Betting Trump/fans over coal jobs and other issues in 2020
The slight consolation I get as global temperatures keep climbing is that I'm winning my bets on the issue. So how about the same for Trump. I need bets based on what Trump has promised or described, bets that have some objective basis for measurement. I'd like the bets to pay off at the beginning of 2020, so they play some tiny role in the 2020 election (assuming we have one).
Coal seems like an obvious one. Brad Plumer has a good explainer on Trump promising he'll "put our coal miners back to work" and why that's a lie. Clinton at least had a $30b plan to help transition coal workers. Trump's plan is to eliminate environmental regulations - might help the company owners make some money and even slow the loss somewhat, but doesn't help or pay for a transition.
I've got $5,000 that says coal employment at the end of 2019 will be lower than the day Trump is inaugurated. He doesn't have to bring a single job back like he promised, just stop the slide. Actually I'll make it even better - if he keeps the slide to no more than 2% a year on average, 6% total loss, then I'll fork over $5k. (UPDATE: I think it's reasonable to address the optics question that David Appell raises in the comments. I will note the bet premise is that coal workers would be better off if they supported Clinton, although the coal CEOs would not, and betting is a way to demonstrate that prior to the 2020 election. But to avoid any misunderstanding, I've always been open to having my bets directed to charity instead of personal enrichment of the betting parties. Let's make this one's payment directed to charities in coal country - my direction would be for a charity helping transition away from coal, my opponent could choose whatever suitable direction he likes (it's going to be a "he" if it's going to be anybody).) (ANOTHER UPDATE, FEBRUARY 2019: well I'm glad no one took me up on this coal bet offer, and I'll now rescind it. Trump certainly hasn't brought back coal, but the decrease in jobs has stalled, for a while. I think it'll start up again no matter what happens but will definitely take off when the next global recession hits.)
For Obamacare, I'm trying to think of an objectively-determined outcome to bet over - let's say that if Republicans repeal or repeal/replace Obamacare before the end of 2019, the percentage of Americans with health care coverage through private or governmental plans will drop. Defining this may be a bit difficult - it would have to be something rejected by most Democrats, not a grand deal. It would also have to be more than a fig leaf - I could see Trump and pals making a small change to Obamacare and present it as revolutionary fix. Good outcome, but not a test of Republican versus Democratic policies. So that bet might need an umpire. $5k on offer.
And finally, climate change isn't a hoax. Hard to test that in a short period of a few years with all the variability, but sea level looks like a higher signal-to-noise ratio. Lets make it four years, July 2016 to July 2020, I put up $5k at 2:1 odds that sea levels will be higher at the end. Details TBD.
I'm not betting some anonymous Trumpkin, but will take on somebody serious and real.
Posts
277 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 277 of 277BBD, do you know who Baghdad Bob was?
That you feel free to pronounce my belief about ECS mistaken
We've discussed this before, at some length. However, perhaps your definition of lukewarm has changed since.
What are your current preferred estimates for ECS and TCR?
Why?
BBD, I don't recall at any time arguing that variability is part of the forced trend.
Then why the constant peddling of the 'pause' meme?
What is that if not *confusing* natural variability with the forced trend?
You are either confused or you are lying.
Unless you know better than James Hansen, Michael Mann and Ben Santer, perhaps you shouldn't characterize the pause as a meme. But then, reality deniers will do what they will.
TCR 1.5C +/- .2C
ECS 2.1C +/- .4C
What's yours? It's okay to use your fingers--oh, wait! You might need your toes as well.
I can fully understand why the insane Thomas W. Fuller would be too embarrassed to post a link to any of his printed and published ravings.
However, I don't suffer from that kind of embarrassment, and to demonstrate that I can give you a link to an essay I am currently writing, for your insane amusement and enlightenment, since it does involve scientific references and some occasional use of SI units.
http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Cosmic_Axions.pdf
You will have to forgive me for its incompleteness and of course I reserve the right to make any changes I please, whenever I please.
8C, you may find lots of my published writings at 3000 Quads or The Lukewarmers Way. You can buy the book of the same name. You can buy a previous book I co-authored with Steve Mosher called Climategate: The CRUTape Letters.
You are forgiven for the incompleteness of your essay. I say that without having read it, of course. Someone crazy enough to use 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df as a blog handle and then calls others insane is probably not going to write anything worth reading. As your blog comments attest to.
Unless you know better than James Hansen, Michael Mann and Ben Santer, perhaps you shouldn't characterize the pause as a meme. But then, reality deniers will do what they will.
