San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, February 27, 2015

Population Growth Stimulates Economic Growth

People believe lots of stupid things about economic growth.  Government bureaucrats and career politicians believe that introducing legally counterfeited money into the economy will make it grow. They are wrong.  The only impact that counterfeit money has upon an economy is to drive up prices through what most people know as inflation.  Fools who want to become career politicians make endless speeches about how they will create laws that will create economic growth, if you only vote for them.  They believe that economic growth can be created by legislative fiat.  Idiots, all of them.  It is impossible to create economic growth by passing a law telling the economy to grow.  The fact that people continue to believe these ridiculous ideas about the source of economic growth tells me a lot about the economic understanding of most people.
Yesterday I posted an article to this blog in which I discussed the difference between the public's opinion on a handful of different contemporary issues compared to the opinion of scientists about those same issues.  I left out one important issue that I would like to come back to today.  The issue was, "Growing world population will be a major problem."  82% of the scientists agreed with that statement.  A solid majority of 59% of the general population also agreed with the statement.  I conclude that most people believe that population growth is a bad thing.  In this case everyone is wrong but me.  Allow me to explain.
I was watching Fox News again last night.  The different talking heads on the various programs all reported that King Obama is an evil man because he issued an Executive Order that effectively increased the population of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika by ten million souls.  You all remember that EO.  Our King decided that since Congress would not give him the law he wanted, he would create one by himself via Executive Order.  It is all unconstitutional of course, but we abandoned the Constitution ages ago.  One day he took a pen and declared that people who had been living in this county as illegal aliens were now permitted to remain in the country without fear of deportation.  The King's action outraged the fair and balanced people at Fox News so they embarked upon a fair and balanced campaign of propaganda against the King's order.  Integral in that propaganda campaign is the idea that growth to the population of the SDA caused by the King's order, an estimated ten million new residents, will inevitably result in lower economic growth for the country.
You all know the argument.  Illegal aliens are in our country "stealing our jobs."  Because these desperate illegals are willing to work for less than what SDA citizens demand to perform the exact same job, evil, profit-seeking corporations will hire them and effectively displace millions of Amerikan workers.  Since these illegals are working for less money and since many of them have the audacity to send most of their earnings back home to Mexico rather than spending them at the local Wal-Mart, the net impact to the economy of the SDA is disastrous.  It will not be long until we are locked into a deflationary spiral that will make the Great Depression look like a minor recession.  Or so we are told.
Lost in all of the ridiculous rhetoric is the calm assessment of valid economic principles.  Think back to what you learned by reading Robinson Crusoe.  Was our stranded citizen of one harmed when Friday showed up?  Did Mr. Crusoe run about screaming that he was going to be worse off because there were now two mouths to feed instead of one?  Of course not.  And why didn't he behave that way?  Because Mr. Crusoe recognized that additional people means additional skills, additional labor, additional capital and greater wealth for all.  Indeed, both Crusoe and Friday recognized that, when it comes to economic calculations, one plus one equals three.
Basic economic principles tell us that more people equals more wealth.  The reason is simple.  As people are free to pursue those things they do best, which they become as more people enter the economy, it is only a matter of time before each person is performing the activity that he is most suited to perform.  In other words, each person is performing at peak efficiency.  Economists call this the division of labor.  As the division of labor chugs along economic output increases as a direct result of the new efficiencies created by having more people working.  As people become more efficient at production it becomes possible to move beyond a subsistence barter economy to an economy in which savings accumulates and financial capital becomes available to entrepreneurs.  Entrepreneurs take that capital and wed it to their ideas, creating new and better goods and services.  More people are needed to create these new goods and services and the factor of human capital becomes very important.  Population growth, either through greater births than deaths or through immigration, provides the human capital necessary for economic growth to continue.  Far from hindering economic growth, population growth becomes one of the necessary and vital ingredients to economic growth. 
