Yes JC advocates – but only against advocacy. Bear in mind tht what came first is alarmist advocacy. Were that to cease and proper science processes and integrity reinstated no counter-advocacy advocacy would be needed.
Comment on RICO! by Punksta
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by mosomoso
Thanks for the tip re MSF, Faustino. And thanks for volunteering!
↧
Comment on RICO! by maksimovich1
The OHC rise is inhomogeneous ,the rise is in the SH extratropical SO (66-98%) Roemmich 2015.
This is consistent with westerly wind forcing,and transport into the SO is ballistic not conduction,and the so called forcing is abated during summer/autumn ie it has a winter/ spring bias when external forcing is least.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by harkin1
“The problem in California is not a lack of water, it’s a huge number of people living off a limited supply of water”
We also have a governor who scolds Californians for using much more water than past projections by federal and state water experts yet out of the other side of his piehole welcomes millions of illegal immigrants without noticing any irony.
↧
Comment on RICO! by AK
<blockquote>What I have suggested is a Transaction tax on the largest market in the world.</blockquote>But it's a market in <b>capital.</b> More importantly, it's part of a system of reallocation of wealth pursuant to risk management: the alienation of risk from investment/return.
As such, a very good case could be made that, like <a href="http://www.progressivelibertarian.com/taxes/" rel="nofollow">“<i>Corporate Income Tax</i>”</a>, it should be prohibited. I'm not saying yea or nay to the idea <i>per se</i>, my point is that the decision whether to tax such transactions is ultimately <b>Keynesian</b>: if they result in desirable economic effects, don't tax them; if their effects are undesirable tax them.
Taxing transactions involved in risk management (alienation of risk from capital investment) would add an artificial transaction cost to such trades. This friction, in turn, would have follow-on effects on the overall structure of investment and risk management.
Are these effects good/desirable? Bad/undesirable? Do you even know? With what uncertainty? It's questions like these that demonstrate the ultimate unfairness of taxes: they all have “<i>Keynesian</i>” effects. Even if you're sure what those effects are (and if you are you're wrong), who says what's desirable vs. undesirable?
P.S. Keynes is the root of all evil.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
This is a disturbingly common problem. For instance, it showed up in the book Climate Change: The Facts which had authors like Anthony Watts, Mark Steyn, Ross McKitrick an Jo Nova. These are all people who want you to take them seriously on the global warming issue, but then they all sign onto a book which says things like (Chapter 5):
These authors considered January 1969 temperature data for measurement and sampling error, temperature bias effects, and the effect of limited observational coverage on large-scale averages. The analysis revealed worldwide errors in the range of 1-5C for individual sampled area-boxes, i.e. errors that far exceed the total claimed twentieth century warming of -0.7C.
Despite the claim otherwise by Brohan et al. in their 2006 paper, “Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes”, these results indicate that no statistically significant modern warming will be able to be inferred on the basis of HadCRUT or similar thermometer-based records until the current temperature rises over 1°C above that for 1969.
The “individual sampled area-boxes” in the sudy it refers to are 1°x 1° boxes. There are 360 longitude degrees and 180 latitude degrees. That means there are 180 x 360 = 64,800 of these area-boxes. That means the book uses the uncertainty we have if we look at less than .2% of the globe to claim we can’t know global warming has happened.
Given leading names in the skeptic movement sign onto that, it’s no surprise some skeptics saw this paper as so significant. It’s just more of the same ridiculous tactic of conflating small areas with the entire globe when doing so is convenient, something the skeptic movement apparently endorses.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by jim2
Note the article is about post-industrial US. Thus, the writers (article and critic) sidestep the outsourcing and automation that has taken away much assembly line work – work that individuals with a lower IQ can do.
But I have to agree that IQ and aptitude in general varies among individuals and to a large extent determines the sort of calling one can fulfill. This is why the one-test-fits-all idi-ocy of our public schools is doomed to fail from the start – or the tests watered down to the point of meaninglessness.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
I believe this is the movie illustrating CCM. The link in the paper doesn’t work apparently.