The meme is the confusion between natural variability and the forced trend. The meme is that CS is lower than previously thought because of a confusion between noise and signal. As SM would say, read harder.
TCR 1.5C +/- .2C
ECS 2.1C +/- .4C
What's yours?
TCR ~1.5C
ECS ~3C
On what do you base your low ECS estimate?
Ok, so far I have determined that Thomas W. Fuller is here to sell books, that apparently nobody here cares to buy or read. I am loathe to inform Thomas W. Fuller that I don't hand type in every digit of the long string of apparently random digits that AOL spits out when I used their opaque identifier, which I unfortunately have no control over, but fortunately is the same string of random digits every time I use my AOL identifier to post comments on Blogspot blogs that don't accept or no longer accept anonymous or personal names and URLs.
Thomas W. Fuller is either too insane or too stupid to figure that out. But that's ok. I prefer 8c... over my personal AOL email address.
Yes, 8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df, you loathe, some.
BBD, my estimate is lower than yours. That does not mean it is low. It is well within the range offered by the IPCC and higher than observations would suggest. It is not low. It is lower than yours.
BBD, my estimate is lower than yours. That does not mean it is low. It is well within the range offered by the IPCC and higher than observations would suggest. It is not low. It is lower than yours.
It's at the bottom of the range; mine is the central estimate. Yours is difficult to reconcile with palaeoclimate behaviour; mine is not.
You didn't answer the question: on what do you base your low estimate of ECS?
and higher than observations would suggest.
Confusion between noise and signal. You don't seem aware that you are doing it, but you are.
Tom wrote:
"The pause is either over or paused itself."
And just when was this pause?
There are many things you take as a given that in fact are not given. You are taking them on faith. A prominent example is your misplaced assurance that you understand paleoclimatic behaviour. You do not.
Appel, Hansen placed it roughly as the decade following the 98 El Nino. That's close enough for me.
Tom wrote:
"But I guess you lot had better things to do--No Pressure Videos, photoshopping polar bears, calling James Hansen, Barack Obama and Andrew Revkin deniers--all things that have done so much to advance your cause."
Me?
No.
That's so awesome that you hand typed in all those numbers and letters just for me, Tom, just to tell me that. I am so blessed by your thoughfulness.
Yes, Appel, I well remember your vigorous criticism of their stupidity, cupidity, lividity, morbidity... Oh, wait--you didn't say anything.
Hence the 'you.'
Tom said...
"Hey rabbit--as for SLR, would you bet that it will be more than 25 mm?"
It already is, since 1993.0:
77 mm according to Aviso, and 80 mm according to CU.
And accelerating.
Tom
You assert:
There are many things you take as a given that in fact are not given. You are taking them on faith. A prominent example is your misplaced assurance that you understand paleoclimatic behaviour. You do not.
Based on what, exactly?
Quotes are going to be necessary here. Assertion doesn't cut it.
And you *still* dodge the question: on what do you base your low estimate of ECS?
Appel, keep up. The proposed bet is 2016-2020.
BBD, explain your understanding of paleoclimate. What you think, what your thinking is based on.
BBD, you still haven't answered my question. Do you know who Baghdad Bob was?
Tom
"Yes, Appel, I well remember your vigorous criticism of their stupidity, cupidity, lividity, morbidity... Oh, wait--you didn't say anything."
I'v learned that when all someone does is call names and use petty insults, like you're doing here, it means they don't have any science they can cite to make their case. Which gets old real fast.
Appel, we're all getting older. My insults aren't petty--how dare you? They are incisive, well-considered, apt and accurate. Look at the bozos I insult here--BBD, 8c--they're barely conscious.
explain your understanding of paleoclimate
Thomas W. Fuller, your nutshells appear to be very tiny.
BBD, explain your understanding of paleoclimate. What you think, what your thinking is based on.
You assert that I'm arguing against the standard view of CS derived from palaeoclimate studies. Where did I do this? I've already asked for quotes and you haven't delivered.
Your still unsupported assertion that ECS is ~2.1C is actually below the lower bound established by a comprehensive (19 authors) review paper (PALAEOSENS Project Members, 2012):
Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change), but a lack of consistent methodologies produces a wide range of estimates and hinders comparability of results. Here we present a stricter approach, to improve intercomparison of palaeoclimate sensitivity estimates in a manner compatible with equilibrium projections for future climate change. Over the past 65 million years, this reveals a climate sensitivity (in K W−1 m2) of 0.3–1.9 or 0.6–1.3 at 95% or 68% probability, respectively. The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates.
