« 3D Printing – Bigger and sooner than you think (updated 28jan13) | Main | Ruminations – 24jan13 »

21 January 2013

Comments

Walt

WOW!! Get a load of this line from his speech.
"Preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action," he said.

And the last time I checked, that "collective action" is call the Tea Party.
Preserving our individual freedoms is NOT on his "to do" list. The vary opposite is closer to fact. I give you the last four years as proof.

Hugo Chavez must be vary proud of his apprentice.

TheMikeyMcD

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

Like listening to cannibals say grace while they lower you into the pot. #inauguration

Walt

LOL!!! Mikey!,, Good catch. ( Uuuhhhhh,,, But OOhhh soooo true.)
" Someone please pass the trenderizer..."

Todd Juvinall

After one of the most disgusting campaigns full of vile personal attacks (on Romney/Ryan), our re-elected fellow is calling for civility. If there ever was a master BSer he takes the cake. The moron party is so proud. Well, they are just too stupid to know the difference.

Gregory

The personal attacks continue: "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it."

There is no "overwhelming judgment of science", only propaganda from the proponents, phony metastudies by the likes of Naomi Oreski whose only science training was as a mining geologist, oriented towards getting minerals out of the ground, not chemistry or physics, the drivers of climate. "Deny" and "denier" remain personal attacks made against anyone who hasn't saluted the IPCC AR4 colors that were run up the flagpole.

Walt

Our beloved Leftys are a little more quiet than usual.
Either they got a few sets of those heavily reduced in price
inaugural ball tickets, ( By at least 50% across the board)
Or they decided just to give us the cold shoulder treatment.
( Kinda Like what "O" is doing to the nation)

Think he was wearing that "trillion dollar coin" around his neck as he
lie... I mean sworn in?

Ya know he wants that minted REAL BAD... How else will he get a currency with his mug shot on it? He may want to re-think that idea. If you need a coin that "says" it's worth said amount, but is worth less than what it's made of,, you got problems.
And we have had that problem since we left the gold standard.

Paul Emery

So Todd the Swiftboating of Senator Kerry in 04 doesn't qualify as " vile personal attacks "

George Rebane

The swiftboating allegations would have been vile had they not been true. But then we again digress going down memory lane, instead of considering this president's outlook and policies for his second term in office.

Paul Emery

George
There is a stink of hypocrisy here. I'll remember your concerns about digressing down memory lane the next time a responder goes gooey over Ronald Reagan.
By whose evaluation do you make that stand {the allegations were true)? Here's the official review:

In September 2004, Vice Admiral Ronald A. Route, the Navy inspector general, completed a review of Kerry's combat medals, initiated at the request of Judicial Watch. In a memo to the Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England, Route stated [15]

"Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards.

"Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive. The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place.

"Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter."

http://web.archive.org/web/20040922031819/http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html">http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20040922031819/http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040918/D855P5QG0.html

George Rebane

I have not studied Kerry's heroics. But I have read a lot of military history and know some decorated veterans. Their common denominator has always been the accolades or peers and comrades who were there when the medals were earned.

Again, I don't want to divert from Obama. Please excuse my excusing myself from this fruitless sideline. Perhaps someone else will take up the thread.

Russ Steele

Paul@07:58

While the process might have been followed, the basic input was flawed, a sliver in the finger does not deserve a Purple Heart. I would stand behind the navy swabs that were there and observed want happened rather than some Admiral in Washington who’s career was on the line, depending on his answer. There are some Viet Nam Vets that would stand behind Senator, soon to be Sec of State, they are North Viet Nam Vets. He did more for their cause, than any of the US Vets he served with. Just look at his post service testimony before Congress. How can you justify that lying crap!

Now let's put this distraction aside and focus to the subject of the this post. Oh, wait you do not want to discuss this post, that is the reason for your distraction. You are so transparent some time.

Russ Steele

Opps it is time to change the subject from guns and 2nd amendment and switch to climate change. Things are not going will for the “O” so it is time to change the subject. That is how all good liberals conduct an argument, when losing, change the subject! But. I digress.

President Barack Obama is pledging to respond to what he calls “the threat of climate change.” He says that failing to do so would be a betrayal of the nation’s children, and of future generations.

Here is a key section of O's speech:

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries ­ we must claim its promise.”That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure ­ our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks.”

Of course there is no global warming, only a bunch of environmental wackos pushing a issue not supported by the facts.

Here is one view of his claims by a third party observer, James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph:

The first sentence is a blatant untruth. Concerted global action so far to deal with the threat of climate change has resulted in: higher energy prices; more deaths from fuel poverty; more intrusive regulation; the destruction of rainforests and the squandering of agricultural land on biofuels; higher food prices; famine and food riots – as a result partly of the drive for biofuels; the entrenchment of corporatism and rent-seeking to the detriment of free markets; the ravaging of the countryside with ugly solar farms and even uglier wind turbines; the deaths of millions of birds and bats; the great recession. How any of this has in any way benefited either our children (who are going to find it far harder to find a job) or future generations is a complete mystery.

The second sentence is a devious combination of the junk factoid and the non sequitur.
That "overwhelming judgement of science" is a reference to the comprehensively discredited Doran survey: the one where the "97 per cent of climate scientists" turned out to consist of just 75 out of 77 climate scientists who could be bothered to reply to two silly and dubious questions.

As for the idea that "science" ever has such a thing as an "overwhelming judgement": this would be news to Galileo, Newton, Einstein and indeed all the great scientists of history, all of whom made their names by advancing theories which completely overturned the "overwhelming judgement" of their contemporaries.

It's probably true, up to a point, that "none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms". But only if you accept that everyone lives in a region susceptible to fires, drought and powerful storms, which not everyone does.

What Obama is presumably trying to slip into that weasel sentence is the notion that "science" is overwhelmingly of the view that raging fires, crippling drought and more powerful storms are increasing as a result of "climate change" (note incidentally how he's careful not to say whether or not it is man-made, thus enabling him to cover all eventualities). But if this is the case, I'd dearly love to see the evidence that this is a) anthropogenic b) controllable or c)historically unprecedented. Certainly, according to this graph at Watts Up With That?, there is nothing particular weird or alarming about recent weather activity. On an index of "Extreme Weather" in the US since 1910, last year – 2012 – ranks a very modest 54th.