Why do so many people miss the obvious truth that a growing population translates to a growing economy?  There are many reasons.  What I have written above assumes that the country in question has a free market and is not socialized.  In a free market country with no socialization people come to that country to work.  Additional people are seen as both additional workers and additional consumers.  From both perspectives they are welcome additions.  When the country is socialized however, additional people are seen as an additional drain upon government reserves and new people are most certainly not welcome. The problem with additional people is not the simple fact that there are more people.  The problem is with the socialism in the country to which the people come.  If allowing ten million more people to reside in the SDA is a problem it is only a problem because the SDA is a socialist country.  Fix the socialism and the alleged problem of too many people disappears.  In fact, just the opposite is the case.  Fix the socialism and everyone becomes much more well off.
Another reason that most people believe that more people harms the economy is due to the great success the socialistic labor unions in this immoral country have had with their propaganda campaigns.  They are the ones responsible for the mantra that new residents are stealing the jobs of the existing residents, thus causing everyone to be worse off financially.  They know that what they are saying is untrue but they do not care because the reason for their existence is to obtain a wage that is higher than what the free market will bear.  The fact of the matter is that the jobs the new residents are allegedly stealing are the exact same jobs that are presently going unfilled because the lazy bums who live here already are unwilling to work for a rate the free market is willing to pay.  So the labor unions enlist the services of government, in exchange for votes, to prevent additional workers from coming here and, thus, prop up unfairly high wage levels.  The bill is paid for by the unwitting consumers who have no idea why the things they are purchasing are priced much higher than they would be in a true free market.
Others, like the fair and balanced people at Fox News, do not want new people to come to this country because they are afraid that new residents will register as Democrats.  They see immigrants and illegal aliens as a homogenous group of malcontents who want nothing more than to get a driver's license and a voter registration card so they can vote for a Democratic candidate who will increase their welfare payments.  Whether that is an accurate assessment of the situation or not I do not know.  What I do know is that the problem, once again, is not with an increase in population.  The problem is with socialism. 
As you listen to all of the debates and arguments that will be presented about the relative merits of allowing more people into the SDA remember this....none of the arguments have anything to do with economic reality.   Population growth stimulates economic growth in a free market.  Everything negative associated with an increase of population is directly related to the socialistic practices of the country, not to the sheer number of new residents.  And this is where it gets really ironic.  The fair and balanced folks over at Fox News are committed to socialism.  Every career politician and every life-long bureaucrat is committed to socialism. We are the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Practically every person I meet on the street in this ignorant country is committed to socialism.  But rather than eliminate the socialism and begin to experience true economic prosperity, the ignorant fools who populate this land choose instead to demonize those who would like to live and work among us, while clinging tenaciously to their beloved socialistic practices.  And why is socialism so popular?  Because it appeals to the totally depraved sinful nature of the citizens of this land by promising something for nothing.  All you have to commit to is the principle of theft by majority vote and everything will be fine.

Note To Regular Readers:
I am taking two weeks off to flee from the snow.  I will be in the dry desert climbing peaks until Monday, March 16th.  Check back then for another interesting and informative blog post.  

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Shocking News: Even Scientists Have Biases

I came across an article in the newspaper last week that caught my attention.  The article was about a survey conducted by the good folks at Pew Research.  The article stated that, "A recent Pew Research survey shows major differences between scientists and the public on a wide range of subjects."  The article then went on to describe nine different topics of popular interest and showed how, in each of the topics, the opinions of scientists and the general public varied widely.  As I glanced down the list I found myself cheering for the scientists on several occasions.  After all, scientists are generally understood to be smarter than John Q. Public so I would expect them to have better information on a wide variety of topics.  In those cases I would expect them to stay on the scientific straight and narrow and deliver an unbiased scientific opinion about a matter to those of us who are not as well informed.  That happened on several occasions in the article.