↧
Comment on RICO! by ordvic
AK,
Yes perhaps in an ideal world there would be no taxation. The US government grew from when Hamilton took over the custom houses. We have always had taxation and some forms of welfare. Not to mention to pay for a standing military. I don’t see an end to social security or any other sort of welfare any time soon. It’s what the American people want. I’m no fan of Keynes but unfortunately we’ve been playing by his rules for years.
Once again I am suggesting a very tiny percentage tax on the largest market in the world. Now I wouldn’t expect politicians, out of the goodness of their hearts, to suddenly change and give tax relief to the rest of us. Yes and perhaps they would just up their spending with a new source. I would hope for a transaction tax that would replace entirely income tax. At least you wouldn’t get taxed until you consume. End the IRS and start a Federal Bureau of Revenue to collect sales tax. That would also end government intrusion into our personal financial situations.
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
Alan Poirier:
Do not put words in my mouth. I do not deny climate changes. I never said that. I simply noted that due to egregious ‘administrative’ adjustments the land/sea temperature series currently in use have diverged so far from reality that they are no longer useful for any scientific purposes. I prefer to trust observation over algorithms that purport to reflect reality. That, no doubt, marginalizes me, but I prefer empiricism over computational models.
Actually, what marginalizes you is the fact you don’t know what you’re talking about. Whatever one’s views on data adjustments, it is quite easy to find data that is unadjusted, save in perhaps the most trivial of quality control senses (e.g. removing impossible data values).
Now, taking that data and creating your own global temperature series would take some work. It could be done though I haven’t done it myself because I’ve never had a reason to, but I’ve worked with such data for other purposes. I even have some loaded on my computer right now. I’m working on how I want to handle leap years in my code when dealing with unadjusted daily and sub-daily data I’m doing some stuff with. It’s not particularly fun.
But what it is is remarkable. I’m sitting here right now working on a project using data you say doesn’t exist.
↧
Comment on Hiatus revisionism by Eric Ollivet
Before getting “More in depth comparisons of individual models using different external forcings, and evaluations against all of the above data sets” one should first assess the validity of those data sets.
But the inconvenient truth is that data sets, especially those dealing with surface stations’ data, are highly questionable and indeed unreliable.
Two thirds of temperature anomalies are actually resulting from data corrections and not to raw measurements.
This means that, the 0.75°C warming “observed” since 1850 is indeed composed of a 0.25°C actual warming plus a 0.5°C positive (warming) correction…
With HADCRUT4 data series, the Hadley Centre has introduced new adjustments compared to previous HADCRUT3 data series :
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/mean:60/offset:0.025/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/mean:60
Curiously corrections are always in the warming direction… But where are the justifications ?
Has anyone assessed the validity of HACRUT4 adjustments compared to HADCRUT3 ones ?
I guess the answer is unfortunately that nobody knows except those who have defined the adjustments.
Moreover, data adjustments appears to be constantly and obviously “fluctuating” over time, and indeed corrupted.
When looking at US Temperature record as published in Hansen et al 1999 (graph fig. 6) :
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
● Warmest year is 1934
● In this graph,1998 only ranked 5th after 1934, 1921, 1931 and 1953…
Original data were also available at the following address but NASA has deleted the file beginning 2015…
Guess why…
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
In Hansen et al 2001, pretexting a “time of observation debiasing” (reaching up to +0.15°C), new adjustments made 1998 tight to 1934
This situation has been maintained up to 2007
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NEW_RANKINGS.pdf
In 2007, NASA GISS made a fruitless attempt to make 1998 ousting 1934 as Hottest U.S. Year
In [Link]
The “trick” has been discovered by McIntyre and NASA had to step back.
But the record published in 2012 finally reached the objective of ousting 1934 as warmest year in the US :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v2/Fig.D.txt
Compared to the 2000 publication :
– 1998 average temperature anomaly has been adjusted by +0.35°C
– 1934 average temperature anomaly has been adjusted by -0.21°C
NASA also deleted those inconvenient data, but the resulting curve can be seen in Hansen et al 2010.
Looking at individual surface stations data, one can also observe significant and questionable evolutions of adjustments.
Few examples of how to hide the inconvenient truth that temperature have been warmer in the past, despite limited anthropogenic signature :
Station Data: Reykjavik (64.1 N,21.9 W)
– Old adjustments : the 30’s are clearly warmer than current period.
