Class Warfare Blog

February 16, 2014

The Minimum Wage and a Question of Scale

Most people don’t handle scale well. And, unfortunately, how one thinks about any problem depends a great deal on scale. To demonstrate this I used to ask my college freshman students what percent of atmospheric gases did carbon dioxide (“C-O-two”) represent. At that time, climate change was the hottest scientific topic in the country and the so-called “greenhouse effect” and “C-O-two” were being discussed ad nauseum. So, what kinds of responses did my bright, college freshmen (all entertaining an education in science or technology, mind you) come up with? I got answers like 10% 15%, 35%, 40%, even 80%. The real value is 0.03-0.04%. The tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere tells you that it would not be hard to change it’s current value and if any atmospheric conditions are linked to this little value they must be quite sensitive. This is very different from the amounts of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere (79% and 19% respectively) which would be almost impossible to change because of the huge amounts already existing in the atmosphere. Consider O2 : each of us consumes it in every breath we take as do all of the other animals of the earth. Anything that burns consumes large quantities of it (all fires, cars (anything with an internal combustion engine), all power plants that burn stuff, etc.) and . . . it’s concentration in the atmosphere basically doesn’t change. For one it is hard to change something so large and there are processes which replace what get used.

Now let’s consider the minimum wage. I keep seeing articles including statements like this: “. . . Oregon’s wage went up Jan. 1 by 15 cents under an automatic system linked to the cost of living . . . After raising the pay for his 24 employees, he raised the prices for coffee, smoothies and beer to compensate. ‘It feels like a wash,’ he said. ‘It is not the consumer that wins, because most businesses will pass their increase on to the consumer through higher prices. The business doesn’t win, because they are forced to increase their prices to maintain proper margins to keep their doors open, thus affecting current customers and the potential of loss of new business. The employee doesn’t win, because they are the consumer.’” (from the NY Times, “Crossing Borders and Changing Lives, Lured by Higher State Minimum Wages” February 15, 2014)

See, that 15 cent per hour wage increase just comes out of the consumer’s pocket, and my workers are consumers, so it is a wash. This is a major problem with modern journalism. Journalists provide one example of a benefit, one example of a loss, and say “see they balance” or “A outweighs B,” or whatever. Let’s step back a little and see what actually happens. During that one hour in which the example employee (a waitress) receives an extra 15 cents, how many customers does she serve, do you think? Let’s just say it is a bustling café and she serves fifteen customers in that hour (three booths of four people and three individuals at the counter). Now how much does each of those customers have to get charged to make up for the extra 15 cents the waitress gets paid? (Do the math, I’ll wait. Zippity doo dah, zippity . . .) Yep, it is one cent . . . one thin penny, of so little value that they no longer make them out of copper.

The reporting makes it sound as if the waitress gets an extra 15 cents during that hour and a customer, uh . . . that one, pays the 15 cents. No! There are more customers than waitresses, many more if the business is structured correctly, so each customer pays a fraction, possibly a small fraction of the increase in wages.

Granted, the waitress is a customer elsewhere and she might have to pay a little more for this or a little more for that but she will have more money to apply to those choices, they do not consume her entire raise.

Seriously folks. If you would buy the argument that the minimum wage should not be increased because of the “effects,” then you would also have to buy the argument that a decrease in the waitress’s salary would be a good thing.

Sometimes, like for example, well, actually every time, it is important to get the scale of the problem right. People wring their hands about what would happen if WalMart were to have to pay a decent wage to its “associates,” for example. WalMart could double their wages paid today and not have to raise a single price. The cost? Well, the Walton family would have their profits cut a bit and instead of them making billions of dollars per year they would make fewer billions of dollars per year. I mean, how much money does one need? Can they feed, clothe, and house their families? Gosh, when you already have many billions of dollars in the bank, I don’t think that would be a problem. But no matter how much you have you could lose it all, right? Well to run through a billion dollars in a single year, let’s say, you would have to spend over $500,000 per hour. I suggest they protect themselves by avoiding big purchases for a while. They should be okay.

Advertisements

86 Comments »

  1. That 15 cents doesn’t have to go entirely towards the cost consumers pay either. Some can be offset temporarily by being absorbed into profits.

    “The argument that wage increases are always going to have a negative effect on a company’s competitiveness doesn’t always hold true. One argument holds that “rising real wages don’t necessarily lead to a loss of competitiveness – if there is a corresponding rise in labour productivity. For example, improved technology has enable a greater output per worker. This enables higher wages without a loss of competitiveness. In other words labour costs more, but workers produce a greater output, therefore the cost per output stays the same or even increases.
    Example: German wages have increased since the 1950s quite dramatically, but they are amongst the most competitive countries in the world because of high labour productivity. See other arguments here

    Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 9:57 am | Reply

    • There is also a huge backlog of productivity that wasn’t paid for. The old agreement was when unions bargained for better wages they had to be linked to productivity increase and they were. Until Ronald Reagan became President and there was a complete disconnect: wages stayed alost constant in real dollars while productivity increased unabated.

      On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Comment by stephenpruis — February 16, 2014 @ 10:07 am | Reply

  2. I have often marveled at how poorly people grasp basic concepts that use comparative numbers. This means our math curriculum isn’t serving us very well when economies of scale, for example, aren’t grasped simply and ably. The most obvious is within the consumer concept itself: without enough money to spend outside of meeting basic requirements, the size and amount of spending by the consumer class that businesses depend on decreases. The trickle-up effect of consumers not having enough money will hurt businesses and shrink the economy. Businesses that sell something to consumers should be the most vocal supporters of increasing wages within the economy of scale that allows that business to profit.

    Duh.

    Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 10:11 am | Reply

  3. Atmospheric CO2 at .04% is minuscule and is scientific proof that man-made global warming is a hoax.

    Additionally, we know from science that CO2 is plant food.