How do you justify your low-end pick? As opposed to the higher probability of a central estimate being correct?
You emboldened the phrase about their estimate agreeing with IPCC estimates.
So does mine.
Tom wrote:
"Hansen placed it roughly as the decade following the 98 El Nino. That's close enough for me."
NOAA data shows +0.15 C of warming over that time.... The top 700 meters of the ocean gained 60 zettajoules of heat.
What's unusual about a decade of no surface warming, especially if you cherry pick the start and end dates? That happened several times in the 20th century, and it will happen again in the future (though with decreasing frequency). Ten years isn't long enough for any trend to be statistically significant, anyway -- it's just the always present noise in the climate system.
The most important, as others here have pointed out, is that Earth still had an energy imbalance during that time -- more incoming than outgoing.
You emboldened the phrase about their estimate agreeing with IPCC estimates.
So does mine.
In which Tom yet again refuses to justify a pick at the bottom end of the range instead of a central estimate derived from the range.
Choosing a lower probability over a higher one without justification is an act of faith.
Yes, Appel--I mentioned it twice here and repeatedly when I published on this subject. I know.
That's why we use the word 'pause.' To distinguish from words like stop, cessation, halt, finish, gotterdamerung, finis, finito. Implying temporary.
BBD yet again refuses to admit whether or not he is the reincarnation of Baghdad Bob.
Choosing a lower probability that coincides better with observations is of course an act of faith. So is choosing any specific value within the range.
The difference between us is that my values, faith and belief system will not be shattered if events or further investigation prove me wrong.
Choosing a lower probability that coincides better with observations is of course an act of faith.
But *how* does this low estimate better agree with 'observations'? You will not say. Of course I understand that you are dogwhistling the EBM studies but these have been shown to be methodologically biased toward low estimates of S. So, what else do you have? Anything will do, so long as it is published in a relevant journal.
So is choosing any specific value within the range.
Just wrong, Tom. Inclining towards the higher probability is scientific thinking, not an act of faith. Here's an example from PALAEOSENS (2012):
Including the known uncertainties associated with palaeoclimate sensitivity calculations, and comparing with two previous approaches, we find overlap in the 68% probability envelopes that implies equilibrium warming of 3.1–3.7 K for 2 x CO2
That is the best estimate derived from the range. Yours remains an act of faith, which is why Eli calls you 'luckwarmers'.
What I call rabbit is even more pungent.
And remember, BBD--flexibility is your friend. The odds are good that sensitivity isn't one fixed value.
I hope your head doesn't explode.
You aren't bringing 'anything to the table', Tom.
Why is that?
You're not worth the effort, BBD. I'm just toggling back and forth between this and a report that I'm writing. Don't tell 8c, but it involves higher maths, statistics and SI units.
In six years of corresponding with you on weblogs you have never once evinced a trace of humanity, good faith, intelligence or common sense. You whine, you bully and you get all hot and bothered when people laugh at your stentorian commands.
You are not worth the effort it would take to show why I believe what I believe, especially as your reaction is a foregone conclusion.
Let the table remain empty. You can put a net across it and play ping-pong with your two remaining brain cells.
it involves higher maths, statistics and SI units.
Since you seem to be bragging about it then you should have no problems with uploading it onto the web and providing me with a link to it.
I think my client might object.
Tom wrote:
"In six years of corresponding with you on weblogs you have never once evinced a trace of humanity, good faith, intelligence or common sense. You whine, you bully and you get all hot and bothered when people laugh at your stentorian commands."
A good example of what I meant.
Also a good example of what I meant.
You're not worth the effort, BBD.
This isn't an argument.
I gave you an argument and a referenced one at that, so who doesn't understand the palaeoclimate literature? Who is 'bringing nothing to the table'? And who is engaging in acts of faith?
Rock on, Tom.
If your client objects to you publishing your work then what exactly is your point of bragging about it on the internet when you know that you will be unable to provide anyone with evidence of your assertion?
I think my client might object.
Brave of you to admit that you are being paid for this stuff.
Tom wrote:
"it involves higher maths, statistics and SI units."
Also know as, one's senior year of high school.
Known, Appel. Known.
According to Thomas Fuller:
TCR 1.5C +/- .2C
ECS 2.1C +/- .4C
This is interesting, because the planet has warmed approximately 1.2 C since the Industrial Revolution began, in the time that CO₂ rose from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. Fitting a logarithmic curve to these points gives a short-term response of 2.33 C per doubling of pre-Industrial CO₂...
