All that is competition for a resource. Tragedy of the commons involves a resource that has to be managed, to maintain its usefulness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#List_of_countries_with_Source_of_Electricity_2008

Because this chart in the wiki doesn't have any that aren't getting power from coal, gas, or nuclear.

Its 2011 I remember perfectly well when climatologists were saying I would be under a glacier by now because people were burning fossil fuel.

I also remember how we got more global warming because people cleaned up the emissions from burning fossil fuels.

I guess the future isn't what it used to be.

I have to think you are trolling.

Because there is no way anyone could read.

you are picking a hundred year window, and saying anyone that uses a different window is wrong. If we were to take a 1000 year window we would be in decline.

and fail to graph that the person making that comment understood there were longer term and shorter term cycles and was pointing them out.

If you haven't subtracted out the natural cyclic variance from the signal you don't have anything that you can actually attribute to CO2.

The old saw is "A scientist is someone who has a very good understanding of how much they don't know about a subject"

What do you call people that keep insisting that disaster is going to happen some time in the future, and everytime the future arrives they push back the date ?

Yeesh

There are four lines in that graph representing reported temperature. All of them are consistently tracking below the 2.5 degree sensitivity, The 1.5 degree sensitivity has 1 of the four reported temp graphs having a good fit. Admittedly its GISS arguably the best of them.

Thats amazing because hansen's original didn't have those error bars

And even when "Real climate"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

They somehow manage to leave them off.

I wish I could do a smiley. Because you just came to the conclusion that those graphs were manipulated, by eyeballing them without looking at the original data, then you accused other people of being statistically ignorant.

you are picking a hundred year window, and saying anyone that uses a different window is wrong. If we were to take a 1000 year window we would be in decline.

Or to borrow from the emails, "The medieval warm period in greenland won't go away".

Look science is about making PREDICTIONS not postdictions

Lets look at the premise here human releases of CO2 are driving the warming we have been experiencing since The Little Ice Age.

You have a model that makes predictions about the rise of temperature over time.

What happens in the mean time CO2 emissions rise faster than the model predicted but temperatures not only didn't rise faster they actually stopped and still are stopped. The rise has been stopped for 13 years now. Despite all that CO2 pumped into the atmosphere.

At some point you have to ask just what does it take to say they didn't have a clue when they were yelling the sky is falling and to ask for some proof when they are doing it again.

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001317verification_of_1990.html

Those are the IPCC predictions from 1990 out to now. Gee for some reason we are well under the temperature they predicted.

Or Hansen's 1988 model

here
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/hansen20.gif

Oops

Seriously provide context from a noted fraudster ?

This is what your climate skeptic had to say

"... "back in the early ’80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."

So lets just ignore the part that the greens were pushing about the climate skeptic who had a come to god moment.

Lets look at what one his team members had to say about his come to god paper.

"But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1eTMUgUpc"

Long ago, the emails have just demonstrated that the people pushing it understand that perfectly well.

As things stand not one of the models that foretold our doom has held up over time. What we get is every 10 years a new set of predictions and models explaining why the last 20 years models and predictions weren't correct but we are still doomed anyway.

And every time there is evidence that it is just a political con game

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

As the hockey stick was, as the emails demonstrating knowledge of the fraud that was ongoing did you just get the greens closing ranks and hoping if they keep a united front up, the ludites hatred of all things tech, and the political class's willingness to profit from crisis will carry their position forward.

You have an assumption that congress people will do what they said they would once they have your taxes.

As to paying for the government we have, current government spending as a percentage of GDP is higher than it was during WWII ? Did they save Hitlers Brain ? Is WWII still ongoing ? Are Nazis from the moon planning to invade ?

No what we need is much less government. Much Much Much less.