    So the more CO2 (up to about 4-5% which is 100% greater than today’s CO2 level) the better.

    Just think of planting the Sahara Desert once again with crops to feed Africa’s teaming millions.

    We also know from science that a single volcanic eruptions ejects more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man has done in his entire history on earth.

    So what happens to all that CO2?

    It gets absorbed by Earth’s vast oceans and watershed.

    ________________________________

    The minimum wage is yet another leftist hoax.

    Only 1% of workers live on minimum wage.

    So it’s a no-brainer that the minimum wage is totally irrelevant and is used only by politicians as a façade of sensitivity to the plight of the little guy.

    Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 10:33 am | Reply

    • The Idiot speaks

      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 10:42 am | Reply

      • Woody,

        Science speaks and you call her an idiot.

        It’s no wonder though, because the facts are so utterly damning to the entire realm of atheist thought.

        So you’re left with name-calling, debating what the meaning of is, is; and an outright denial of that which has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

        Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 11:05 am | Reply

        • “So you’re left with name-calling”

          There isn’t anything left when it comes to the likes of you SOM, who thinks the weather in their corner of the world reflects what’s happening everywhere. Hilarious.

          Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 11:35 am | Reply

          • Woody,

            You are proof that proof means nothing to atheists.

            You continually demand it, but when it is given to you and patiently explained to you, you get angry and abusive.

            Thus is the fruit of atheism.

            Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 11:40 am | Reply

            • “You are proof that proof means nothing to atheists.”

              And you are proof that some brains are made up of gas.

              Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 12:02 pm | Reply

  4. Isn’t it fascinating the correlation between denialism of what reality tells us is true about it and creationism? This is a clue about the methodology that must be used to empower belief over and above respect for reality’s role to arbitrate claims made about it. SOM has done just this yet again (no surprise there) and stays cocooned within his bubble of beliefs.

    Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 10:39 am | Reply

    • Deb,

      Maybe you haven’t noticed, but this winter on Mother Earth, Hell is freezing over.

      That’s because the Sun is taking a rest.

      We are headed for a long period of extreme cold, similar to what happened 400 years when the Sun went through nearly the same thing.

      Lake Superior will be covered in ice by the end of winter, for crying out loud.

      Or is all this freezing weather due to global warming?

      Only people who believe everything happens all by itself could possibly still believe in the global warming hoax.

      Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 10:44 am | Reply

      • You may find this shocking Idiot, but the area in North America affected by the polar vortex does not constitute the entirety of “Mother Earth”

        Freezing Out the Bigger Picture

        Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 10:47 am | Reply

        • Woody,

          The “polar vortex” is a term taken from a Hollywood disaster movie.

          I’ll take science over Hollywood any day of the week.

          Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 11:06 am | Reply

          • Your brain is a Hollywood disaster. If brains were gas you wouldn’t have enough to drive around the inner circle of a Cheerio

            Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 11:33 am | Reply

            • Woody,

              More of your abuse because the facts are so damning.

              If I thought everything happened all by itself and that the Hollywood polar vortex powered Earth weather, I suppose I would become a little testy when someone tried to explain reality to me.

              Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 11:42 am | Reply

              • “More of your abuse because the facts are so damning.”

                So concludes the Idiot. Give my regards to the moron, Anthony Watts

                Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 11:46 am | Reply

      • is all this freezing weather due to global warming?

        That’s actually a really good question, SOM. Too bad you don’t want to understand the correct answer, which happens to be ‘Yes’. To do that would mean bursting your bubble, and you can’t handle that yet. When you think you can, only then will you start to really live in the world. I look forward to your emancipation.

        Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 11:26 am | Reply

        • Deb,

          What you are purposing is simply against the laws of physics.

          Cold is the absence of heat.

          Therefore, it is absolutely impossible for heat to cause cold.

          If that were the case, each summer’s heat wave would bring on a cold snap.

          And of course we know such a thing is silly to even conceive.

          Similarly, the notion that global warming is causing freezing weather is equally silly.

          It is simple physics that heat energy dispels the cold and cold happens due to a decrease in heat energy.

          Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 11:37 am | Reply

          • Cold is the absence of heat.”</i.

            LOL. Really? It's either one or the other? It can't be cool or warm? No such thing as moderation in your limited view of "physics"? What a simple-minded twit you are.

            If it's dark in your time zone, is it dark everywhere else around the globe? If the wind is blowing in your neck of the woods is it blowing consistently the same, if at all, everywhere at the same time around the earth?

            Heat creates moisture from water sources like oceans and seas. When that moisture gets caught up in wind patterns and drifts over cold winter climates then the law of physics kicks in and that moisture freezes and becomes … wait for it … SNOW. Tones and tons of snow based on the amount of moisture generated by warming seas.

            Back off folks. All this damning information is about to splatter what little brains SOM has.

            Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 11:59 am | Reply

            • Woody,

              The physical principle you have inadvertently swerved in to, is called heat transfer.

              Climate and weather are a result of the dynamism caused by heat transfer.

              Nevertheless, when the atmosphere heats up in spring and summer, cold weather is replaced by hot weather.

              Hot weather does not cause snow fall and the icing over the Great Lakes.

              If global warming were real therefore, cold weather would be abating, not increasing.

              Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 12:09 pm | Reply

              • “Climate and weather are a result of the dynamism caused by heat transfer.”

                Part of this “dynamism” you dope is the fact that warm weather creates condensation. The more heat we have the greater the moisture.

                BTW, how are winds and “heat transfer” related?

                Also, please provide us your “imaginary” sources that asserts that global temperatures are cooling. I need to poke holes through more than your brainless head.

                Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 12:22 pm | Reply

                • Woody,

                  The topic isn’t moisture, it’s heat transfer.

                  Snow is frozen moisture caused by cold, not heat.

                  Rain is moisture that falls when it is above 32F.

                  Consequently, global warming would produce flooding and countless hurricanes.