Note that this is not equilibrium sensitivity. It's the sensitivity of the planet's climate system as it has changed to date. There's still a huge imbalance in the energy budget of the planet's atmosphere, and therefore warming will continue for decades yet even if fuman emissions ceased today. And this is also not including positive feedbacks that will manifest before a full doubling occurs - and the obstinate acceleration of CO₂ accumulation in the atmosphere, despite any plateau of fossil fuel emissions, appears to guaranee that we'll come close to doubling, if not surpass it...
About 4-5 years ago I estimated ECS as 3.4 ± 0.2 °C for a doubling over pre-Industrial CO₂. I posted this somewhere at Tamino's, although I can't find the post now. Given the warming that has manifested since then, I see no reason to resile from that estimate. I was interested to see the PALAEOSENS paper the first time that I came across it, because it lands bang on my own summary of data up to that time.
However, even if the ECS was 2.5 C, as Thomas Fuller would like to believe, we'd still be in a mess of trouble. It would just hit us a few decades more slowly, is all.
Going back to previous matters, I'd typed a long post about Fuller's ongoing avoidance of substantiating his claim of a pause. It was too long for Blogger's character limit however, and was lost in trying to refresh the posting window, and quite frankly I can't be bothered to repeat a typing. We're still noticing though that Fuller has presented not a whit of evidence for a pause. So how about it Thomas Fuller - exactly what will it take for you to be moved to justify your claim?
Thomas Fuller wrote:
"TCR 1.5C +/- .2C
ECS 2.1C +/- .4C"
How do you derive
1) your best estimate
2) your error bars (are they 95% confidence limits, 2-sigma, 1-sigma, or what).
No name calling -- these are real scientific questions. THanks.
I derived both my best estimate and the margin of error very unscientifically. I had conversations with climate scientists on both ends of the spectrum. I was writing for Examiner.com at the time and interviewed quite a number of them, some of which were published, several which were not.
Both those you would label skeptics and those who were solid consensus scientists gave, as you might expect, lower and higher values respectively. When I put the estimates from the opposing camp in front of each of them I was quite surprised. Both skeptical and consensus scientists freely admitted that the other side's estimates were well within the realm of possibility. I then went back with my mid-range estimates, splitting the difference as it were.
Both sides said mine were equally possible. They all said that anyone who claimed to know what sensitivity really was was full of it and further, that anyone who gave a specific number without a healthy margin of error was a fool.
I will not tell you which scientists participated in this exercise, so don't bother to ask.
I'm sorry Appel, I forgot--the confidence limits are 1 sigma, again obtained most unscientifically, by peeking at the confidence limits used by actual scientists.
Oh, and one last comment. My conversations with the scientists were about ECS only. My figures for transient climate sensitivity are just taken from what I've seen in the literature and on blogs over the past year. There actually seems broad agreement on that range, so I don't feel uncomfortable about it.
Tom wrote:
"I derived both my best estimate and the margin of error very unscientifically."
So show your work.
Tom wrote:
"I'm sorry Appel, I forgot--the confidence limits are 1 sigma, again obtained most unscientifically, by peeking at the confidence limits used by actual scientists."
You continue to misspell my last name -- on purpose, obviously.
Stop being childish and rude.
Tom wrote:
"My figures for transient climate sensitivity are just taken from what I've seen in the literature and on blogs over the past year. There actually seems broad agreement on that range, so I don't feel uncomfortable about it."
Prove your claims.
Sigh... and I thought you were trying to be serious.
Bugger off.
"Both sides said mine were equally possible."
Yeah, that's unsubstantiated anecdote and therefore meaningless.
"They all said that anyone who claimed to know what sensitivity really was was full of it and further, that anyone who gave a specific number without a healthy margin of error was a fool."
Personally, I don't claim to "know what sensitivity really is." My best estimate and confidence interval were derived from a back-of-the-envelope meta-analysis 5 years ago using the various estimates to date, with weighting for studies I thought had more power. I'll happily admit that I don't immediately have to hand the file in which I did the calculations, but it'll be on a ~2Gb flash drive somewhere...
My estimates though were nicely corroborated by the PALAEOSENS paper - I wish that I could find my post on Open Mind where I put down my estimate, to see if I predated the PALAEOSENS paper or followed it. I'm sure that the post itself could be found though, and I have bookmarks for repetitions in 2014 on SKS and HotWhopper for the sceptical...