If Obama was really concerned about tomorrows children, he would stop sending their future down the national debt rat hole!

Gregory

Leave it to Paul to change the subject. The official Obama campaign went negative and hard even before Romney sewed up the GOP nomination. I'd have really felt bad for Romney had his campaign against his primary competition not been the same basic style.

Perhaps someone can dig out the budget of the Swift Boaters and compare it to the budget for negative ads against Romney by the official Obama campaign.

Ken Jones

George you could not be more wrong when you claim this country of ours is in shambles. More Henny Penny crap trying to pass as factual. What is in shambles are the far right politics that have become an insult to America. Now the whine that our president was negative in the last election. Well maybe but really no more negative than any previous election. Trouble is the right lost so the only recourse is the constant whine. Nothing more funny than a far right blogger than has trouble with basic spelling calling half the country morons. Continue to be divisive while ignoring the success of President Obama and those of the United States of America. I expect that these bombastic tirades will continue because misery loves company.

Paul Emery

Oh, how foolish of me. Of course, it was George Bush, a National Guard quitter who was the real patriot.

George, your wish list will require some champion to sweep into power. Of course it will be a Republican. Any idea who that may be?

George Rebane

KenJ 922pm - The shambles I reference is contained in a long litany of measurables published by many outlets. But if you've not read about it elsewhere, then I'll be glad to be the water carrier in your news world. (BTW, what "far right blogger" with spelling problems are you referring to; I'm the only blogger here?)

In any event, here we are with a recovery celebrated only by the diehard left, tens of millions unemployed, more tens off the working rolls, a choking debt made marginally tolerable by a temporary and artificial interest rate that will rise in spite of what the Fed will do, taxes high and going higher in an attempt to emulate a failed European model, unfunded entitlement liabilities reaching to the $100T range, a school system that doesn't produce workers who can compete on global markets, a foreign policy that has become beyond ineffective and disrespected, ... . It saddens me to continue, so I'll stop. But that's how you spell shambles.

George Rebane

PaulE 942pm - I'm aware of no Republican who will put their career on the line for that list. Maybe some will peck here and there a bit, but no more. I'm probably a lone wolf howling plaintively in the night.

Paul Emery

George

As far as most Americans believing this country is heading in the wrong direction, belief that Obama is doing a good job is in the low 50% compared to support for the Republican House which is currently less than 20% so it's easy to see what most people see as the problem.

http://www.pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

Ryan Mount


Congressional approval has traditionally been low (low-ish).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

Compare to this.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx#2

Most of them hover around 50% +/- 10% or so with spikes during crisis. Bush II's exhibit's a rather interesting downward slope, which is misleading because he spiked so damn high after 9/11. So Bush II has the distinction of having the highest popularity and what looks to be the lowest. So fans and pundits both can pick him as their favorite.

Anyhow these low-ish Congressional numbers, in my opinion, are an accurate representation of the electorate's mood, which is sour, angry, and malcontent. It also is emblematic of that all-but-too American notion that "Congress is full of a bunch of bums, except to the guy I voted in. He's OK."

And the relatively high-ish Presidential numbers are a symptom of our human desire for some hero to come and rescue us. And of course come in and beat up the bums in Congress.

Todd Juvinall

PaulE is in a time warp again. What a hoot. Obama is not the same as the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth PaulE. As a "intelligent" man, you amaze me at your mental connections of different things. I would suggest you review the ads from the private men who actually served in Vietnam and have the truth about the coiffed one, Mr. Heinz.

Ken Jones

George I wasn't referring to you when I commented on the far right blogger with spelling issues. You spell very well, however your logic is questionable.

Todd Juvinall

George, I do get a kick out of the far left commenter above who has whined about the conservatives for as long as I have read his tripe. Now his boy is in and he is now the butt kisser of Obama. What a hoot! And that is from a fellow who claims non alignment! Liars all.

Brad Croul

18. And a 3-D printer in every garage!

George Rebane

KenJ 642am - Good enough. I welcome criticism of my "questionable logic", for such dialogue is the sum and stuff of RR.

BradC 800am - That would be a renaissance and give new definition to 'cottage industry'.

Steve Frisch

Walt | 21 January 2013 at 05:46 PM

Walt, I think it is a function of the majority of those you call liberals here understanding that you and your friends are yesterdays news.

Here is how this is going to work: the people who think like you do are going to gradually die out, or isolate themselves in walled communities, or alienate themselves so much from the next generation that they are no longer credible voices. They will be an anachronism of the failed past. Kind of like the Dodo!

Regardless, the big debate is going on out there in the real world not here with 8 curmudgeons.

By the way, to Russ and Greg; sorry, you lose! More than 70% of Americans believe climate change is a serious problem and a risk. You can play 'question the science' games all you want, no one believes you anymore, and the institutions that promote your medieval view of science will be buried by an activated public over the next decade. Better start hoarding coal to power those incandescent bulbs you're sitting on.

George Rebane

SteveF 838am - you are probably right on climate change attitudes as being driven by consensus or mob science. As a cheerleader of such public policy processes, you probably take great pleasure in how public policy was influenced when almost a 100% of the people believed the world was flat, and diseases derived from the 'night airs'.

Account Deleted

This current stream of posts illustrates well the major divide. Modern vs post-modern thought. George is concerned with the measurable and verifiable truths of reality and the left is only concerned with opinions and impressions - feelings, if you will. The uneducated and uninformed mobs have the power of the ballot box and that is all that the left wants. The calls for the elimination of pesky road blocks to direct democracy such as the Constitution are being heard more loudly and more often. Science and morality are to be driven by opinion polls, not verifiable facts and eternal truths. The youth of today may become tired of the rants of the old guard, but when we are gone, the youth will be the ones left paying the bills. The reality of a ruined economy will be difficult for the left to explain away then.

Steve Frisch

I have no problem with people questioning the science George, that is the scientific method; just with them using that as a tool to stall action on an issue the vast majority of the scientific community and citizenry think is important. That is not 'mob science', it is just the facts. If there is an analogy between the flat earthers and bad medicine, it is almost entirely on your side of the equation. But you will never agree to that, nor will your fellow posters, so you must be 'left behind'. Enjoy armageddon!