                  And is simply is not the case.

                  This year’s climate produced very few (zero, I think) hurricanes.

                  Earth’s change of season is further proof that the proposition that global warming causes harsh winters is false.

                  Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

                  • “The topic isn’t moisture, it’s heat transfer.”

                    Only in your addled void SOM

                    Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 12:37 pm | Reply

                    • Woody,

                      Global warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 not water vapor, at least according the Al Gore the great global warming guru.

                      Changing the subject to water vapor is meaningless.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

                    • “Global warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 not water vapor, at least according the Al Gore the great global warming guru.”

                      What faux science blog did you get this from? Al Gore would never utter such nonsense.

                      All 3-atom molecules in the atmosphere, which H2O is one of, captures infrared rays emitting from the earth, thus trapping that heat like CO2 and creating the green house effect.

                      “Warmer parts of the Earth are indeed more humid; in absolute terms, there’s more water vapor in the air. So, as the climate system warms up, we can confidently expect that more water will be evaporated into the atmosphere. Water vapor is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, more powerful than CO2 in contributing to the greenhouse effect.

                      In some ways, CO2 appears to be simply the trigger for the humidifying of the atmosphere, and models predict that the resulting extra water vapor will powerfully amplify the warming caused by the CO2. Once the CO2 has warmed the air and the

                      oceans, then the warmer oceans will evaporate more water into the air, since the warmer air has a greater capacity for holding water vapor. The presence of more water vapor in the atmosphere in turn strengthens the greenhouse effect, warming up the oceans even more, and adding still more water vapor to the atmosphere. The result is positive feedback: an amplifier. Although the term “positive” may sound beneficial, this is not the case at all. Rather, a positive feedback connotes a vicious cycle in which a process (in this case, warming) gives rise to effects that strengthen it further.” – Richard Somerville, PhD Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego The Forgiving Air

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 1:54 pm

                    • Woody,

                      But Al Gore did utter such nonsense.

                      He’s been uttering it now going on decades.

                      It’s really funny because nearly every time he holds an international global warming conference he gets snowed on.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 2:17 pm

                    • “But Al Gore did utter such nonsense. He’s been uttering it now going on decades”

                      Prove it brainless. Give me a source with a direct quote from Al Gore that reflects this nonsense

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 3:28 pm

                    • Very well put, lbwoodgate; this is an excellent example of what is known in climate science as forcings (part of the aerosol feedback). Water vapor is a (if not the) vital component of how small changes in CO2 levels can cause large changes in climate patterns.

                      Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 3:02 pm

                  • global warming causes harsh winters is false.

                    AGW causes an increase in the frequency and amplitude of weather patterns leading to changes in climate patterns. In a sense, AGW can indeed cause harsh(er) winters for some locales as well as mild(er) winters for others (of course, I’m referring only to the northern hemisphere here: the opposite is true in the southern).

                    You’re right that AGW must relate directly to heat, and we find average increases in heat per square meter globally. How this heat is then distributed matters, and we find compelling evidence for CO2 specifically as a causal agent by studying the upper atmosphere (versus a typical Watt’s Up With That counterclaim for some other ‘anomaly’), as well as an increase in temperature of deep ocean water. There is also surface evidence – like duration of heat waves and the melting of polar ice and some glacial retreat at staggering and unprecedented rates. Taken together, this aggregate evidence adduced from reality shows that the planet as a whole is indeed getting warmer even if some regions experience lower than usual temperatures. What’s particularly concerning is the increased rate of this global warming. And that’s why this issue matters more than any other to the well-being of humanity.

                    Denying AGW and climate change resulting from it is a real concern that inhibits us from requiring real solutions to real problems. This is denialism in action, and the only evidence that supports such denialism is to not allow reality to arbitrate this the veracity of our explanations adduced from this overwhelming evidence. Cherry-picking a local low temperature, for example, is not contrary evidence; it is absolutely typical dodge of anyone who utilizes a faith-based methodology. And this goes well beyond the religious: it includes any kind of faith-based belief to describe the reality we share, such as the ‘explanations’ that supposedly inform alternative medicine, astrology, conspiracy theories, anti-vaxers, ghosts, and so on. Denying reality its proper role to arbitrate belief claims we make about it – no matter what the subject may be – does not serve the pursuit of knowledge, the pursuit of understanding, the pursuit of improving human well-being, the pursuit of serving our fellow man; it serves only to promote ignorance and the stupidity accrued from misguided actions based on it.

                    You can do better than succumbing to the allure of these easy-made pseudo-explanations. Challenge yourself.

                    Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 1:26 pm | Reply

                    • Deb,

                      Global warming is nothing but a computer model.

                      During my study of differential equations, the professor put the mathematical expression that modeled an Earth atmosphere with only one air atom.

                      The result is motion of one single atom that is almost impossible to predict. It flies all over the place.

                      Now multiply that chaos by the trillions and gazzillions of actual air molecules and atoms that make up Earth atmosphere and and turned even crazier by solar heating.

                      It becomes easy to realize that the global warming climate models are completely bogus.

                      The term in the computer-ese of programmers and modelers is, “Garbage in. Garbage out.”

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 1:34 pm

                    • It becomes easy to realize that the global warming climate models are completely bogus.

                      But they work. That fact – as uncomfortable as it may be to you – belies your claim that they are “completely bogus.” If they were completely bogus, they wouldn’t. So there’s something to them.

                      Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 2:49 pm

                    • Advances with global climate warming models have been significant over the last 20 years. Nothing is perfect but the precision levels we are getting from current technology is far above what we started with back in the 80’s and earlier.

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 3:27 pm

                    • Woody,

                      Even the lead global warming hoaxers, Michael Mann and Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years.

                      Maybe such a damning finding is the result of improved computer models.