For example, one question was, "Is it safe to eat genetically modified foods?"  I have addressed this topic myself in a previous blog post, found here.  The point of that blog post was that everything that exists in the world today is genetically modified.  Every time something reproduces genetic modification takes place.  The only difference between what takes place in nature and what takes place in a laboratory is the location.  There is no reason to believe that genetic modification could, would or should have any deleterious affect upon the foods that we eat.  To believe so is utter nonsense and clearly anti-scientific.  The scientists in the survey agree with me.  88% of the scientists say that eating genetically modified foods is safe whereas only 37% of the general public believes genetically modified foods to be safe for human consumption.  If you are keeping score, score one for the scientists.
Here is another one the scientists get right.  According to the survey 86% of scientists believe that vaccinations are not harmful but actually do what they are designed to do.  Only 68% of the general public shares that belief.  At this time, when vaccinating has become a political hot potato, I find it interesting that a full one third of the population believes vaccinations to be dangerous to our health.  I conducted a study of my own on the topic several years ago, after attending a seminar at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, and I discovered that the hysterical rants against vaccinating seem to be based exclusively upon anecdotal evidence.  No objective scientific studies exist that I have found which show any reason why I should believe vaccinations are anything other than helpful.  I am old enough to remember people who died of polio and I can remember one home that I visited that was equipped with an iron lung.  I am thankful those days are gone and vaccinations are to be given most of the credit for the transformation.
Scientists also favor more offshore oil and gas drilling than the general population does.  I am not quite sure what the science is in support of offshore drilling however.  Regardless, 65% of scientists think offshore drilling is a good idea and only 45% of the general population does.  I suspect that the majority of the general population which does not want more offshore drilling finds themselves in that position because of unwarranted fears about oil leaks and damage to the environment.  Images of the deepwater horizon oil spill probably continue to haunt the minds of the scientifically ignorant.  Those images are reinforced by the equally ignorant media reports showing the "damage" done to the Gulf coast as a result of the spill.  Environmentalist propaganda has conquered the ignorant masses but has not yet convinced the majority of scientists of their lies.
Scientists are human beings.  As human beings they suffer from a variety of maladies.  The most significant malady that all human beings suffer from is the natural hatred of the God of the Bible they find in their souls.  All men, from the moment of conception, are at enmity with God and they continue to be in that state of hateful anger towards Him unless He makes the decision to regenerate them.  It would be foolish to assume that man's natural hatred for God would not spill over into an intellectual bias at some point.  The survey indicates one such bias, and it is huge.
By far the issue on which scientists have the greatest consensus is when we come to consider the religion of evolution.  A whopping 98% of all scientists believe that "humans and other living things have evolved over time."  A significant majority of 65% of all people also believe in evolution.  This is not a surprising discovery, at least to me.  I would expect that those who hate God would create a religion with which they would feel comfortable and with which they could easily dismiss the truth claims made in the Bible about our origins.  God tells us that all those who hate Him spend a great deal of mental energy creating alternative views of the world that allow them to ignore what is abundantly clear from nature itself.  All men know that the God of the Bible exists innately and they suppress that knowledge by creating alternative views of our origin.  The religion of evolution is the most successful suppression mechanism in the history of mankind.  It is not surprising that almost all scientists believe in it.
One other issue caught my eye.  It has to do with global warming.  Where do you think the scientists will come down on this hot button?  According to the survey, 87% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming.  On the other hand, only 50% of the general public believes in that nonsense.  We now have a situation in which the roles are reversed.  The public has greater insight into the issue of global warming than the scientists do.  Why do you think that is?  I have an answer to that question.  A wise man once told me that I should never expect a man to change his position on an issue when his monthly paycheck was dependent upon continuing to believe something that is patently false.  It would have been most interesting if the Pew Research folks had put an additional control upon this question.  I would have liked to see the group of scientists divided into those who are paid by the government, or a government contract, versus those who are paid by the free market.  I suspect the percentage would look very different under those circumstances.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Foods You Must Absolutely Avoid Forever

Although I do not share the opinion of those who avoid vaccinating their children, I most certainly sympathize with their belief that information that comes forth from the government that is allegedly "scientific" is often times nothing more than propaganda in support of the latest political fad.  Why should I potentially endanger the life of my child simply because a career politician or bureaucrat has made the declaration that something is safe?  There are plenty of examples where what our rulers have told us ended up being wrong and even harmful in some cases.  The official declarations from the federal government about what foods are good or bad for us is a case study.  Let's consider it for a while today.
Maybe you saw the report that came out last week.  I found it tucked away in the middle of my Denver Post under the headline, "Dietary Report:  Eggs, coffee in, but sugar is out."  Take a moment and, if you have lived long enough, think back to what the government told us about unhealthy eating and drinking habits just twenty years ago.  Butter, eggs, salt, coffee and sunshine (not something to be eaten, I understand) have all been demonized in the recent past.  Red meats have also been on the list of verboten consumables.  I remember when I was told to consume no more than two eggs per week.  The reason given for the dramatic reduction in egg consumption was the fact that dietary cholesterol was directly related to serum cholesterol.  The more eggs I ate the more my blood cholesterol would rise.  The more my blood cholesterol would rise the greater my chances of coronary heart disease.  So to avoid a heart attack before reaching the age I presently find myself having attained I was told to cut out the eggs.  Butter was equally as bad.  It was like lining my veins and arteries with fat and sure to result in a horrible death before the age of 60.  Salt and coffee were terrible as well.  Salt added nothing to my body's food requirements and only increased my blood pressure.  Increasing my blood pressure was sure to cause a stroke before the age of 60.  Coffee, with the ticking time bomb of caffeine within it, was also going to raise my blood pressure and kill me with a brain aneurism before my present age. Being an obedient citizen and willing subject to my intellectual superiors I immediately complied with their dictates.
Here is some of what the new government study reported, "Recommendations...from a government advisory committee call for an environmentally friendly diet lower in red and processed meats.  But the panel would reverse previous guidance on limiting dietary cholesterol.  And it says the caffeine in a few cups of coffee could actually be good for you.  The committee also is backing off stricter limits on salt...It's recommending the first real limits on sugar....The report says dietary cholesterol now is not considered a nutrient of concern for over consumption.  This follows increasing medical research showing the amount of cholesterol in your bloodstream is more complicated than once thought....available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between heart disease and how much dietary cholesterol you eat....The report looks at caffeine for the first time, and says coffee is OK -- even good for you. The panel says there is strong evidence that three to five cups a day can be part of a healthier diet, and there is consistent evidence that it's even associated with reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease..The panel said Americans should eat less meat to protect the environment.  Meat eaters have been linked to a larger carbon footprint than vegetarians."   Wow!  Did you get all that?
Our government handlers are telling us to stop eating red meat not because it contributes to heart disease and increases our chances of suffering a stroke.  No, we are to stop eating red meat because cows are environmentally unfriendly and those of us who appreciate a nice steak are contributing to global warming!  Now that is high quality science if I have ever seen it.  Also notice how the things like eggs and coffee which we were previously informed would lead to our early demise are now actually good for us.  My question is this, where is the apology for the previous bad advice?  If I made a major screw up like what was made in the past, significantly affecting the lives of millions of people for decades, I would at least say I am sorry for the bad advice.  But government does not work that way.  Here is another question, where is the apology for the egg industry?  How much money did the egg industry lose as a result of the government's previous bad advice?  Should there not be reparations to make good on the damages?  I would think there should be.  But no, government does not apologize and government is not accountable for what it has done in the past.
I added sunshine to the list of forbidden things earlier in this post.  The government has been on a crusade against sunshine.  People are expected to lather up with SPF 1000 prior to exposing themselves to sunlight for more than a second or two.  As a direct result of the government's advice the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are finding that many of them are suffering from a serious Vitamin D deficiency.  Rather than recommending a bit of sunshine to solve the problem the government pill-pushers are now recommending people supplement their diets with Vitamin D pills.  Ah yes, a pill will solve everything, won't it?
Most galling of all about the report is the unabashed endorsement of creating dietary standards based upon non-scientific political agendas.  The citizens of this land are told to not eat certain items because of how the practice will allegedly affect the environment.  What does that have to do with healthy eating standards for human beings?  Nothing, of course.  Why should I trust anything the government says?  When no effort is made to hide the fact that the "scientific" recommendations being made are the direct result of a idiotic political bias why should I ever adhere to them?  The government has been wrong about almost everything almost all of the time.  In the free market we would discover that the parade of erroneous information emanating from government sources would eventually discount the value of that information to zero.   Nobody but lovers of government would ever pay attention to what is being said.  That sounds like a pretty good idea to me.  Now I am going to go cook up a steak and baked potato, smothered in butter and washed down with a 32 ounce Coke.  It is my belief that such a diet is the best way to keep me out of government hospitals crawling with government approved health technicians. 


Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Most People Hate America

Rudy Giuliani came out a couple of days ago and declared that King Obama does not love Amerika.  That simple sentence has created a firestorm of reaction from both those who would defend and those who would criticize the King's actions.  It must have been a slow news day yesterday but even Bill O'Reilly reported on the story as his lead "talking point" in last night's episode.  As you would expect, Bill defended Rudy and gave him a free pass for his comment because he is "a passionate man who hates terrorists."  The meaning was obvious from what Bill said.  Giuliani loves Amerika because he loves the military and he loves killing terrorists around the world.  King Obama, by necessary implication, must not love Amerika because he does not love the military, although he does kill a lot of terrorists around the world by means of his beloved drones.
The words "patriotism" and "patriot" have been thrown around a lot in the discussion about Rudy's comment. I have posted to this blog in the past about how the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have redefined the term 'patriot.'  In my lifetime the term has changed from one who loves his country to one who loves his military.  You can find that post hereHere is another post in which I make a similar argument, although from a different angle of course.  I never repeat myself.  I never say the same thing twice.  There is no redundancy in my blog. Oh, and by the way, here is another post to this blog which makes the case that when patriotism is defined as worship of individual soldiers, as I believe it has today, we have traveled a long distance down a very immoral path.  In regards to Giuliani I suspect most people would agree that he was saying that King Obama, in addition to not loving Amerika, is also not a good patriot.
In addition to not loving Amerika and not being a good patriot it also logically follows that King Obama must hate Amerika as well.  Rudy did not declare that the King hates Amerika, he simply asserted that the King does not love Amerika.  But there are only two other options available for our King if he does not love Amerika:  he can either hate Amerika or he can be neutral towards Amerika.  I believe it is fair to say that when people like Rudy accuse our King of not loving Amerika they are not saying that he is neutral towards Amerika.  How often have we heard our King described as "one of those people who believes we ought to hate Amerika first?"  Indeed, in this country there is no apparent middle ground when it comes to our feelings for Amerika.  We either love it or hate it.  And since Amerika is generally defined as Amerika's military, we are deemed to be good, honest, patriotic citizens when we profess our love for the military and its soldiers and horrible, Hitler-like demons whenever we refuse to profess our love for the military and its soldiers.
I have a slightly different take on the matter.  If you read the posts listed above, and I think you should, you will see that patriotism and worship of the military are not the same thing.  I dare say that all of the men and women we were taught about in grade school who were described as "patriots" during the time of the War of Independence from Great Britain would be considered subversives and "hate Amerika first" types today.  You need go no further than what they wrote to see their definition of patriotism.
First and foremost a patriot was a person who harbored a serious distrust of all forms of civil government.  A patriot wanted a country in which the civil government was bound by so many rules and regulations it would be very difficult for it to get involved in the day to day activities of its citizens.  The patriots of the past would be appalled to discover that the rules and regulations they wrote to hinder the growth of government have been taken and applied to businesses today.  They would find it impossible to believe that government is given free reign to create laws and rules and regulations that prescribe in ornate detail all the permissible and impermissible activities in the private sector.  They would also find it incomprehensible that patriotic Amerikan citizens would be clamoring for more rules and regulations on a daily basis.
A patriot from the past believed that government did not have the right to examine our property, papers or personal affairs.  That is why the 4th Amendment to the Constitution was written.  The individual patriots from our past had intimate knowledge of what it meant for a government agent to break down his front door and force him to divulge his personal affairs to them.  They refused to allow the government they were creating to engage in the same sorts of activities.  Anyone who supported the all-knowing government was called a traitor.  My how things have changed.  Edward Snowden was "a 29 year old pulling in $200,000 a year in a cushy job in a dreamland with his girlfriend in Hawaii."  (Taken from "The Character of Edward Snowden" by Jeffrey Tucker.)  Tucker asks, "To appreciate what he has done, you have to put yourself in his position.  Would you give that up?  Would you be willing to walk away?"  Public opinion polls about Snowden's actions indicate that most Amerikan citizens believe he behaved as a traitor when he divulged the fact that the Amerikan government is continually and perniciously spying upon its own citizens.  Most Amerikans proudly say that they are more than willing to give up their 4th Amendment rights in exchange for the bogus promise of government protection.   No patriot would ever say that.  Ever!  Remember "give me liberty or give me death?"  Today it is "give me a false promise of security and take whatever you want while doing so."
If you read the Constitution, written by American patriots from our distant past, you will find a phrase about the operation of the military within it.  The military is subject to the rule of Congress with the President serving as Commander in Chief.  Most interesting to me however, is the little phrase about how the military is to function under the terms set by our first patriots.  Section 8 of Article I, which describes the powers of Congress, says, "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."  That is the only phrase in the Constitution which describes what the military is actually empowered to do.  Notice that the military has three legitimate functions:  1) to execute the Laws of the Union (such as when Kennedy sent the militia to Alabama), 2) to suppress Insurrections (such as when Nixon sent the military to Kent State), and 3) to repel invasions (such as.....humm.....humm...I guess there are no examples of this from our history.)  Notice how sending the military around the world to engage in incessant wars of imperial expansion and aggression is not mentioned in the Constitution.  Remember how Jefferson said that it was the goal of this new country to engage in "free trade with all and entangling alliances with none."  The past patriots would be revolted to see what we have become.  The past patriots would no doubt boldly declare that the SDA has become to the rest of the world what Britain was to the original United States. 
Most people reject practically everything the past patriots stood for.  Most people give up freedom for a false sense of protection.   Most people worship the military and its soldiers.  Most people consider Snowden to be a traitor.  Most people think it is a good idea for the rest of the citizens of the world to "fear" Amerika.  Most people think it is a good idea to kill foreigners.  I conclude that most people hate America and love Amerika.  As far as what the King believes about Amerika......you will have to ask him.

Monday, February 23, 2015

Great Lakes Ice Betrays Global Warming Religion

I was pondering the cold weather the other day when it occurred to me it might be fun to see how much ice is presently covering the Great Lakes.  For some reason I think that most global warming alarmists live either in California or the North East. That is probably not the case but it is the way things shake down in my puny little brain.  When I think of the deluded statists who believe in the religion of global warming I silently rejoice when weather conditions do not exactly match their theory.  The last two years, if you were not aware, have been very cold for citizens of the northeastern Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  I went in search of information about ice coverage of the Great Lakes and I found this graph:




Current ice coverage is 85.4% and probably not yet at its peak for the year.  So people who live in the Great Lakes area are likely going to experience two of the coldest winters in the last forty years.  Last winter saw the lakes frozen over to the highest degree since 1979.  If things keep going as they have recently this year could set an all-time record for ice coverage.  Wouldn't it be grand if the entire Great Lakes were frozen?
