False. I didn't deny ANY science at all. As for the location of Vinland there is dispute. So, AGAIN I'm ready to accept what YOU think the location is. I'm just not interested in that dispute. Do you need me to sign something that says I agree with you? How much effort do you want to put into refusing my agreement?
It didn't need any fixing, so thanks for nothing. who the hell cares Evidently not, but of course he has no more reason to believe otherwise than I have to believe cell towers give me a headache.
Anecdotal evidence of wineries in England and Norse farmers in Greenland do not amount to a global assessment.
Not necessarily but as long as GDP growth outpaces population growth we will continue to stay ahead of the pack.
That's a low bar. Supply side comes in at 3% normalized for population growth. The current economy's slow growth is responsible for many thinking we are still in a recession.
LOL. You are unlikely to see 3% GDP growth in the US unless it is coming out of a large downturn and regaining lost territory or we are in a war. 2 to 2.5% is the best you can hope for.
Supply side policies routinely produced 4% gdp growth. The Obama economy with it's over regulation and 10% tax increase on small business produced the worst recovery from a recession since the GD and ~ 2% gdp growth rate in non recession years.
What used to be isn't what is or what will be. The reason China is growing at 6% is because they are climbing out of the stone ages. The US economy will not naturally support the kind of sustained annual growth you are talking about, especially when capital is flowing to Asia for higher returns on investment. Other parts of the world are enjoying catch-up growth. We have the baby boomers going into retirement (lowering participation rates) and our non-immigrant population growth seems to be quickly diving below 1%. The US would have to import immigrants by the boat load for a sustained 4% growth off our current base because productivity per worker has stalled out or invent some new technology that made current production methods akin to digging holes with a stick. Trump cannot be anti-immigrant and pro 4-6% growth and be taken seriously. You have to pick one or the other.
That's ridiculous. Supply side economics worked from the early 80's through the mid 00's. Obama's policies put a sea anchor on the economy and growth stagnated at 2%. There is no reason that productivity can not increase back to the ~ 3% annual growth rates of the supply side economy of the ~ 25 years prior to Obamanomics. The US does not need immigration to achieve ~ 4% growth rates. U6 unemployment is ~ 6% greater than U3 - typically it is ~ 3%. And the LFPR is not entirely due to baby boomers retiring early - that accounts for only ~ 25% of the reduction. Reducing the gov imposed costs on production will result in much higher growth rates than the Obama economy. The reason China is growing so rapidly is capitalism. They are definitely well past the stone ages.
You assume there is universal agreement in science. “What you see is that the slowdown just goes away.” –Thomas Karl (NOAA), Science Magazine, 4 June 2015. “The slowdown hasn’t gone away.” –Peter Stott (Met Office), The Sunday Times, 12 February 2017
There are several reasons and they have been given to you. Whether or not you choose to believe them is up to you, but you appear to be on the path to disappointment. The reason China is growing is because of economic convergence. Less developed nations can grow much more rapidly than developed nations because we are hamstringed by the need for new inventions/development whereas they are just pulling out slack using the stuff we already have invented and deployed. To have the kind of GDP growth you are talking about would require the US to increase annual productivity by something akin to $4K per year per worker because our GDP base is so high. It is not going to happen.
The 25 years preceding the Obama stagnation period is existence proof that 4% is very achievable by implementing supply side economic policies. The Obama economic policies produced the only Presidential economy which failed to exceed 3% annual real gdp growth. The reasons you have given that 4% economic growth is not possible are incorrect. China was a very backward country using command control economic methods. Switching to capitalism has unleashed their economic performance.
Reagan tripled the national debt to leave office at just over 3% GDP growth. Nobody is going to loan Trump $40T. You seem to not understand the law of diminishing returns. The first tractor and first irrigation system do wonders for the dirt farmer's productivity. The 10th, not so much.
How about written records from European monasteries and China too. Global enough? Or still to anecdotal? Unlike a forest, grapes can colonize a new area pretty quickly. And we see it as their latitude moved north in the warm period. How is Brit or grapes production today? And has France become too hot again for good wine grapes? As a biologist I put great trust in such ecology as a climate marker. More so than paid for science numbers. Likewise, sprinkling fertilizer in the mid Pacific ocean would trap lots of carbon and create fisheries too. Ain't Biology a wonderful science? Moi r > g View attachment 47270 Murder by the Ottawa State. Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
They are easy to tell apart. One begins with a W and one begins with a C. Also, politics begins with a P and facts begins with an F. It should be easier than it is to tell the difference.
Perhaps you could classify the use of legal action against people that don't agree with your version of "proven science" as open or closed minded. From the UK Daily Mail: Attorney General Loretta Lynch has considered taking legal action against climate change deniers. The United States' top lawyer told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the Justice Department has 'discussed' the possibility of a civil lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry. She said any information her office has received has been sent to the FBI in a bid to build a case. Her comments came as she was questioned by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.
Seeding iron in the Pacific may not pull carbon from air as thought The basic message is, if you add to one place, you may subtract from another. https://phys.org/news/2016-03-seeding-iron-pacific-carbon-air.html Ain't Physics a wonderful science?
3.84% is not just over 3%. The last 4 years of the Clinton supply side economy averaged ~ 4.5%. The post recession economy of Bush 43 averaged ~ 3.5% before the housing bubble and financial crisis began. Obama double the nationals debt from ~ $10T to $20T and "grew" the economy at ~ 2% in non recessionary years. The US economy is not a farmer's field. The wealth generation capability of a nation does not become depleted over time due to exhaustion of personal creativity from the population. Creative destruction continually results in new wealth producing industries which increase the productivity of the US economy unless the gov (as the Obama Presidency did) limits economic growth. There is no diminishing returns in a capitalistic economy - those companies which become unprofitable go out of business. - - - Updated - - - That is exactly what I meant - economic growth is corrected for population growth just as is done for inflation.
A year ago or two Science magazine had an article that the South Pacific was behaving as a more major carbon sink than calculated by carbon alarmist. Yes it do. And no! Physics is numbers. Biology is life Moi r > g View attachment 47271 The Threat Is Not So Comical Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Yes, and 97.5% of the Cook climate papers indicate that humans are responsible for some but not most of the observed global warming.
I cited a link that included a good number of studies on agreement besides the Cook study - plus the explicit affirmations of numerous well respected scientific organizations. I don't see the distinction you reference ("some but not most") as one being made in the original Cook paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf Also, that paper shows the increasing agreement in AGW - countering the argument some people make that agreement with AGW is weakening. How much agreement is needed before we consider making public policy oriented to reducing this problem? For example, do we need as much agreement on AGW as we had among experts when we determined to spend billions on TARP?
