone at all. Showing that a scientist was funded predominantly by any side in a dispute has never held any sway with people. It does not matter if this scientist was one of twenty or twenty thousand on the planet that agreed or disagreed with preconceived biases. The bias is set in concrete. Excuses to exonerate or condemn the scientist and/or report results will be quickly found by the true believers.

I'm not here to change anybody's mind, only to provide information....People can make up their own mind as to what they believe, it won't alter reality...

"it won't alter reality..."

Sure it will. Reality is what you perceive.

No reality exists as a fact, you either perceive it or you don't....You've been watching the Matrix again haven't you?

I've gotta side with Morpheus : reality is in the synapses.

You might say that factual requires a consensus of perceptions.

You're confusing perception of reality with factual reality....If you are standing in the street and a car is approaching at a high rate of speed, you are free to believe you're safe, but in reality you are not....Survival depends on your perception of reality, but it doesn't alter the facts....Man believed for years that talk of flying was crazy talk, impossible to achieve, reasoning was perceived to be sound, as man was heavier than air by a wide margin....but the reality is now apparent....

There's no confusion unless you define reality as equal to factual. If I perceive ( or misperceive,subjectively, how else ) that a speeding car is not headed for me when in fact it is, something is very wrong but my perception is still my reality.Naturally, my perception will change when it hits, to match the fact and the perceptions of any onlookers. By the same token, the phrase real or imagined is better said factual or imagined. Doesn't have nearly as nice a ring to it but I still say that reality is in the synapses

If this was true, there would be no questions left to ask.....there would be no mistakes ever made...no need for education....there would be no difference of opinion....People do not see reality, they see their perception of reality, which is frequently wrong...

OK, so you're unwilling to substitute factual for real and equate reality with perception

Your perception is factual....Have we created reality?

This started more as a tongue-in-cheek jab, but there is more than a thread of truth that we create our own reality in many ways.

This can take the form as something as simple as the customer is always right to the bowels of quantum mechanics. Nothing is as concrete as it seems.

True that....."He's living in his own private Idaho." ...lol

Can we agree that without solar radiation Earth would cool to interstellar cold, and it wouldn't be long before the forget-about-it point where only tiny pockets of cold-adaptive life survives ?
Has anyone positioned instrumentation that has been acquiring reliable data on solar radiation to Earth over the last several decades ? I would bet not, but if I'm wrong, let us all spare no effort to get at that story, to pain in the you-know-what and beyond, if necessary.
To be concerned with the source of data is to admit to a degree of uncertainty as to its " truth " or validity. So why is skepticism about global warming or climate change or the causes that might be any more unreasonable than a stampede to the call of " all aboard ! " ? Some data should be doubted and some taken on absolute trust ?
" not this little black duck " .... Daffy Duck

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

it's a start...need time...orange block looks incredibly huge...maybe, maybe not

I do not get how it is possible we are not either freezing or burning completely up with a model as that. The author is basically claiming that the equivalent of 97% of the incoming solar irradiance is being back radiated by "greenhouse gases". Really? If all the up and down columns are added up the net is as he describes, however, at a measily 0.9 W/m². That isn't enough to make a cup of tea IMHO.

Also on the cube chart, the anthropogenic forcing cube is reported once, then right below that is the energy production cube (i.e. burning fuels, and nuclear). How is it that does not also belong in the "anthropogenic forcing" cube? Did they count something twice? Is there any antropocentric megalomania involved here?

The numbers aside, nothing comes to my mind yet as far as factors that have to be considered.

Geez, sorry, didn't realize we were so tightly serious.

What's IMHO ?

IMHO - In my humble opinion (some days more humble that others)

AFAICT - As far as I can tell (sometimes I can tell a lot farther)

Other old timers on CR4 know all the cool abbreviations and acronyms.

Well when you are older than dirt you have nothing but time to learn all of the short cuts to language. You need them to get things said before you turn into dust. Am I lurking again?

Are you funded by Al Gore?

I'm chagrined by your comments on this topic. NYT mentions no fault with any of his findings, in fact no one mentions any fabrications whatsoever in any of his work. The only question is the funding, then why not the same interest when vested interests fund support for AGW? Vested interests include but not limited to US DOE, Bill Gate, Geo Soris.