Steve Frisch

There is no eternal truth.

Russ Steele

StevenF @ 8:38

I was a long time reader of the Economist, but when they got in the global warming band wagon, I got off the Economist. How could intelligent people that I respected adopt this hoax in light of the evidence that AGW was unsupportable. Now they have had a change of mind.

THE ECONOMIST Gives Up On Global Climate Treaties. “This is pretty much where we’ve been for some time: the global approach to reducing CO2 emissions is a dead end, and while the overall science about the climate seems well established, there are some significant fiddly bits that haven’t yet been worked out. There may be more surprises like soot in the works, some good, some bad, but in any case the details, the timing, and the consequences of climate change are less clear than the overall arc, and the case for particular policies is often significantly weaker than the overall case that climate change is under way.”

Douglas Keachie

Looks like some of the more responsible rich are finally beginning to realize that it is in their best interests to join the 99% ters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/21/us-reutersmagazine-davos-swiss-rich-idUSBRE90K0F420130121

TheMikeyMcD

Russ, reason is winning. It was once called 'global warming' now they have retreated to call it 'climate change.'

I wonder if the "more than 70% of Americans believe climate change" are the same 70% that cannot pass a 3rd grade math exam. LOL.

Slavery never ended. It was perfected.

Who would have thought that golfer Phil Mickelson was an extremist!?
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/12487-taxes-could-cause-phil-mickelson-to-go-galt?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Russ Steele

StevenF 09:19

You wrote: "vast majority of the scientific community" Where is your proof?

If you are making reference to Obama speech here are some details to consider. His reference to "overwhelming judgement of science" is a reference to the comprehensively discredited Doran survey: the one where the "97 per cent of climate scientists" turned out to consist of just 75 out of 77 climate scientists who could be bothered to reply to two silly and dubious questions. This study has been ridiculed by scientist around the world as junk science. Is this your science?

James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph: As for the idea that "science" ever has such a thing as an "overwhelming judgement": this would be news to Galileo, Newton, Einstein and indeed all the great scientists of history, all of whom made their names by advancing theories which completely overturned the "overwhelming judgement" of their contemporaries.

In the long run it does not matter what the lame stream press has impressed on the minds of the gullible, that global warming is happening, the facts speak for them selves, there has been no warming for 17 years and it will continue to grow colder and dryer over the next 20 years. Stay Tuned.

Russ Steele

Steven and all you warmers here is some facts that you will need to deal with:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/its-the-enso-stupid/

Ryan Mount

Steve at 09:20 AM> There is no eternal truth.

For Scott @ 09:18 AM...

The Post-modern asks: What is eternal? What is truth?

A Modernist asserts: There is no eternal truth.

Keats, a Romantic would say...

    When old age shall this generation waste,
    Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
    Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou sayst,
    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
    Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Which one shall we pick? Which one does Obama pick?

Walt

Talk about "yesterdays news" Comment,,,LOL!! Us? "die out" as you put it?
Now that's a good one.. WE are not the ones aborting our children, like LIBS
like to do. ( forget that LIB recessive gene) Yes Libbyism has polluted the gene pool. ( no wonder LIBS have to indoctrinate OUR children in the school system. Then they wise up once out of Libby mind control and see reality)

But since you just HAD to change the subject to GW,, Ya' know that little part of the Constitution you guys love to bring up? The establishment of religion?
Sooner or later some hungry litigator will go after your little GW BS.
Well, that's just what LIBS are doing today. Establishing the religion of AGW.
And with the full support of Government.
The religion of "green" is now upon us, and the Gov. demands we bow to it, and dissavow our own. ( they are still going after the churchs as we speak)

Greg Goodknight

KJ 9:22PM, there are fewer people with jobs today than there were four years ago. That isn't "success".

Frisch, enjoy the blip that the Presidential bully pulpit gives your CO2 indulgences business, but even the high priest of warming at NASA-GISS, James Hansen, has this week put his name as lead author to a paper that admits "to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade". Others, including the climate mavens at the UEA and British Meteorological Office, note a 16 year pause. You will be eating crow, it's just a matter of when, not if. Natural variations gave us a warming climate in the late 20th century but they have already reversed.

CO2 is a weak warming agent but not enough to overcome oceanic variation and solar effects (both direct and indirect). The end of AGW hysteria is near.


Walt

Now to put us back on the right track. The red herring has gone rotten.

"I think the majority of us feel strongly — even the majority of gun owners feel strongly — that we need to make some sacrifice[s] to our freedoms, if that’s the way to put it. We need to make some sacrifices to what we might want to have, in order to safeguard our children.” James Taylor...

Sorry,,, the vary opposite is true, and it has jack squat to do with "for the children" in the Progressive eye.

So just what other "rights" would the Lefties care to give up? Why stop at self protection?
Why not the 1ST? Your pals down in Berkeley have already written that line.
" You can say anything you like, but only if WE agree with what you say."
( A Berkeley collage brat on video)

Russ Steele

Global Warming er' "climate change" is invading the US.

http://www.weather.com/maps/maptype/currentweatherusnational/uscurrenttemperatures_large.html

Gregory

"Why do you resist us? We only with to improve the quality of life for all species."
-Locutus of SBC

BTW I'm not sure how often this happens but I managed to take a peek at Mono Lake on Sunday, and it appeared to be frozen over.

Ken Jones

Greg the Dow is up 71% since President Obama took office. UE is the same % as it was when Obama was elected. In fact President Obama oversaw more job creation in just 2010 than President Bush did in his entire 8 years. I guess you consider that shambles.
NASA, NOAA, the EPA and many other agencies agree that climate change is happening and man has an influence.
A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
Just one of several studies. But instead go with Limbaugh on this one.

Gregory

KJ, the unemployment rate is the same because they've stopped counting so many long term unemployed said to have stopped looking for work, and the Dow, loaded with multinationals is heavily weighed towards foreign earnings.

There are fewer Americans with full time equivalent jobs now than when Obama took office. Gasoline also costs about twice as much. Middle class standards of living are down.

That isn't success.