                      But anyway you look at it, global warming is a proven hoax.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 3:48 pm

                    • “Even the lead global warming hoaxers, Michael Mann and Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years”

                      No they didn’t brain dead. What you are likely referring to is the misinformation put out by climate deniers you worship who over-reacted to earlier news reports that there was a “pause” in rising global temperatures. Here’s the reality:

                      ”Scientists can now explain the “pause” in global warming that sceptics have used to bolster their arguments. Sceptics had claimed we have nothing to fear from climate change because it has stopped being a problem.

                      A new study has found that global temperatures have not flat-lined over the past 15 years, as weather station records have been suggesting, but have in fact continued to rise as fast as previous decades, during which we have seen an unprecedented acceleration in global warming.

                      The findings will undermine the arguments of leading sceptics, such as the former Chancellor Lord Lawson, who have criticised scientists from the Met Office and other climate organisations for not accepting that global warming has stopped since about 1998.

                      Two university scientists have found that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more. SOURCE

                      And then this from a site where real climate scientists speak out:

                      Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.

                      But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

                      The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all. SOURCE

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 4:20 pm

                    • Deb,

                      The global warming computer models do not work.

                      They never did because the data that was fed to them was bogus.

                      Lead scientists and hoaxers Michael Mann of Penn State University and Phil Jones of East Anglia University were caught red handed by a hacker who released their emails to the public.

                      In those emails Mann and Jones discuss falsifying data in order to support global warming, and they discuss corrupting the peer review process so their findings can’t be questions.

                      Mann and Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 3:44 pm

                    • Wrong information. You’re being lied to, SOM. Mann has been completely exonerated but you’d know this if you cared about what’s true rather than find stuff that appears to support your belief.

                      Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 6:17 pm

                    • Deb,

                      I along with the rest of the world got the information from Mann and Jones.

                      Their emails were made public.

                      You can read them too if you want.

                      That is unless Google has scrubbed them from their search engine.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 6:18 pm

                    • Yes, but you have not comprehended them correctly.

                      Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 11:17 pm

                    • Deb,

                      Their fraud is as clear as can be, stated in very simple, easy to understand language.

                      Here is a link to a chart of US winters going back over 100 years:

                      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/third-coldest-winter-on-record-so-far-in-the-us/

                      If global warming weren’t a hoax the graph would show a trend line with a positive slop (a line going up) indicating global warming.

                      As you can see the heat is balanced by the cold and visa versa.

                      There is no global warming.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 17, 2014 @ 6:49 am

                    • There’s no fraud, SOM. Their data is solid, the scientists put under review by three different academic bodies and exonerated. They’ve been unsuccessfully sued. You are being lied to.

                      You’ve been misled by these kinds of cherry-picking before (the latest is the graph at stevengoddard) and you’re primed to be misled again.

                      Put another way, you assume every major scientific body in the world as well as almost every climate scientist are being fooled and all the data that supports the explanation has a better explanation (that has yet to meet the same standards of independent review and verification) being ignored by these bodies and these people. As uncomfortable as this process may be, think about that for a moment.

                      Think about the scope of the conspiracy, the scope of the stupidity needed and exercised by real scientists doing real climate studies work, for your beliefs to remain justified. And you think such people as stevengoddard are suitable replacements worth more trust and confidence than all these others – the same ones, let us remind ourselves, who brought us warnings of the thinning of the ozone layer over the Antarctic. Why would they be suitably trustworthy enough to understand this atmospheric problem caused by human activity then but willing to ‘pull the wool over the eyes’ now? What would people who empower cherry-picking data arguments and questioning the motives of these organizations and people now have said about their academic qualifications and expertise and resulting explanations then?

                      Come on, SOM. Use your brain rather than your beliefs. Don’t assume your beliefs are justified because you believe they are; this is guaranteed way to fool yourself (and this method won’t make Santa Claus real, I’ve found). Why not allow reality to be arbiter and grant it the authority to demonstrate why confidence in beliefs become worthy not with cherry-picked data but in the aggregate?

                      Comment by tildeb — February 17, 2014 @ 11:28 am

                    • You might want to add what happens to scientists who fudge data or otherwise lie scientifically. Look up some of the stories: none of them end well for the scientists as they are publically humilliated and then blackballed from ever doing serious research again, nor will they get a position in academia (unless some megalomanic billionaire buys a college). The risks to deliberately distorting data (and there are pressures to do just that) are huge, so violations of this rule are few and far between.

                      On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                      >

                      Comment by stephenpruis — February 17, 2014 @ 11:39 am

                    • Stephen,

                      “Academic bodies” are the ones behind the hoax.

                      Having them investigate fraud committed by other academics is a conflict of interest to say the least.

                      It’s like having Eric Holder, the head of the Department of Justice, investigate the Fast and Furious gun running scandal.

                      There is no “hockey stick” as Mann told us.

                      There has been global warming for over 15 years according to Mann and Jones.

                      That you don’t believe your own people is further proof that the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 17, 2014 @ 1:59 pm

                    • The topic is the minimum wage and matters of scale. If you want a response, please stay on topic.

                      On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                      >

                      Comment by stephenpruis — February 17, 2014 @ 2:19 pm

                    • Steve,

                      I meant to say there has been NO global warming for over 15 years.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 17, 2014 @ 2:00 pm

                    • Also, you’re looking in the wrong spot for temperature warming: the right place to look is at the poles. Remember, we want to know why the jet stream is doing these larger than usual undulations and allowing weather systems to hang around far too long (thus becoming ‘extreme’ weather events). The first thing you’ll notice is the loss of arctic sea ice (in mass, don’t forget, and not just in annual coverage), which is a pretty good indication that temperatures are higher on average, but also backed up by recording sea temperatures, which tell us that its warming both at the surface and in deep ocean water. This means the temperature gradient between the arctic high and the mid-latitude lows is indeed less steep. This model explain the undulations. Saying it’s colder in winter so therefore global warming is a hoax is really a very, very stupid thing to say because it explains nothing related to climate change and doesn’t explain why weather patterns are changing in both frequency and amplitude. But anyone who knows anything about climate should know this, which is why such sites as stevengoddard are not reputable sources for climate information.

