Global Warming is over.

[gwb72tii]

well it seems the Mann trial may in fact not go to trial
it seems Mann has falsely claimed in his court filing to be a recipient of the Nobel prize, which he is certainly not. You cannot make this stuff up.

Also, this just in. The hockey stick has disappeared anyways.

here's a quote from Keith Briffa of East Anglia, UK
"If the good fit between these tree-growth and temperature data is reflected at the longer timescales indicated by the smoothed chronologies (Figures 5c and S20d, available online), we can infer the existence of generally warm summers in the 10th and 11th centuries, similar to the level of those in the 20th century."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

don't quite see the purpose of your post rwh regarding heat trapping greenhouse gases. I and others have never stated they don't act as they do, just that they are in fact not primarily responsible for the warming.
While you're at it, why not "inform" us all as to how CO2 actually works as a greenhouse gas. That is, its effects are exponential, not linear. You need to quadruple CO2 to double its effects. But you knew that already.
And, last but not least, it seems you missed the most important greenhouse gas of all, water vapor.

[rwh11385]

don't quite see the purpose of your post rwh regarding heat trapping greenhouse gases. I and others have never stated they don't act as they do, just that they are in fact not primarily responsible for the warming.
While you're at it, why not "inform" us all as to how CO2 actually works as a greenhouse gas. That is, its effects are exponential, not linear. You need to quadruple CO2 to double its effects. But you knew that already.
And, last but not least, it seems you missed the most important greenhouse gas of all, water vapor.

You throughout the thread have claimed that there is no empirical evidence of global warming as you attacked the models, but completely ignore that there is basic evidence from physics/chemistry that CO2 and other GHG create a thermal blanket that insulates heat to stay near the Earth's surface instead of escaping to space.

The argument was never that greenhouse gases and humans were the sole influence on warming but as the poll you attack states, a significant influence on climate change.

Since you don't deny that GHGs impact heat trapping in the atmosphere, should we include you in those who believe that CO2 and other GHG emissions impact global warming?

Molecules become excited and then eventually radiate their energy in all directions. Since this keeps the heat that is reflected off of earth's surface from making a direct exit, more of the heat is kept near Earth. But here's a few studies about that: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/200...on-properties/

What is your denier solution in regards to H20(g)? Eliminate water? No. Focusing on water is a red herring.

[gwb72tii]

anthropogenic global warming is an hypothesis (kershaw) that is not supported by imperical evidence.
the argument over CO2 is in and of itself an argument over if there is in fact AGW, not if the climate has warmed. the AGW hypothesis argues man is THE driver in climate warming, and to not take drastic action would be a disaster.
and to avoid water vapor as an influence says really all i need to know about your knowledge of the AGW hypothesis. Water vapor has the biggest influence of all, and even the most ardent supporters of AGW admit they undestand little how it works and have not incorporated it into many of their AGW mathematicl models.
you need to get out more and away from your cocoon.

[rwh11385]

anthropogenic global warming is an hypothesis (kershaw) that is not supported by imperical evidence.
the argument over CO2 is in and of itself an argument over if there is in fact AGW, not if the climate has warmed. the AGW hypothesis argues man is THE driver in climate warming, and to not take drastic action would be a disaster.
and to avoid water vapor as an influence says really all i need to know about your knowledge of the AGW hypothesis. Water vapor has the biggest influence of all, and even the most ardent supporters of AGW admit they undestand little how it works and have not incorporated it into many of their AGW mathematicl models.
you need to get out more and away from your cocoon.

But is H2O vapor influenced on the macro level like emissions are? CO2 and other GHG have concentrations change as a result of human activity.

I don't think anyone said man alone is the driver but rather a driver in addition. Maybe you should re-read what herbivor has posted. Instead of putting words into others mouths to create a strawman.

[nando]

anthropogenic global warming is an hypothesis (kershaw) that is not supported by imperical evidence.

really?

there's no point in further arguing with you about it. the earth is flat, too..

[gwb72tii]

there is no emperical evidence the CO2 has driven climate change
in fact, there is ample evidence CO2 is a latent indicator OF climate change

[nando]

says the financial advisor who reads conspiracy blogs? or 97% of scientists who study the climate? :p

[gwb72tii]

But is H2O vapor influenced on the macro level like emissions are? CO2 and other GHG have concentrations change as a result of human activity.

I don't think anyone said man alone is the driver but rather a driver in addition. Maybe you should re-read what herbivor has posted. Instead of putting words into others mouths to create a strawman.

nope, herbal has argued exactly that CO2 is the driver of climate change and man is the reason.

[rwh11385]

there is no emperical evidence the CO2 has driven climate change
in fact, there is ample evidence CO2 is a latent indicator OF climate change

Where is said evidence?

[rwh11385]

nope, herbal has argued exactly that CO2 is the driver of climate change and man is the reason.

Really? So your strategy is just to make up what your opponent's argument is? Weak and desperate.

So are you saying that you would consider it plausible that humans are a significant contributor to the recent climate change but not plausible that humans are the only contribution to a changing climate? I would agree with that.
Again, the question that has always been asked amongst the scientists was if humans were a significant contributor or mostly contribute to recent global warming trends. No one ever asked or ever stated that humans are the sole contributor to global warming as that in unprovable, and no scientist would state that as fact no matter how much evidence we have.

[gwb72tii]

and to finish up with expense ratios and performance
i did this search
expense ratio greater than 1%
large cap core (closest catagory to the S&P500 index)
5 yr annualized returns greater than 2% annualized (S&P500 index is basically at zero annualized for the last 5 years)

there are 103 funds
there would be more if i actually compared it directly to vanguard's offerings

and no i'm not going to list them. do your own homework.

[nando]

you cherry picked 5 years because of the 2008/2009 market crash. if you want to play that game, compare bonds to stocks from march 2009 to present. bonds get crushed.

[rwh11385]

and to finish up with expense ratios and performance
i did this search
expense ratio greater than 1%
large cap core (closest catagory to the S&P500 index)
5 yr annualized returns greater than 2% annualized (S&P500 index is basically at zero annualized for the last 5 years)

there are 103 funds
there would be more if i actually compared it directly to vanguard's offerings

and no i'm not going to list them. do your own homework.

So wait, you started talking about bonds, then switched back and want to talk about large caps now? What happened to immediate bonds? You seem to be aimlessly jumping around to try to make a point, as if you run into a roadblock and have to divert again.

What about comparing your large cap core funds with VPCCX? Annual average returns of 2.74%. 0.51% expense ratio.

Classic "Shifting the Burden of Proof" fallacy George.

[z31maniac]

Wait, so we lost the climate debate then start talking about investing?

herb, nando, heeter.........you guys should just stop responding to him.

[nando]

I know. but it's like a train wreck.. I just can't stop looking.