Paul Emery

Russ

Currently public opinion is supporting the case that global warming is real, including nearly half of the Republicans. If this continues it will reflect in the '14 elections. What do you think can happen that will sway public opinion to your position?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/15/poll-half-of-republicans-believe-in-global-warming

Russ Steele

Ken@12:02PM

You wrote “A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Are you aware that only 77 of the 3146 scientist answered the silly question, and only 75 responded in the positive. Thus your silly number of 97.5%. On the other hand, 97.7% of the scientist asked thought the question too stupid to answer.

Russ Steele

Ken@12:03PM

It appears that NASA is having some second thoughts about the Sun's impact on the climate.

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny solar variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.
...
One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.
...
Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle.

The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them.
...
Dan Lubin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography pointed out the value of looking at sun-like stars elsewhere in the Milky Way to determine the frequency of similar grand minima. “Early estimates of grand minimum frequency in solar-type stars ranged from 10% to 30%, implying the sun’s influence could be overpowering. More recent studies using data from Hipparcos (a European Space Agency astrometry satellite) and properly accounting for the metallicity of the stars, place the estimate in the range of less than 3%.” This is not a large number, but it is significant.

Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years.
...
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”

I would like to remind you all that we had a Little Ice Age during the last Maunder Minimum. You can follow the Next Grand Minimum http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com

H/T to Tom Nelson for the NASA Report Summary.

Walt

Ken,, Gotta love your "employment report".
As usual,, fuzzy math is a LIBS best friend.
Our REAL U.P. number is closer to 14.6%

The Dow you say? Sorry Capitalists will buck the system and make a buck
despite Liberal attempts to regulate them to their knees, and bow to their will.

So.... How bout that "state established religion" known as AGW?

Fuzz

George, considering item #1 on your list, I'm curious what your defined stance is on regulation.  I agree that we are, in total, over-regulated, but let's take the EPA as a specific example.  By calling for it's elimination, are you:
a)  saying environmental regulation should be purely at the state level?
b)  saying there shouldn't be any environmental regulation period? 
How would you handle the threats to environmental quality, from industry and society, which could have mild to disastrous effects?

Russ Steele

Paul@12;56PM

I would believe also, if my only source of information was the lames stream media. The low information voter seems to be influenced by the weather outside their window. Last years was a warm winter in the US. This year it is going back to much colder. We are going back to the climate of the 1950 to the 1970s, when the lame stream press was clamoring about the coming ice age. Not sure the opinions will turn around by 2014, but as Obama shuts down the coal plants and the price of electrical energy soars, like Obama promised, then attitudes will change. I am betting on Mother Nature to demonstrate the failure of AGW. When cold and miserable, huddled in a cold house, unable to pay the fuel bill, even the low information voter is not going to believe in AGW.

Account Deleted

For Steve Frisch at 9:20 - That was a joke, right? Ha Ha.
For Ryan Mount at 10:04 - I'm afraid we're not on the same page here. Modern Western Thought started around the time of Socrates. Although he certainly wasn't the only adherent of that way of thinking. "Socrates defined true knowledge as eternal, unchanging, and absolute compared to opinions which are temporal, changing, and relative". http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/socrates
We are moving to an era populated by what is coming to be called Post-Modern. Or as it was called back in the 60's - 'The Church Of What's Happening Now'. There have been plenty of both ways of thought (and others as well) all along, but one way dominated for centuries and it looks like another way may come to dominate in the future.

Walt

And just how many coal plants have been shuttered? OH YAA,,, Convert them to NG.. That's all good and well, but how many years will the "permit process" and all the fun that goes with it just to put the pipes in the ground?
How bout the one near the Grand Canyon owned ( sort of) by the Indians?
Over a Billion bucks to bring it into compliance...( Never mind the fact that its'e one of the most "compliant" there is.

Walt

Here are a few of the attacks they tried to pass against the 2ND Amendment in NY.
These are the ones ( as far as I can tell) that DIDN'T make it into the books.
Then again, the week isn't over.
1.Confiscation of “assault weapons”
2.Confiscation [of] ten round clips
3.Statewide database for ALL Guns
4.Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be replaced to the public
5.Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
6.Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7.Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8.Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9.Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10.Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11.State issued pistol permits
12.Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13.Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14.Mandatory locking of guns at home
15.Fee for licensing, registering weapons

Now here in Ca,, There is a numbnut LIB that wants to make a law
that will require us to get a PERMIT just to by ammo. Stalin would be so proud.

Gregory

"Currently public opinion is supporting the case that global warming is real, including nearly half of the Republicans. If this continues it will reflect in the '14 elections." - Paul E

I don't rely on polling to separate fact from fantasy, and the polling is mostly fantasy. Tell millions of people the bad weather is due to global warming, they believe it.

When everyone can tell global warming isn't continuing, there will be one and only one set of politicians to be pissed at. I only hope the AGW alarmists don't take all of science down with their sinking ship, and it is taking on water faster than it can be bailed at the moment. When even Hansen has to admit there hasn't been warming in a decade, the end is near.

It's worth mentioning that the New York Times, in 1920, opined that rocket scientist (in the truest sense of the word) Robert Goddard was a crackpot, and that in the vacuum of space, where there was nothing to push against, rockets would not work. It wasn't until the Apollo mission of July 1969 taking Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins for a real E ticket ride that they published the following retraction:

"Correction. On Jan. 13, 1920, "Topics of the Times," an editorial-page feature of the The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows:

"That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react - to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error."

The Times will eventually be writing a similar retraction for their Global Warming alarmism, just not today.

Paul Emery

George

2. Develop a new tax code that is simple, as flat as possible, and eliminates the convolutions of federal favoritism, behavior modifications, and inhibitions to re-enter the workforce.

In your view would this mean an increase in taxes on low income Americans and an decrease on the wealthy?

Gregory

Walt, I happened into a WalMart today and before I did the shopping I had a list for I went to their sporting goods section to have a look at their ammo prices, since they have a reputation for being a leading ammo retailer... the prices were OK but the shelves were bare. No rimfire ammo at all. Not a single box of any common rifle and pistol round save a handful of boxes of .243 Win and 30-06. They had a couple boxes of .45 Colt, too. I'd say they were 98% sold out.