                      Comment by tildeb — February 17, 2014 @ 11:54 am

                    • Deb,

                      Global warming means “global” warming.

                      That means we should be seeing warming all over the globe.

                      But we are not. That’s why the hoaxers changed the name to climate change.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 1:26 am

                    • “Global warming means “global” warming. That means we should be seeing warming all over the globe. But we are not.”

                      Says the guy without a brain. Do you still contend that when there’s is daylight in your time zone that there is daylight in all times zones?

                      Global temperature 2013

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 6:44 am

                    • Woody,

                      If you don’t know that CO2 is central to global warming and that making money of carbon then anything post is untrustworthy.

                      There is no global warming.

                      You heard about the global warming expedition to Antarctica that got stuck in the ice, right?

                      That during the late spring down there. The ice should have been melting.

                      But it wasn’t.

                      The Chinese rescue ship got stuck too and had to be rescued by the US Coast Guard.

                      And yes all the ships were burning fossil fuels.

                      I ask myself, why didn’t the global warmers just ride their bicycles?

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 8:17 am

                    • Woody,

                      Did you know that the average American generates 19 tons of CO2 every year?

                      Did you also know that on his single trip to Indonesia to talk about global warming, Secretary of State John Kerry’s plane generated 12 tons.

                      Woody, the global warmers are hypocrites.

                      They live the high life and want the rest of us to go back to the Stone Age.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 8:25 am

                    • Even the lead global warming hoaxers, Michael Mann and Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years”

                      No they didn’t brain dead. What you are likely referring to is the misinformation put out by climate deniers you worship who over reacted to earlier news reports that there was a “pause” in rising global temperatures. Here’s the reality:

                      ”Scientists can now explain the “pause” in global warming that sceptics have used to bolster their arguments. Sceptics had claimed we have nothing to fear from climate change because it has stopped being a problem.

                      A new study has found that global temperatures have not flat-lined over the past 15 years, as weather station records have been suggesting, but have in fact continued to rise as fast as previous decades, during which we have seen an unprecedented acceleration in global warming.

                      The findings will undermine the arguments of leading sceptics, such as the former Chancellor Lord Lawson, who have criticised scientists from the Met Office and other climate organisations for not accepting that global warming has stopped since about 1998.

                      Two university scientists have found that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more. SOURCE

                      And then this from a site where real climate scientists speak out:

                      Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.

                      But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

                      The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all. SOURCE

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 4:24 pm

                  • ”Even the lead global warming hoaxers, Michael Mann and Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years.”

                    If you’re going to falsely disparage people you ought to at least keep up with the news that overrides your idiocy. Other wise you look stupid AND dated.

                    Exposed: The myth of the global warming ‘pause’

                    ”Scientists can now explain the “pause” in global warming that sceptics have used to bolster their arguments. Sceptics had claimed we have nothing to fear from climate change because it has stopped being a problem.

                    A new study has found that global temperatures have not flat-lined over the past 15 years, as weather station records have been suggesting, but have in fact continued to rise as fast as previous decades, during which we have seen an unprecedented acceleration in global warming.

                    The findings will undermine the arguments of leading sceptics, such as the former Chancellor Lord Lawson, who have criticised scientists from the Met Office and other climate organisations for not accepting that global warming has stopped since about 1998.

                    Two university scientists have found that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more.”

                    and then this from real climate scientists:

                    Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half

                    ”A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.

                    Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.
                    But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

                    The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.”

                    Comment by lbwoodgate — February 17, 2014 @ 12:55 pm | Reply

          • It’s not me proposing anything; it’s reality demonstrating what’s true about it. We understand from evidence adduced from reality how AGW is, in fact, altering climate patterns as well as the length of time a weather takes to move as a system. We then have weather models derived from this understanding and test it by plugging in all the weather data we collect. The location of the polar vortex, for example, and its length of stay in its current position is not just predicted by the model but understandable in why it seems to work so well (there are about a dozen models used to create weather predictions and the mean is then selected)… the same model that predicts a rise in sea temperature (because oceans are the heat sink). predicts the reduced temperature variant between the polar highs and the mid latitude lows, predicts that the jet stream will slow down and undulate in much larger curves (bringing warmer air farther north in some places and farther south in others), predicts that weather patterns will be trapped by slower speeds along this reduced temperature gradient and last longer than usual, which predicts longer stays for both warmer and colder, wetter and drier, local weather patterns against historical averages (which is why it predicts more ‘extreme’ weather)….

            These predictions are exactly what we see in reality. The explanation about the effects from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere caused by human activity used to inform these models seems to work reliably and consistently well for everyone everywhere all the time. The accuracy of those predictive results is what then allows me to grant justification to their likelihood of being descriptive of the reality we share. I can’t reject the claims when reality seems to support them. You may think your contrary beliefs are up to the job, but I simply don’t see an equivalent understanding from you that offers a better explanatory model I can use.

            Comment by tildeb — February 16, 2014 @ 12:05 pm | Reply

            • Deb,

              Something that does not exist cannot alter weather patterns or anything else for that matter.

              Comment by silenceofmind — February 16, 2014 @ 12:11 pm | Reply

              • That’s not necessarily true SOM. The absence of a brain within the confines of your cranium has altered a certain amount of hot wind blowing within this forum.

                Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 12:14 pm | Reply

                • Even the lead global warming hoaxers, Michael Mann and Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years”

                  No they didn’t brain dead. What you are likely referring to is the misinformation put out by climate deniers you worship who over reacted to earlier news reports that there was a “pause” in rising global temperatures. Here’s the reality:

                  ”Scientists can now explain the “pause” in global warming that sceptics have used to bolster their arguments. Sceptics had claimed we have nothing to fear from climate change because it has stopped being a problem.