– New adjustments : Current period becomes much warmer. But why ?
The data manipulation is even more obvious and significant for Capetown Airpt (33.9 S,18.5 E) in South Africa.
– Old adjustments show a typical W profile where the 30’s are clearly warmer than current period.
– New adjustments make the W shape disappear and give place to a quite constant warming, with current period much warmer.
This is not cherry picking: such examples, all extracted from NASA GISS data base, can unfortunately be multiplied.
Conclusion :
Temperature data sets are manipulated and corrupted by questionable adjustments and nice “tricks” whose aim is “to hide the decline”, as per famous Phil Jones Climategate email.
When observational records do not support AGW consensus then modify the data to make them better fit models outputs,…And then you can claim that models are duly validated and right…
That’s climate junk science, but indeed that’s not science.
Pertinent comparisons between models outputs and observational data cannot be made before reliable and validated data sets are available as reference.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by harkin1
The real Hockey Stick
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r168/harkinb/us%20debt_zpssxdy6qlm.jpg~original
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2
That comment could apply to the immigrants and resources of the entire US!!
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by AK
<blockquote>Yes perhaps in an ideal world there would be no taxation.</blockquote>I'm not talking about “<i>an ideal world</i>”, and I'm not talking about “<i>no taxation.</i>” I'm well aware that the issues in getting from where we are to someplace better far outweigh "ideals" (in either sense of the word).<blockquote>We have always had taxation and some forms of welfare. Not to mention to pay for a standing military.</blockquote>Don't forget that the writers of the Constitution intended <b>states</b> to be taxed, in proportion to their <b>populations.</b> Whether that system, long ago abandoned, is applicable to the modern world is another question.<blockquote>It’s what the American people want.</blockquote>But taxes have <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0wvO2Fat66AC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=whiskey+rebellion&ots=C_Rhp5a1Bh&sig=CdRbLM7NXdvXcYEjIabSYzM45vM#v=onepage&q=whiskey%20rebellion&f=false" rel="nofollow">always been controversial.</a><blockquote>Once again I am suggesting a very tiny percentage tax on the largest market in the world.</blockquote>And once again, you're saying nothing about how it will/would/might affect the economy. It sounds to me like a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tax" rel="nofollow">single tax</a> proposal, at least in ideal. But in addition to the problem that this tax would have unknown, and therefore unexpected, affects on the economy, we also have the problem that as soon as a tax is created, people start finding ways around it. They look for <b>instruments</b> that evade it. And many of them are smarter than both the legislators who create the tax, and the bureaucrats who (try to) administer it.
And you also have no idea (nobody does) what follow-on effects those new instruments, and other efforts to evade that <b>single</b> tax, will have on the economy.
↧
Comment on RICO! by Don Monfort
The stump says: “the derivatives market is said to be over a quadrillion dollar market.” The stump thinks that’s the amount of fat cat transactions begging to be taxed to solve all our financial problems. Stumps are not very clever.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by richardswarthout
Jim2
True. There are no clear answers. Notice one problem identified by Murray; that so few know how to get from point A to point D. And I would add that few young people even know point D. It took me several years before deciding on electrical engineer. And my experience is common. I believe middle schools and high schools should devote several hours a week guiding students toward a vocation. (In the USA middle school and high school roughly covers 12-18 year olds).
Richard
↧
Comment on RICO! by stevenreincarnated
Yes, exactly. So what specific allegations of misdeeds do the signers of the letter have?
↧
↧
Comment on RICO! by tumbleweedstumbling
You never get back 100% of your legal fees no matter what anyone says. I have been through a divorce and I assure you this is true. Any court action costs you money and lots of it.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Peter Lang
Here’s the case against any carbon pricing scheme – i.e. it almost certainly will not succeed!
“Why the world will not agree to carbon pricing (Part 1) ” https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-tax/world-not-agree-pricing-carbon-1/
“Why the world will not agree to carbon pricing (Part 2)” https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-tax/world-not-agree-pricing-carbon-ii/
↧
Comment on RICO! by beththeserf
‘Misleading’ a chameleon word – who gets to say when
this is okay?
Mike’s Nature truck, keith’s Science trick, see how the
work, tricky eh?
http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