Ken Jones

Walt when you can determine the difference between vary and very we might be able to have a conversation. You have issues with basic math Walt. 7.9% is the same as 7.9%. You state your "real" numbers but the fact remains the standard for measuring UE is 7.9%. In addition, you claim this AGW religion nonsense yet you kneel at the altar of Beck and the Birther BS you still don't reject. I trust the vast majority of scientists in regards to climate change regardless of the junk science provide by some on this board.

George Rebane

Fuzz 114pm - Not wanting to rewrite America's regulations in this comment stream, I was referring to a mix of combining and eliminating certain departments and agencies. Very definitely the EPA would be on my elimination list - they are an unconstitutional and rogue agency which has played havoc on our economy, liberties, and property rights. Necessary environmental regulations can be parceled out to the states and relevant agencies that oversee certain sectors of our countries enterprises and activities. A leviathan agency like the EPA has no place in a democratic republic that still seeks to live by laws passed by elected representatives.

PaulE 301pm - Again, not wanting to design the new tax code in this comment stream, for starters I would offer a flat tax with the caveats as defined by several of the right leaning organizations like Cato (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/flat-tax-is-answer , http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/flat-tax-is-answer ), Heritage (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/15/morning-bell-its-time-to-kiss-the-tax-code-goodbye/ ), Mercatus (http://mercatus.org/media_clipping/flat-tax-ideas-and-interest ). Each of them would have a low end cutoff for the really poor among us, that's why I said "as flat as possible". Would like to hear if you have any overarching specs for a new tax code (given that you believe a new one is required).

Paul Emery

Gregory

Polling was pretty accurate in the last election for sure. A measure of public opinion this time will be taken very seriously by Republicans in the next election and will reflect on their choices for political office to avoid the disaster of '12. The Dems won't get handed such a fat ball next time as the Repubs rush to the middle which will include acknowledging global warming.

George Rebane

PaulE 338pm - Yes, the Repubs are in a quandary about what ideology they want to represent. If they do as you predict, they will help launch a new party on the right. And if Obama the Autocratic Ideologue pushes too hard on his far left agenda, he might single-handedly launch a new center left party. That might give us the multi-party system, each with a narrower ideological focus, that some of us have promoted when the two tents got to be so large as to be meaningless in representing anyone's specific interests. And no doubt the road to such a multi-party future will be very rocky.

Gregory

"I trust the vast majority of scientists in regards to climate change regardless of the junk science provide by some on this board."

What Ken Jones is saying is that he trusts the scientists that the journalists he reads bother to report on.

Ken, did you ever take a real science class in college? By that, I mean a science class where *everyone* attending were majoring in chemistry, physics, engineering and mathematics, maybe some of the harder core biology tracks? "Your friend, the Amoeba" or other science appreciation classes don't count. In other words, would you recognize a scientist if you actually saw one? Could you jump high enough to kiss one on the bum?

There are literally over a thousand papers in peer reviewed journals that support skeptical and even scoffing views of IPCC brand AGW alarmism. It isn't "junk science", just science that's ignored, later attacked, by folks who have a need to believe what has been peddled by the IPCC since the '80's.

Walt

Ken, O' ken, OHHH KEN!!!! Are your really that ill informed? ( PLEASE say it's so)
"You have issues with basic math Walt. 7.9% is the same as 7.9%. You state your "real" numbers but the fact remains the standard for measuring UE is 7.9%."

I guess school is in session for ya'. The "published" UP may be 7.9%.
But that number ONLY reflects unemployment checks going out. That's it.
Those not receiving UP ARE NOT COUNTED. Those that have stopped even looking for employment ARE NOT COUNTED.
The number of people employed today don't even come close to the number only four years ago, where a LOT more people were working. ( like ME for instance) ( and somehow the "published" UP is the same as four years ago)
See how good things look when you take out those damned, dirty facts that make Government meddling the real bad guy?
When have the GOV bean counters ever been right? " The UP this month was "X"",
then the next week,, on a Friday quietly revise "X" to "Y" or "Z".
Once again you appear to be a victim of Progressive " information" They tell you only what their overseers want you to know. And you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Class Dismissed.

George Rebane

Re Gregory's 408pm, I might add that an alarming fraction of published research is just plain wrong. And you can bet the farm that this caution applies doubly to today's papers on general circulation models, let alone their exercise with dubious input data.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left believes that government sponsored research (i.e. fed money) is unbiased, yet corporate sponsored research is definitely not to be believed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/01/tenfold-increase-science-paper-retracted-fraud
http://www.economist.com/node/12376658

Russ Steele

Ken@3:30PM

Dear Ken,

As for the junks science presented on this board. You have the option to present your facts to refute that “junk science.” So far I have not seen any facts that hold up to examination. So, it is not junk science until you prove your case. Get with it and try harder!

Gregory

"The Dems won't get handed such a fat ball next time as the Repubs rush to the middle which will include acknowledging global warming."

It's more likely, based on what's coming down the pike, that "global warming" will be in full retreat with even most Democratic pols looking for the exits. Paul, it isn't happening. Even James Hansen is admitting temperatures have been flat over the past decade; of course, he of "death trains" of coal believes the warming will come back, and his funding continued, but he'll be the last one on the planet to admit he's been wrong for the past 25 years, ever since he gave that testimony in the Congress with the air conditioning turned off for effect.

Gregory

George, there's also this gem reported by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv:
"I saw [a] rejection ... of a paper written by a colleague that included the punch line: "any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected"

That's how you manufacture a consensus: demand peer reviewed papers, and deny access to journals of scientists who come to politically incorrect conclusions.

Again, Shaviv only became entangled in climate science when he found his research on galactic cosmic ray flux matched perfectly with the ocean temperatures of the past 500+ million years calculated by geochemist Jan Veizer. CO2 correlated poorly, which had been leading Veizer to consider abandoning his research because he wasn't getting the results everyone expected.

Gregory

" I might add that an alarming fraction of published research is just plain wrong."

George,and that has always been the case. IMHO much of science is about publishing original research, putting it out there where it can either be shot down, rallied around, or just ignored, the last of which is probably the most common result, either because it's wrong or inconsequential.