                  A new study has found that global temperatures have not flat-lined over the past 15 years, as weather station records have been suggesting, but have in fact continued to rise as fast as previous decades, during which we have seen an unprecedented acceleration in global warming.

                  The findings will undermine the arguments of leading sceptics, such as the former Chancellor Lord Lawson, who have criticised scientists from the Met Office and other climate organisations for not accepting that global warming has stopped since about 1998.

                  Two university scientists have found that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more. SOURCE

                  And then this from a site where real climate scientists speak out:

                  Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.

                  But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

                  The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all. SOURCE

                  Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 4:30 pm | Reply

  5. Amazing point that you brought up. So, the rise in minimum wage depends on the demand for service. A lot of customers mean that they will share the cost. So, what does this mean for restaurants that aren’t doing as well?

    Comment by bnbrown5 — February 16, 2014 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

    • The same as any other cost increase. The free market people would say that if they don’t survive, that’s good for the market. I don’t look at those things that way. I prefer to think that everyone pulls together to do their best to make a go of it. Maybe this isn’t the straw that breaks the camel’s back, but a tipping point that results in a change of direction for the good.

      Obviously any such changes can have negative consequences, but also it is possible that the employees of a marginal business are grumpy because of their financial plight and when they become more stable, they provide better service and business improves. These changes are not made in an economic vaccuum is my point.

      Comment by stephenpruis — February 16, 2014 @ 10:08 pm | Reply

  6. Even the lead global warming hoaxers, Michael Mann and Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years”

    No they didn’t brain dead. What you are likely referring to is the misinformation put out by climate deniers you worship who over reacted to earlier news reports that there was a “pause” in rising global temperatures. Here’s the reality:

    ”Scientists can now explain the “pause” in global warming that sceptics have used to bolster their arguments. Sceptics had claimed we have nothing to fear from climate change because it has stopped being a problem.

    A new study has found that global temperatures have not flat-lined over the past 15 years, as weather station records have been suggesting, but have in fact continued to rise as fast as previous decades, during which we have seen an unprecedented acceleration in global warming.

    The findings will undermine the arguments of leading sceptics, such as the former Chancellor Lord Lawson, who have criticised scientists from the Met Office and other climate organisations for not accepting that global warming has stopped since about 1998.

    Two university scientists have found that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more. SOURCE

    And then this from a site where real climate scientists speak out:

    Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.

    But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

    The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all. SOURCE

    Comment by lbwoodgate — February 16, 2014 @ 4:28 pm | Reply

  7. ”Even the lead global warming hoaxers, Michael Mann and Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years.”

    If you’re going to falsely disparage people you ought to at least keep up with the news that overrides your idiocy. Other wise you look stupid AND dated.

    Exposed: The myth of the global warming ‘pause’

    ”Scientists can now explain the “pause” in global warming that sceptics have used to bolster their arguments. Sceptics had claimed we have nothing to fear from climate change because it has stopped being a problem.

    A new study has found that global temperatures have not flat-lined over the past 15 years, as weather station records have been suggesting, but have in fact continued to rise as fast as previous decades, during which we have seen an unprecedented acceleration in global warming.

    The findings will undermine the arguments of leading sceptics, such as the former Chancellor Lord Lawson, who have criticised scientists from the Met Office and other climate organisations for not accepting that global warming has stopped since about 1998.

    Two university scientists have found that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more.”

    and then this from real climate scientists:

    Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half

    ”A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.

    Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.
    But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

    The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.”

    Comment by lbwoodgate — February 17, 2014 @ 12:57 pm | Reply

    • Woody,

      My information comes not from myself, not from Fox News, but from the global warming hoaxers.

      If you have a problem with global warming being a hoax, take it up with the hoaxers who were busted and shamed into admitting the truth.

      Oh by the way, why has the name been changed from global warming to climate change?

      Comment by silenceofmind — March 7, 2014 @ 9:16 am | Reply

      • “Oh by the way, why has the name been changed from global warming to climate change?”

        You might want to direct that question to GOP consultant Frank Luntz. Here’s a little history on this topic SOM

        In 2003 a memo was sent out to GOP candidates written by Frank Luntz, a paid pollster and political consultant for the GOP, that advised candidates to avoid the term “global warming.

        The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favor of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behavior… that turns off many voters”. SOURCE

        Luntz was aware that the IPCC 3rd assessment report in 2001 had confirmed a consensus among climate scientists who believed that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Luntz claimed in his memo that voters were ignorant of this confidence among climate scientists so it was suggested that the GOP candidates exploit this voter weakness.

        “Voters believe” Luntz continued, “that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”

        This campaign to foster the notion that the science was unsettled began back in the 1980’s by handful of people who had worked for the Reagan administration’s SDI program. The formed the George C. Marshall Institute think tank that wrote paper after paper, none that were properly peer-reviewed with the scientific community, casting doubt on the consensus concerning global warming.

        these people originally were paid consultants for the tobacco industry to propagate what the industry termed “doubt-mongering” in a 1969 memo entitled “Smoking and Health Proposal”
        “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public.” SOURCE

        Now go play with yourself you fucking liar and leave the adults alone.

        Comment by lbwoodgate — March 7, 2014 @ 2:25 pm | Reply

        • Larryy, I like the way you drive a point home. And I learned a few things I didn’t know from your post. Fascinating, it seems that most of what we “know” now came from somebodies didinformation campaign. I weep for our country.

          Comment by stephenpruis — March 7, 2014 @ 2:32 pm | Reply

          • “it seems that most of what we “know” now came from somebodies disinformation campaign.”

            Yes, they’re the reason why dip-shits like SOM continue to troll sites like yours pretending that know what the fuck they’re talking about and presuming they make any kind of impact on intelligent, adult conversations.

            Comment by lbwoodgate — March 8, 2014 @ 6:10 am | Reply

            • I agree completely.