But you're avoiding the elephant in the room. The actual climate response to date has been the equivalent of 2.33 C per doubling of pre-Industrial CO₂. You can blather as much as you like about your (self-confessed) unscientific estimations (which, by the way, mean that your own 1 sigma estimates are meaningless beyond being guesses), but the fact is that they're already abjectly wrong: the planet has already decided that ECS is going to be rather greater than 2.33 C.
Oh, I'm sure that you'll point out that your upper limit of 2.5 C for ECS is still plausible, but given that your TCR central estimate is 0.6 C (30%) lower than your central ECS guess you'll have to admit that parsimony is not on your side. After all, your upper limit for TCR is already 0.7 C below what the planet is already working with.
Are you getting the message yet that physics is demonstrably and vehemently disagreeing with you, Thomas Fuller?
Oh, and in case it's slipped your mind, you've not yet demonstrated any scientific/statistical verification of the existence of a 'pause' following the 1998 El Niño...
I have to say that I rather miss the late Tim Curtin. He was an abject victim of the climate change denialist cognitive scotoma, but he at least tried to support his claims with working.
Thomas Fuller especially, and also the suddenly quiet GallopingCamel, produce nothing but wrist-flapping and windy assertion.
No surprise though.
Here's my working:
CO2 has increased by 120ppm from the reference pre-industrial value of 280ppm to 400ppm.
There's been about 0.9C (some say 1C) warming since pre-industrial period (by convention 1750). Most of it since 1950.
So the transient response to 120ppm CO2 is 0.9C or thereabouts. Transient response, not the equilibrium response.
The transient response is held to be approximately 60% of the equilibrium response (ECS):
0.9 is 60% of 1.5
Calculating the delta T at equilibrium using the method in Knutti & Hegerl (2008) and assuming ECS to be 3C per doubling of CO2:
ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2
ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium
So observed transient warming is exactly what we'd expect if ECS = about 3C, which is what most climate scientists think it is based on multiple lines of evidence.
Note to Tom:
Observations support an ECS of ~3C.
In his defense, Tomfool chose to stop "observing" a few minutes into Teh Surge. He mostly squints now - the better to deny all that has occured since that Exxonomist article from 2013, while allowing him to continue manufacturing deliverables.
BBD:
"There's been about 0.9C (some say 1C) warming since pre-industrial period (by convention 1750). Most of it since 1950."
Berkeley Earth says that it's around 1.2 C since 1850:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt
Huang's et al (2000) borehole data indicates that warming was occurring apace before 1850, and indeed since 1500, although the warming to around 1700-1750 was probably mostly due to land clearing practices and some recovery from the LIA.
Even so, I suspect that a 1.2 C increase in temperature for a rise in CO₂ from pre-industrial (~1750) concentrations to 400 ppm is a conservative estimate. That's why I went with this figure, and the implications from using it are bad enough...
I'd like to think that 0.9 C is closer to the currently-realised increase since the Industrial Revolution began, but I fear that might be wishful thinking. I lend a lot of weight to the Berkeley Earth work. Also, with the warming in the last 16 years, Huang's et al estimate is pretty close to that mark too, and their data are older.
But if you can persuade me that it's only 0.9 C, I'd be overjoyed.
There's also the issue of aerosol masking of some of the CO₂ forcing...
:-(
Bernard J.
Sorry, my attention had wandered away from this thread a bit. All valid points. I use the 0.9C figure as it is widely given as the best estimate for modern (ie anthropogenic) warming and - of course - I wouldn't want to appear alarmist :-)
Nor would I wish to be diverted away from the core argument (obs support ~3C ECS) by having to defend what some 'sceptics' will attack as an over-estimate of modern warming.
It's interesting though that people like Gavin Schmidt opt for 2.5 - 3C (but then he would; GISS ModelE has a sensitivity of ~2.7C IIRC).
For Gallopingcamel and Thomas Fuller, who have yet to explain any scientific basis for a 'pause', comes this commentary on the current incontrovertible warming of the planet:
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2017/01/02/2016-hottest-year/
BJ, the scientific explanation as it was given by James Hansen was " a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing."
Which I believe was given above. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or is it just... denial...?
Tom
Where is your justification for your act of faith?
Why won't you *ever* answer me on this? You dodged it at Keith's five long years ago and you are *still* dodging now.
Why?
Is it because you know that you cannot justify your luckwarmer rubbish?
Could that be it?
Are you being dishonest with us Tom?
Tom wrote:
"the scientific explanation as it was given by James Hansen was " a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.""
I doubt it.
Do you have a citation?
A "slowdown" in the growth rate of the net climate forcing would create more warmng, not a pause/hiatus. For a pause you'd need net zero growth in all forcings.
There were many hypotheses for the then-claimed pause/hiatus. (Better data then showed there was no such pause.) Aerosols from China, La Ninas, a solar minimum, volcanic aerosols, and more. I wrote a long article about it at the time:
"Wither Global Warming? Has It Slowed Down?" The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, May 7, 2013.
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/
BBD, I don't answer you because you're a git, a wide boy and a jerk.
Appell (maybe you and William Connnelly can get up a petition to punish people who misspell your names--what? Do you think you're famous or something? Or even worth remembering?) the quote is from the Economist piece: http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
"BJ, the scientific explanation as it was given by James Hansen was " a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing."
Which I believe was given above. Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or is it just... denial...?"
Oh, I have no difficulty with comprehension, Tom Fuller, but you persist in answering a question that I didn't ask.
I'm not interested in your impressionist misinterpretation of a Chinese whisper transation of what James Hansen said. Now I know that you're not particularly clever or educated when it comes to matters scientific, and I understand from the ad infinitum repetition of the same question that you yourself may have a disability of comprehension (and/or of memory), but you are completely missing the point. To wit, can you indicate with scientific methodology when the pause started, and when it finished? It's really simple: all you have to do is supply two dates, and the scientific technique on which you reply in order to obtain these dates.
It's cute of you to quote Hansen by the way, when it was me who first noted your selective quotation of Hansen. Further, this is Hansen's "interpret[ation]" of a pattern in a five-year mean trend, which is a different parameter to gauging trends in the complete modern global temperature record, and it was a comment made four years ago.
You, Tom Fuller, and Gallopingcamel with you, have both reiterated on this thread that there was a 'pause' in temperature whilst CO₂ has continued to increase. So I've been challenging you - repeatedly - to delineate that pause - using the complete data record. And if you insist on only focussing on the record as it was to the end of 2012, that's fine... But then you need to explain the statistical validity of claiming a pause given the noise in the data, and the magnitude of the underlying signal, and these are two parameters from which you've persistently run with your skirts hitched around your waist.
The truth would appear to be that you actually know that there was never a 'pause', but that you are an intellectually dishonest person intent on promulgating the propaganda of vested interests. If you believe that your claims are in fact honest ones, you should be able to defend them scientifically, and you should have the courage and the integrity to do so.
So why don't you?
Tom Fuller (and Gallopingcamel if he's still lurking in the corner), can you indicate on the graph here the two years that delineate the start and end of the 'pause'?
Tom
BBD, I don't answer you because you're a git, a wide boy and a jerk.
No. You don't answer me because you can't. That is obvious to everybody in the room, including you, which is why you can only take refuge in silly abuse.
If you could answer me and make your case, you would.
You are pathetic Tom. FFS, retire.
Hmmm, it seems that Gallopingcamel was named such for a reason...
Can't see him for the dust.
Tom Fuller and GC are 'Tony Heller' cranks. You can find them there.
It's 2017 and we're looking at a minimum of four years of fascism. Give it a rest, the only way to cope with them is to leave them in the dust. Elon will hopefully be back inyp the business of recovering boosters next week, Jeff is building a giant reusable rocket factory in Florida, Axions are the next big thing. It's time to 'Move On'.
http://lifeform.net/archimedes/Cosmic_Axions.pdf
The markets can deal with the real scarcity. Helium.
Sigh, 8c, get your names straight. Not Tony, Joseph.
What can I say, my dear
To catch your ear
I need you madly madly
Captain Yossarian
It's Helen, Tom. Helen Quinn. Where quantum gravity meets the strong force among the still living. The force is strong with that one.
The US coal industry has added 35,000 jobs in the last six months.
Peabody and Arch coal are out of bankruptcy.
The People's Republic of China is buying US coal.
https://spectator.org/coals-colossal-comeback/?utm_source=American+Spectator+Emails&utm_campaign=058dba3186-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_797a38d487-058dba3186-104430957
Perhaps some of you will have the decency to admit you were wrong.
gallopingcamel wrote:
"The US coal industry has added 35,000 jobs in the last six months."
No way -- the actual number is 1,700.
Data:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CEU1021210001
Post a Comment