Ken Jones

Greg thanks for the snarky ill informed comments. Yes I took "real" science in college. Many science courses in fact. I really don't need your deprecating "humor" Greg. Just try being civilized for once. And I don't need you to state what I am saying; I am quite capable of stating what I believe without your editorial comments. In fact Greg you may need to pull your head out of the bums of those "scientists" you believe as the view has certainly clouded your judgment, or lack thereof.

Ken Jones

Walt you evidently never took a class in your life so you cannot dismiss what you do not understand.

Walt

Now that the people on the "right" and maybe even a "Centrist" or two
have laid out some facts that can be found at multiple but separate
places, it's time to sit back at watch the insults and attacks role in
with nothing of real "evidence" to the contrary of what has been laid forth.

Let the " mining" of the net begin.( it's about the only mining that's still legal in Ca. at this point, Thanks to Liberal thinking.)

Walt

LOL!!! Called that one! ( Kenny's little snipe wasn't there before I hit the send button)

Gregory

"Many science courses in fact." KJ

Really? Interesting. A few semesters of a calculus based physics, a few semesters of calculus based chemistry, including physical chemistry? Differential equations, ordinary, partial and mixed? Statistical mechanics, thermodynamics?

What did you major in? I gather you're in a "social science" practice now, were you ever a practitioner of a physical science?

BTW your snark regarding Limbaugh and junk science set the tone today.

Gregory

"Are you aware that only 77 of the 3146 scientist answered the silly question, and only 75 responded in the positive. Thus your silly number of 97.5%. On the other hand, 97.7% of the scientist asked thought the question too stupid to answer."

Russ, earlier today.

Russ, your analysis is way off base. All the the 3146 of the 10,000 invited to take the survey answered the questions; the issue is how many results had to be thrown out to get the 97/98% unanimity they were looking to get. Many questions were asked, but were not discussed outside the thesis. The two questions, boiled down, were
1) Has it gotten warmer since the end of the little ice age?, and,
2) Does man have a significant effect on climate?

In order to get 75/77 answering yes to both, they winnowed it down to practicing climate scientists who have published recently. Now, I've never claimed to be a climate scientist but I agree, the answer to both questions is yes, but it doesn't mean what Ken Jones wants it to mean.

The questions did not reference CO2, did not ask if a catastrophic warming is being risked by fossil fuel, did not even ask if most of the 20th century warming was anthropogenic in nature; just "significant". For example, if there was 3.3 degrees warming over a particular time, "significant" might be as small as 0.1 degrees, about 3% of the total. That's small, but "significant".

How many of the 75/77 that Ken Jones endows with such authority think substantially as I do, that the AGW scare is essentially incorrect, is unknown, and there's no way to check because the survey was completely anonymous and there's no way to poll the participants or even determine if they were honest in their self assessments.

Ken Jones

Greg your typical nasty comments set the tone everyday. Wouldn't expect less from you. I have no desire in discussing my academics with you either.

Gregory

Ken, they only appear "nasty" because after all the crap I've taken from alarmists like you, I just don't pull my punches.

I suspect you took bio or environmental science classes, and that just doesn't cover much of the high ground. I've been told the chemistry department at UC Berkeley was always happy when a life science major would sign up for a real chem class instead of the watered down version designed for premeds wanting a better GPA that doesn't prepare for further study of the science. Many of them would have done fine in the classes intended for science majors.

Todd Juvinall

Greg, KJ did not even finish 8th grade science but like all his ilk, they are still smarter than any conservative scientist. He is simply a leftwing bloviator, Obama butt kisser. What a hoot.

Walt

UUUggggg.. Tought night Ken?

Ryan Mount

Scott 02:10 PM.

For the record I am a follower, like many post-moderns, of Classicism, even though I enjoy tearing it apart like a toddler does with a 1000 piece puzzle. (one might go mad trying to deconstruct Plato's Phaedrus and his discussion on the immortality of the soul.)

Above I was referring to the rather dark and cynical modernists who after experiencing two horrific World Wars, decided there was no center. No point, really. The following generation, the post-moderns, took it one step further by questioning the underpinning and assumptions of the entire Western belief system. It was not that God, or truth or a center wasn't there. It was a series questions: what is God and what is truth and what does one mean when we say things like higher or "center?" You might hear a post-modern say something like, "truth is contextual; the truth is a construction, not an absolute. What does absolute mean anyway?" But mostly post-moderns are assholes who ask a lot of questions about one's assumptions.

So I would caution against equating post-modernism with laziness. Nihilism? I'll take that criticism; don't agree, but I'm used to hearing that as well as being called a parasite on western culture.

Of course this esoteric rant is germane to our first post-modern President. We had a taste of it with Clinton, but now Obama's a full-throttle anti-colonialist, deconstructionist, liberation theology touting ideologue...who tends, for the most part, to keep his post-modernism cards close to his chest. He's moderated his positions to some extent, but there are plenty of clues if we dig into his past notably his books and his past activism.

In the European/Anglo/Western Tradition

- Greece (lots of smart bad asses)
- Rome (lots of smart bad asses who copied the Greek bad asses, sans Cicero)
- Middle Ages - 5th Century - 14th Century (horrible time. Chaucer...thank god for Chaucer)
- Renaissance & Restoration 14th Century - 1650ish (Shakespeare, da Vinci
- Classic/Enlightenment 1650ish - 1790 (Locke, Newton, Voltaire, Jefferson, Madison)
- Romantics 1790ish - 1830 (Blake, Goethe, Beethoven, Napoleon)
- Transcendentalist 1830/40 (Emerson, Liszt)
- Victorians = 1837 -1901 (Darwin, Curie, Dickens, literacy, Lincoln)
- Modernist = post WWI - WWII (Joyce, Lévi-Strauss, Hitler, Hemingway)
- Post-Moderns = > WWII - now (Derrida, Barthes, any number of ephemeral pop stars, Dr. Oz, Elvis. Paul Ryan...yes, Paul Ryan. Obama.)

Joe Koyote

This place more resembles the green room before a WWF cagematch than a place for intelligent conversation. When people resort to personal attacks and name calling, it usually means that they don't really have any rational or logical defense of their position so they try and quiet opposition with verbal intimidation. What a hoot.

Ben Emery

Ryan,
May I suggest

The Fourth Turning:
An American Prophecy—What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny

I bet you would find it fascinating

Looking back to the dawn of the modern world, The Fourth Turning reveals a distinct pattern in human history, cycles lasting about the length of a long human life. Each cycle is composed of four “turnings,” and each turning lasts the span of a generation (about 20 years). There are four kinds of turnings (High, Awakening, Unraveling, Crisis), and they always occur in the same order.

http://store.lifecourse.com/products/15/The-Fourth-Turning.html

Gregory

Ryan, dig out "Medieval Technology and Social Change" by Lynn White, it will change your mind about the medieval period. Without the innovation of the medieval, there would not have been the Renaissance. My favorite history prof was a medievalist who got his PhD with White at UCLA.

Architecture (think all those gothic cathedrals), music (the first to put their name on a piece of music was Perotin, the organist at the cathedral of Notre Dame in the late 12th century; one of his reviewers wrote "When you hear the soft harmonies of the various singers, some taking high and others low parts, some singing in advance, some following in the rear, others with pauses and interludes, you would think yourself listening to a concert of sirens rather than men, and wonder at the powers of voices … whatever is most tuneful among birds, could not equal. Such is the facility of running up and down the scale; so wonderful the shortening or multiplying of notes, the repetition of the phrases, or their emphatic utterance: the treble and shrill notes are so mingled with tenor and bass, that the ears lost their power of judging. When this goes to excess it is more fitted to excite lust than devotion; but if it is kept in the limits of moderation, it drives away care from the soul and the solicitudes of life, confers joy and peace and exultation in God, and transports the soul to the society of angels"

Perotin's music can only be approximated as the technology of musical notation was in its infancy, helped along by the likes of Perotin. Gregorian Chants are lovely but Perotin layered three and four part polyphony on top of chants.

The heavy plow, a medieval invention, expanded agriculture and allowed better nutrition; the invention of the stirrup in a roundabout way (one of White's observations) helped sew the seeds of feudalism and the breakup of the vast holdings of the church.

Whisky, too. Chaucer chose well for his stories but was far from being the sole salvation of the period.

Ken Jones

Hardly Walt, quite comical and expected.

Gregory

Ken, if you're just going to toss spitballs, we'll have to start talking about those science classes of yours.

George Rebane

BenE 920pm - The book sounds fascinating. Read parts of the first chapter, ordered it. Thanks.

n

BenE 920pm

Google 'cliodynamics'. Peter Turchin has several books on amazon.

George Rebane

Cliodynamics has been a fascinating siren song for historians and systems types for some years now. The field essentially tries to predict the future of broad historical arcs down to the fate of individual countries/empires using the tools of systems science. The approaches vary from attempting to extract repetitive paradigms from historical data, to developing agent based models and running them forward to see what will happen. Both approaches, of course, can be and are back tested. (This much like that done with general circulation models used in climate change studies.)

The major problem with such approaches (also used in the attempts to find securities market prediction tools) is that their 'subjects' are systems that can be considered both self-aware and intelligent. Such subjects can and will game the system to their benefit if they discover the predicted outcomes. Depending on the level/scope of such discoveries and commensurate responses, such gaming will change the modeled, and therefore predicted, outcomes in unpredictable ways.

NN Taleb (of Black Swan fame) has long studied such processes in the context of markets and public policies. I have covered some of his work here, and will soon offer up some more thoughts on his formulation of stochastic adaptivity of systems which he has presented within the notions of fragility and "antifragility".

Russ Steele

BenE@9:20PM

Interesting book, I download the Kindle edition from Amazon. I have always been interest in the role climate made in historical cycles. Will be looking to see if the author recognizes Mother Natures role in history.

Douglas Keachie

Anyone who can predict the markets is not going to tell anyone else about it. As I pointed out before, all the large brokerage houses have a huge leg up in this endeavor. They don't have to wait to see what buys and sells. They know in advance what orders their customers have placed. No wonder they are rich, and to the outsider, the game is totally rigged, in favor of the brokerage houses.

Ben Emery

Thanks George,
What I found with the fourth turning it really stays true to the archetypes of each generation and doesn't try to predict specific events. Generational memes that in turn produce the High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis archetypes. It is the previous generation overall meme that creates ours and ours will create the next generations.

I never heard of the term Cliodynamics before but have always been a student of macro economics, sociology, and human ecology that shaped our ancestors.

George Rebane

BenE 1007am - Yes, the paradigmatic approach in what is now cliodynamics has been described, if not studied in mathematical detail, for centuries by various thinkers. I agree that this kind of analysis and prediction is the best approach, and possibly the best that can be done for chaotic systems. Your suggestion that the survival and interaction of cultural memes (if I understand you correctly) has explanatory power comports with what Julian Jaynes and Richard Dawkins taught, and that now is studied in the field of memetics. That such memes become predominant and interact periodically (or cyclically) may be a productive way of paradigm modeling in cliodynamics and possibly bridge the two fields. Good thoughts Ben.

To repeat, my disdain for agent based cliodynamic models is that they can be very complex (high bamboozle power), and produce output that looks like (has the attributes of) past historical epochs. But such outputs are seldom reliable predictors of anything to come. They are, however, grist for the minds of light thinkers, especially those with an agenda to bolster.

A good example is the use of the various general circulation models by the IPCC to promote the acceptance of public policies for controlling AGW. GCMs output very believable data that looks similar to past weather and climate dynamics, but have proven very unreliable for predicting the future. However, one can always learn to 'twist the knobs' on such models to produce any desired output.

Walt

Funny how the GW gang hasn't been on their soap box if the GW "computer" models
had "predicted" today's ( at least this last year's) weather/climate.
As they say,,, Garbage in, garbage out.
If the had been anywhere close, they would be using that "proof" today.
And just think of the millions of dollars spent on a computer game.
Funny thing about those boxes of microchips, you can make them spit out anything you want them to, no matter what "data" you shove in. It all in the "programming"
It's a good thing us humans are not susceptible to said monkey business. ( unless you carry that recessive LIB gene, then all bets are off.

Paul Emery

RE: Gregory | 22 January 2013 at 04:31 PM

"It's more likely, based on what's coming down the pike, that "global warming" will be in full retreat with even most Democratic pols looking for the exits."