              When I grow up, I want to be like you. (One of my life’s goals is to become a curmudgeon (the good kind).)

              I have decided that I will henceforth only respond to SOM with quotations based upon the theme of “silence.” The first shall be “SOM, Silence is golden; make yourself rich.”

              If he will not be upon my topic I will not be upon his, maybe I can get him to shut up and go away (probably not, but I don’t want to pop a spleen tell that asshole to go fuck himself.

              Steve

              On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

              >

              Comment by stephenpruis — March 8, 2014 @ 7:48 am | Reply

              • “but I don’t want to pop a spleen tell that asshole to go fuck himself.”</i.

                Actually I find a certain level of euphoric relief when I vent in such a manner with the appropriate asshole. 🙂

                Comment by lbwoodgate — March 8, 2014 @ 8:34 am | Reply

                • You got me again !

                  On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Class Warfare Blog wrote:

                  >

                  Comment by stephenpruis — March 8, 2014 @ 9:45 am | Reply

        • Woody,

          Blaming a pollster for changing the name from global warming to climate change is fatuous.

          The environmentalist wackos changed the name because global warming was proven to be a complete fraud, a hoax.

          Comment by silenceofmind — March 7, 2014 @ 2:34 pm | Reply

  8. SOM, Woody was unable to post this so he asked me to do so. Here ’tis:

    SOM – ”Even the lead global warming hoaxers, Michael Mann and Phil Jones admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years.”

    If you’re going to falsely disparage people you ought to at least keep up with the news that overrides your idiocy. Other wise you look stupid AND dated.

    Exposed: The myth of the global warming ‘pause’

    ”Scientists can now explain the “pause” in global warming that sceptics have used to bolster their arguments. Sceptics had claimed we have nothing to fear from climate change because it has stopped being a problem.

    A new study has found that global temperatures have not flat-lined over the past 15 years, as weather station records have been suggesting, but have in fact continued to rise as fast as previous decades, during which we have seen an unprecedented acceleration in global warming.

    The findings will undermine the arguments of leading sceptics, such as the former Chancellor Lord Lawson, who have criticised scientists from the Met Office and other climate organisations for not accepting that global warming has stopped since about 1998.

    Two university scientists have found that the “pause” or “hiatus” in global temperatures can be largely explained by a failure of climate researchers to record the dramatic rise in Arctic temperatures over the past decade or more.”

    and then this from real climate scientists:

    Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half

    ”A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared.

    Obtaining the globally averaged temperature from weather station data has a well-known problem: there are some gaps in the data, especially in the polar regions and in parts of Africa. As long as the regions not covered warm up like the rest of the world, that does not change the global temperature curve.
    But errors in global temperature trends arise if these areas evolve differently from the global mean. That’s been the case over the last 15 years in the Arctic, which has warmed exceptionally fast, as shown by satellite and reanalysis data and by the massive sea ice loss there. This problem was analysed for the first time by Rasmus in 2008 at RealClimate, and it was later confirmed by other authors in the scientific literature.

    The “Arctic hole” is the main reason for the difference between the NASA GISS data and the other two data sets of near-surface temperature, HadCRUT and NOAA. I have always preferred the GISS data because NASA fills the data gaps by interpolation from the edges, which is certainly better than not filling them at all.”

    “Live so that when your children think of fairness and integrity, they think of you. ”
    H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

    Comment by stephenpruis — February 17, 2014 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

    • Steve,

      Don’t blame me for what the hoaxers do and say.

      Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 1:42 am | Reply

      • “Don’t blame me for what the hoaxers do and say “

        I think you’re confused SOM (quelle surprise) A hoaxer is one who makes claims they can’t support. Or did I miss that response of yours that provided a link and quote where Al Gore said “Global warming is caused by atmospheric CO2 not water vapor” or the one that verifies Mann and Jones “admitted that there has been no global warming for over 15 years”?

        You do know how to use the “internets” to obtain this information don’t you?

        Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 6:25 am | Reply

        • Woody,

          If CO2 isn’t the problem, why does your global warming religion make such a big deal out of carbon foot print and why is President Obama using the EPA to shut down the coal industry?

          What was happening in Kyoto?

          And how was Al Gore able to score billions of dollars trading carbon credits?

          Is it a mere coincidence that Al Gore’s carbon trading scam shut itself down right after Mann and Jones got caught cooking the data?

          Al Gore and his global warmers had a lot of very powerful, wealthy people convinced that the carbon scam was real.

          And then the hacker blew everything to smithereens.

          CO2 is the central issue and basis for the global warming hoax.

          That’s why the global warming acolytes continually bellyache about the .04% of the atmosphere being CO2.

          And separating fools from their money and their liberty was always the objective.

          Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 8:11 am | Reply

          • “And how was Al Gore able to score billions of dollars trading carbon credits?”

            Jibber Jabber, Jibber jabber. This has nothing to do with man-made global warming and everything to do with some delusional conspiracy you deniers have. There is a market way to reduce CO2 and allow free-marketers to make money too. You have a problem with this?

            “CO2 is the central issue and basis for the global warming hoax.”

            It is not the only contributor to global warming but it is the central one that humans contribute too. Thus the need to replace our use of fossil fuels with abundant clean energy.

            “That’s why the global warming acolytes continually bellyache about the .04% of the atmosphere being CO2”

            You think that .04% is so small to make it insignificant? God you are C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S. Let me ‘splain so even a brain dead person like yourself might get a handle on this.

            There is a delicate NATURAL balance of GHGs in the atmosphere – notice I used the word NATURAL (meaning not man-made) which CO2’s are a part of. Any significant alteration in that delicate balance tips the scale and whoops! There goes earth as we know it.