As I looked at the graph copied above I began to get a strange idea.  For some reason that I do not understand I began to contemplate the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the earth.  Carbon dioxide, as most people know, is that notorious greenhouse gas that is allegedly responsible for the global warming we are presently not experiencing.  Now there is an interesting thing about greenhouse gases in general, and carbon dioxide in particular.  Global warming priests tell us that the relationship between carbon dioxide and the temperature of the earth is direct.  In other words, when the amount of carbon dioxide goes up, so does the temperature of the earth, the water on the surface of the earth and the air that surrounds the earth.  Take a look at the graph below and tell me if you notice anything.
Mauna Loa CO2
Notice it?  I did to.  How can the relationship of carbon dioxide and the temperature of the earth be direct if the two graphs are wildly different from each other?  One possible answer is that the earth is not a closed system and the impact of carbon dioxide upon the temperature of the earth could vary as carbon dioxide enters and escapes the system at random.  But the earth is a closed system.  No carbon dioxide escapes to outer space and no carbon dioxide enters from outer space.  So that theory does not pan out.  Since I could not figure out why the two graphs were not mirror images of each other I consulted with those who claim to understand things better than I do.
I went here to find an answer to my question.  In answer to the question, "Why doesn't the temperature rise at the same rate carbon dioxide increases?" I learned the following things:
  1. "Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect."  I did not claim that it did.  I am not claiming that the relationship between carbon dioxide and the earth's temperature is proportionate.  I am claiming it is direct.  There is a difference between the two.  This first reason given in answer to the question is nothing more than a dodge.
  2. "The way the climate reacts is also complex, and it is difficult to separate the effects of natural changes from man-made ones over short periods of time."  I wish this humility was evident when talking about periods of time that are not short.  This answer is not really an answer at all.  The author simply admits that he has no answer to the question but then goes on as if the question was never asked in the first place.  This answer is also nothing more than a dodge.
  3. "As the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures do not rise at the same rate. In fact, although estimates vary - climate sensitivity is a hot topic in climate science..."  Here we go again.  This is not an answer to the question.  This is a dodge.  I am not claiming that carbon dioxide and temperature are proportional ("at the same rate"), I am claiming that they are direct and that in a closed system there should be no cases where one rises while the other falls.  Rather than answer the question the author says the issue is a "hot topic," whatever that means.
  4. "The rate of surface warming has slowed in the past decade. Yet the physical properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases cannot change. The same energy they were re-radiating back to Earth during previous decades must be evident now, subject only to changes in the amount of energy arriving from the sun - and we know that has changed very little. But if that’s true, where is this heat going?"  Several things are evident in this sentence.  First, all impact from the sun upon the temperature of the earth is immediately discounted.  Given that the radiation received from the sun is unquestionably the most significant reason the earth is warm, it seems a bit premature to discount its impact up front.  The author acknowledges that the physical properties of greenhouse gases cannot change and then asks the same question I have asked, "where is the heat going?"  How does he answer that question?  Go to the next quote.
  5. "The Earth’s climate is a complex system, acting in ways we can’t always predict. The energy that man-made CO2 is adding to the climate is not currently showing up as surface warming, because most of the heat is going into the oceans. Currently, the heat is moving downwards from the ocean surface to deeper waters. The surface gets cooler, humidity reduces (water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas), and air temperatures go down."  So when the average temperature of the earth goes up the global warming priests claim that it perfectly fits their models of man-made global warming.  But when the temperature of the earth goes down, as it has the past ten years, they say that the earth is "acting in ways we can't always predict."  No kidding!   Ultimately the answer to the question is their belief that oceans are absorbing the heat created by global warming so that it does not show up in temperature readings from the atmosphere.  Under the new theory, created to explain data that does not fit the old theory, warm water sinks and cold water rises.  As the warm water sinks the surface of the water gets colder, yet somehow the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which must be increasing the temperature of the air according to their theory, does not manage to warm the water near the surface.  As a result there are fewer clouds and the temperature of the earth goes down because water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.  Do any of you remember a couple of years ago when global warming ministers told us that fewer clouds would cause the temperature of the earth to rise since less radiation was being reflected back into space?  So do I.  I guess that theory no longer fits the data.