Gregory, if the messengers (media) are bias as you claim how will this revelation be communicated? Right now public opinion is going he other direction and has momentum in the media and the polls. Even if what you claim is true it will take years to communicate and in the meantime the Pubbers will flop over and accept global warming because they want to be popular and win elections.

Walt

Hear what Hillary said? " Only two terrorist attacks have been made public"
Feel safer now? And they call us "prepers" crazy. ( You better hope we are)

George Rebane

re PaulE's 1114am - Unfortunately, or fortunately as the case may be, the momentum of public opinion is very small, which is another way of saying that public opinion can turn and has turned on a dime - it is pliable and fickle. That is the fundamental reason why leaders throughout history, also joined by our Founders, have argued against direct democracy as a beneficial form of governance.

However, expecting the nation's rapid return to a professional fourth estate that seeks truth wherever it leads is expecting too much. The lamestream is totally in the tank for collective causes. Its rank in public esteem is below that of Congress, politicians, and even lawyers. And it is the lamestream that has its hands on the shaping public opinion.

So with at least two generations of journalists pledging their demonstrated allegiance to bigger government and socialistic goals, to that extent we may agree that the public will not see a balanced and objectively correct presentation of the science behind all (alleged) aspects of climate change any time soon.

Gregory

"Gregory, if the messengers (media) are bias as you claim how will this revelation be communicated?" Paul E 11:14

Paul, the revelation is happening slowly and surely; had there not been the frenzy of misattribution of Hurricane Sandy to "climate change", it wouldn't even have been a topic before the election.

Between Jon Stewart and Jay Leno, the word can get out pretty quickly and, in any case, when even James Hansen is admitting no (statistically significant) warming in the past 10 years, and the Climategaters are admitting no warming in the past 16 years, it's only a matter of time before even journalists get the message.

Gregory

"GCMs output very believable data that looks similar to past weather and climate dynamics, but have proven very unreliable for predicting the future."

Of course they look similar to past climate, they are tweaked, or "parameterized" or, as you put it, the knobs are twisted, in order to match past records. The problem is that every time they publish results, like in 2007 in the IPCC's AR4, they show predictions of warming that, when compared to the reality of 2013, are wrong.

The models overestimate warming because they are wrong. In fact, all models are wrong, it's just an issue of how much. In the case of the General Circulation Models, they show the current temps as being below the lowest possible temperature the models predict after 6 years, so it might be time to stop using them to predict temps in 2050 or 2100.

Paul Emery

Gregory

Ths poll I was referring to happened before Hurricane Sandy so it's a reasonable assumption that Sandy will tilt it even more in support of global warming.

"According to the poll, conducted between October 4 and October 7, 67 percent of all Americans and 48 percent of Republicans say that the Earth is warming, a 4 percentage-point jump from last year and a 10 percentage-point jump from 2009"

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/15/poll-half-of-republicans-believe-in-global-warming

Gregory

I remember now, there was a heat wave in July that got a lot of press, followed by a bunch of polls. Imagine, a heat wave in the summertime, who'd have thought that could happen?

Paul, in case you were wondering, that's where the junk science lives; pushing true junk science, 'it's hot, must be that global warming, is this the future?', then followed with polls to see how many people bought the message.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". The end of the hysteria is near; it won't survive another 18 months of *global* cooling.

Russ Steele

Paul@02:02PM

The planet has been warming since the end of the little ice age, but the trend seems to have topped out and now starting to trend downward. This trend is forecast to start accelerating and is it has in all past cooling cycles. But, we live in a chaotic universe and things can happen quite rapidly, volcanos erupt like those cutting loose on the Kamchatka Peninsula, combine that with a quiet sun and things could get rather cold over the next 20 years, starting with this year. But, I digress.

The real issues is not if the planet is warming, the issue is are humans causing the warming. On that issue only about 1/3 of the Republicans support that idea. Quite a step down from 1/2 believing in global warming.

Farther down the article is this bit of wisdom:

Despite the uptick, the numbers are still far below numbers from the middle of last decade, when 77 percent of all Americans and nearly two thirds of Republicans believed the Earth was warming. According to experts, those numbers fell around the time when the economy collapsed in 2008 and people began worrying about other issues.

"Adults have a limited attention span for public policy issues and tend to grow tired of the same issues if they persist over a number of years … it may be applicable to a long-term issue such as climate change," Jon Miller, a University of Michigan professor wrote in a July study about Generation X's thoughts on climate change.

For almost two decades, 17 years, the general public has been told that humans are causing global warming by expelling CO2 into the atmosphere, yet they are not seeing the forecast warming. Before the 2014 election there will be plenty of time for a crisis that will take Republican and Democrats minds off of the global warming issue, especially with cold winters and cool summers our side their windows. There will be bigger things to worry about, we live a chaotic universe.

Paul Emery

I am not expressing my opinion of Global Warming here but I do have observations as to the public opinion on this matter and how it may play into the next election cycle

Gregory

I think you underestimate the support for global warming awareness. What you envision is some sort of massive change of consciousness in a very short time. In your view don't the progressive control the media? Do you think institutions like NASA are going to say whoops we were wrong?

Nasa writes

"The statistics show that the recent bouts of extremely warm summers, including the intense heat wave afflicting the U.S. Midwest this year, very likely are the consequence of global warming, according to lead author James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

"This summer people are seeing extreme heat and agricultural impacts," Hansen says. "We're asserting that this is causally connected to global warming, and in this paper we present the scientific evidence for that."

Gregory

"I am not expressing my opinion of Global Warming here"

Paul, but you should. What is Paul Emery's opinion on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

"I think you underestimate the support for global warming awareness."

Not at all. I don't underestimate it, I condemn it for being based on falsified science.

To quote James Hansen's latest paper, "The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing." In other words, the lack of any real warming signal is making it hard to press down with our thumbs on the scale to keep producing warming signals in the terrestrial measurements.

Perhaps Russ can dig up the graph of the GISS temperature corrections being applied, by year. The NASA-GISS "corrections" account for nearly the entire warming signal. If you look at rural temperature sensors that have been in the same site and operating for a century, there's little warming to be found in the raw data.

Is it faked? I don't think so, it's just really sloppy science and when people get the results they expect they tend not to look for things to fix.


The comments to this entry are closed.