            You’re familiar with the straw that broke the camels back I hope. The inference here is that the camel can only carry so much weight until it can’t no more. Once that limit is breached the camel collapses. The same with our protective shield in the atmosphere. When humans create more atmospheric CO2 beyond the delicate balance nature has created by removing carbon from deep below the earth’s surface and burning it, allowing a lot of it to reach the atmosphere we tip that balance to a a disadvantage to our life-sustaining ecosystem. This doesn’t include the deforestation we humans engage in that robs our ecosystem of carbon sinks to capture much of the CO2 we emit.

            I could provide a few more details to help you comprehend but I suspect that this information is already overloading your pea brain.

            And quit hiding from my request to provide sources about comments you claim Al Gore and Mann & Jones made. It’s apparent you have none so until you cough them up, I can refer to you as a f–king liar. Doesn’t your god punish liars?

            Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 10:35 am | Reply

            • Woody,

              Everything I have written here comes from mainstream news sources so your charge that there is some sort of conspiracy is really a denial of proven facts that have long been made public.

              Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 11:25 am | Reply

              • “Everything I have written here comes from mainstream news sources …”

                Really? You get all of your peer-reviewed, climate science from the MSM? And accept it as fact? LOL!

                I thought all you right-wing fundamentalists claimed the MSM was too liberal to believe anything about. Well since you are sure this is from the MSM, cite me an MSM article that makes the claims you stated about Al Gore and Mann & Jones.

                Until then you will still be considered a f–cking liar, so either apologize are come back with hard and fast evidence. Otherwise you are going to have to live in constant fear of going to the hell your religion created for lying. And I have a reliable source that says Satan has got you on their list and that Al Gore will be the one going to heaven for telling that inconvenient truth.

                Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 11:39 am | Reply

                • Woody,

                  The Wall Street Journal has been chronically the global warming hoax for years.

                  And there are plenty of video clips from primary sources like Al Gore.

                  And I’m not the one who got my ship stuck in Antarctic ice during the summer.

                  Nor am I the pilot of John Kerry’s jet that’s blowing 12 tons of CO2 into atmosphere.

                  Did you read the latest news about President Obama?

                  He’s out preaching global warming in drought stricken California in between rounds of golf.

                  Do you have any idea how much water it takes to keep the rich happily on sumptuous golf courses?

                  Like I said, the global warmers are hypocrites.

                  Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 11:57 am | Reply

                  • “The Wall Street Journal has been chronically the global warming hoax for years. And there are plenty of video clips from primary sources like Al Gore.”

                    Then quit jabbering about it you knucklehead and link me to one of them. Quit saying they’re out there and then avoid giving me a website address.

                    The truth is, they’re not out there and that is why you are avoiding it. F–cking liar.

                    Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 12:55 pm | Reply

                    • Right, Woody.

                      And maybe I’ll peel you a grape while I’m at it.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 1:18 pm

                    • “And maybe I’ll peel you a grape while I’m at it.”,/i>

                      Meaning you can’t support your claim about either Al Gore or Mann & Jones.

                      You’d have gained a bit more respect from and anyone else reading this SOM if you would have just been honest and said, “you know, maybe I was wrong. Maybe I thought I heard Gore, Mann and Jones say the things I claimed but it appears I misread the spam e-mail I got all of this from.”

                      But now your just a f–king liar who’s going to burn in hell for all eternity.

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 3:24 pm

                    • As soon as SOM went to the Al Gore trope, I knew he cared nothing about what’s true. He’s in full blown denialism, which makes him part of the problem. Trying to argue against this kind of closed mind is like banging your head against a wall to try to teach it a lesson: it doesn’t care. And neither does SOM.

                      Comment by tildeb — February 18, 2014 @ 4:20 pm

                    • Deb,

                      You’re right.

                      When it comes to proven hoaxes I have a closed mind.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 4:21 pm

                    • “Trying to argue against this kind of closed mind is like banging your head against a wall to try to teach it a lesson: it doesn’t care. And neither does SOM.”

                      I agree Deb. Not trying to convert the un-covertable. Just want him know what a f–king liar he is every time he makes spurious claims about an issue he wants people to think he knows something about when he doesn’t have a clue about whether the sun is shining in every other timezone at the same time it is in his.

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 5:33 pm

                    • Oh, you’re preaching to the converted. SOM is a well known troll but sometimes it’s worthwhile to other readers why something he writes opens a door to writing about something worthwhile. The trick is not to get drawn into his version of a ‘dialogue’ where he pays no mind to the valid points you raise but recycles his favourite tropes as if they stood against them, which reveals the shallow depth and scope of his puddle of a mind that he muddies in the hope that that will add what’s lacking. This technique seems to bring him no end of pleasure… especially if you can become riled up. Don’t give him the pleasure but stick to demanding evidence he cannot produce. He doesn’t much like that.

                      Comment by tildeb — February 18, 2014 @ 9:36 pm

                    • “The trick is not to get drawn into his version of a ‘dialogue’ where he pays no mind to the valid points you raise …”

                      Exactly

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 9:38 pm

                    • Woody,

                      Here’s Al Gore making a big deal out of the carbon footprint;

                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/al-gore-reddit-ama_n_4156232.html

                      The Huffingtonpost should be on your approved list of news sources.

                      Comment by silenceofmind — February 18, 2014 @ 1:23 pm

                    • “Here’s Al Gore making a big deal out of the carbon footprint”

                      WTF?!? You were supposed to link me to a site where Gore is claimed to have said, according to you, that only CO2, not water vapor, is causing global warming. This link is merely a conversation between Gore and someone taking his measure on how to reduce one’s carbon foot print. How does this equate into denouncing H2O as a GHG? It doesn’t you f–king liar.

                      You’re going to burn in hell SOM

                      Comment by lbwoodgate — February 18, 2014 @ 3:20 pm

  9. Just quoted a section from this blog on my Facebook page and provided link to full blog. Thanks for your explanation of minimum wage increases and their affects.

    Comment by larryjben — March 3, 2014 @ 9:19 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: