Is CO2 the presummed driver of this cooling trend, or can CO2 only act as a driver for AGW given the heat input to the earth’s atmosphere and surface is always positive. The heat transfer must be affected in some way by the excess CO2, but to what degree? Is it also decreasing the amount of solar radiation input to the same degree it decreases heat transfer to space?

The more interesting question, in my opinion, is whether there has been a statistically significant change in the (warming) trend since 1998 or 2005. That is presumably the question of interest since it is undeniable, if the data are to be believed at all, that global temperature has declined since 2005 according to both the NOAA and UAB data sets.

E. Philip Howrey
Professor Emeritus Economics
Professor Emeritus Statistics
University of Michigan

That’s a great metaphor. Actually when I read Superfreakonomics I was so depressed I went out into our garage and idled our car for about 45 minutes before I realized we have a carport.

And my friend Laurence Doyle, a scientist at SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence – intelligently sought via radio signals, not unintelligent expectations of UFOs) said that if aliens could come to Anthro-Earth we’d say “Here we are! Here we are!” and they’d instead study our trees, ignore us and leave.

Trees have had solar panels called leaves that are renewable for 400 million years while we’re trying to develop them out of nonrenewable minerals. So Gail, your love of trees and protection of them shows that you’ve evolved to something higher than most of the rest of us, and I enjoy all your comments. Obviously your girls who are going to excellent schools got their mother’s intelligence.

http://akwag.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 10/ blind-support-for-global-warming.html

The University of Chicago is the home of Milton Friedman and his school of economics that says that if the price of anything gets high enough that encourages finding more of it and/or a substitute.

They’re typically saying that we’ll never run out of anything, ever.

This is because the unregulated Free Market is their god and they’re the high priests of this god, which has led us to where we are today.

So when fellow University of Chicago economists Levitt and Dubner subscribe to this belief system and twist facts to the worship of their god, it shouldn’t surprise us.

For my detailed understanding of the Chicago School, I read Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It took me about nine months because I couldn’t read more than a chapter at a time — it was so utterly devastating. (And this from a guy who can read a global warming book in a week). Friedman was a stupid, immoral man, and we’ll be a century overcoming the worst of his flawed theories.

I’d recommend Shock Doctrine to everyone.

And this Levitt guy is really a scientist, in some university?!

How can this kind of clown be called some kind of scientist? Tell it!

He’s an economist, not a scientist.

lgcarey, I think you spent to long in Gail’s garage.

My favorite less erudite metaphor – I think of the earth as a big garage with the doors closed. We are all sitting in a car together, running the engine, getting sleepy.

I ask you to please check out my family, who have been working on energy efficient upgrades in their home NONSTOP over the past 3 months. I am very proud of them. You can vote for the Casanova family in a Texas Utilities contest for the Texas family who has put the most effort to save energy here : http://psc.gotxu.com/vote. It takes seconds and we’d really appreciate it. They have already made it to top 3 in Texas! Thank you so much.

Here is the NBC Dallas news story on the contest and my family if you are interested:http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/green/Power-Play-Could-Earn-Family-25K-64577297.html

How can this kind of clown be called some kind of scientist? Tell it!