« Oregon Supreme Court ruling supports land use system | Main | K. Williams Brown gets Salem's light just right »

October 21, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I get more outraged by Ob*ma every day.

Now he is actually sympathising with the occupier movement, a movement of imbeciles who don't know the SEC from the Federal Reserve, and organized by people who want to destroy our economic system and thus, the country.

And the President of the United States is OK with that!!

And nobody is calling him on it?

Troubled times ahead. Guaranteed.

tucson, as noted in my post, a survey found that 59% of adults in the United States either mostly or completely agree with the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Do you really believe that this many people are imbeciles who want to destroy our economic system?

Myself, I don't think so. In my opinion, people are waking up to the damage that's been done by giving special advantages to the wealthiest people and corporations, while ignoring the needs of the middle class.

Depends on how polls are worded. It always depends on that.

For instance, you could ask me, "Do you sympathise with the protestors when they say that there is corruption in Wall Street that needs to be cleaned up?". My reply would be "yes" and I would be going along with the 59% you talk about. Most would agree with that.

Now, if you ask me if I agree with the stated purpose of the organizer's of the demonstrations who want to dismantle and "destroy" (words of the SEIU president) the american capitalist system. Then my reply would be "no".

Only 9% of those polled want that and they are imbeciles because what you have left is some form of Marxism/socialism/communism, dictatorship, tyranny or other form of feudal or tyranical rule. History has proven those things don't work. Unless you consider Gaddafi's 42 year reign a success, or the soviet unions', or nazi Germany, or Greece, or Spain, or Italy. or Ireland, or Portugal, or Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea. You get my drift.

A free market capitalist system is the best system for the greatest number of people to prosper, or at least have the chance to prosper. Some are going to fail, but that's life. At least you have the chance according to your talents and motivation.

Communists say "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and in this philosophy they seek to derive social justice and equality for all. But you show me one natural forest where all the trees are the same size and each growing in an ideal spot with everything it needs for good health. It doesn't happen. You have tall trees. You have small trees, you have weak trees and strong ones. They compete with each other for sunlight and water. Some succeed, some don't. That is natural. That is life.

Now when I say I favor capitalism, I am not talking about the type of crony-capitalism we have in Washington/Wall St. at present. I am talking about true laizzis-faire free market capitalism without collusion with government other than regulations regarding full disclosure and fraud.

An example of such corruption woud be the democrats Frank and Dodd who orchestrated with the banks the fannie-freddie debacle and the derivatives market house of cards based on those sub-prime mortgages that has largely contributed to the current economic malaise.

Or, more recently, the collusion with government which created the Solyndra solar co. fraud that ripped off the taxpayer more than a half billion.

This sort of thing needs regulatory oversight to prevent, but you don't accomplish it by demonstrating in a park whinning for more money from fat cats. You do it through via the system through the legislative process. Elect people who will effect this change.

Even if you taxed the fat cats 100% you still would not have enough money to put a dent in the debt. So, eventually the debt will crush any short term gain you would get by soaking up the fat cats' dough.

The fat cats ain't that fat.

Demanding stuff from other people because you don't have it or can't get it for yourself is caving in to your own weakness and inability to prosper. At this moment many honest people are prospering. Be one of them. You can. This is still the United STates of America.

Brian, the global warming study you cite is not peer reviewed or even yet published in a scientific journal. The authors have instead decided to go straight for headlines from the MSM, who in turn won't even print a back page retraction should peer review someday turn out to be less than stellar.

Which begs the question... what happened to your high scientific standards and accompanying reader warning?

"Caution: no peer-reviewed scientific evidence is cited here. So be highly doubtful that what is said is anything more than a personal opinion."

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/02/global_warming_.html

"Demanding stuff from other people because you don't have it or can't get it for yourself is caving in to your own weakness and inability to prosper. At this moment many honest people are prospering. Be one of them. You can. This is still the United STates of America."

If it were that simple, there would not be thousands and thousands of Americans marching in the streets.

Some folks think the protestors need to "shut up and get jobs." Well, for every single job opening there is, there are currently seven or eight people out of work and looking. No matter how hard you try, with those odds, your chances aren't good.

No, the system is rigged against us, and that's what people are protesting. We need to balance the so-called free market with an approach that's more focused on bringing the greatest amount of prosperity to the greatest amount of people possible. The so-called free market isn't built to do that. The so-called free market is built to concentrate the greatest amount of prosperity in the hands of the fewest amount of people. We've seen that in action through the "trickle down" economics of the last thirty years.

Let's look at your little forest story. The big trees get the sunshine and the water, and the little trees get what's left over. If anything. That's natural, you say. That's life.

Well, for something like 1800 years of written western history, the natural law was empire and monarchy, with wealth and resources and power concentrated in the hands of emperors and kings. And then America came onto the world stage and said "We, the people, can do better."

Our founding fathers weren't talking about emperors and kings. They were talking about farmers and soldiers and fishermen, coopers and smiths and tailors. Shopkeepers and businessmen. Everyone.

And now you have a bunch of people wanting to restore the imbalance of the previous seventeen centuries. The businesses kings and emperors get all the sunshine and water. That's natural, you say. That's life.

And we, the people occupying Wall Street and main streets across the country say "We, the people, can do better."

Say what you want, the reality as we've seen it in the last thirty years of unfettered so-called free market capitalism is that money is concentrated at the top and the other 99% of us increasingly fight over the scraps while the business kings and emperors drink their champagne and laugh at us.

We, the people, can do better.

DJ, it's interesting that so many global warming deniers who previously loved to cite non-peer reviewed studies because they supposedly undercut the peer-reviewed "climate change establishment" research now are great advocates for peer review.

That's great news. I assume global warming skeptics now will only consider research that has passed peer-review. Which, of course, throws out almost 100% of the studies cited by global warming skeptics.

This Berkeley research will be peer-reviewed. And it will pass muster, especially since it was carried out by people who originally thought they'd find problems with temperature data. Surprise! They didn't, and so correctly admitted that the consensus science on global warming trends is correct.

"If it were that simple, there would not be thousands and thousands of Americans marching in the streets."

--Most Americans are not marching in the streets. They're working. Except 9+ percent. That's high, but there is no solution now but to wait until all the bad paper is liquidated. Already the SEC has placed constraints on the derivatives markets. The distortion that created this mess need not happen again, but times will be lean until the dust clears. So, some will have to pick cucumbers for awile. Oh well.

"Some folks think the protestors need to "shut up and get jobs." Well, for every single job opening there is, there are currently seven or eight people out of work and looking. No matter how hard you try, with those odds, your chances aren't good."

--Maybe in certain fields, but if that were true systemically the unemployment rate by your numbers would be about 83%. You are being fed a bucket of possum piss (distorted statistics).

"No, the system is rigged against us, and that's what people are protesting."

--No, you can play the game and if you're good you can be a fat cat. Just think. You can be a fat cat if you want! Work hard and see. Start with cucumbers and work your way up to cucumber mogulship! Now. Take action!

"We need to balance the so-called free market with an approach that's more focused on bringing the greatest amount of prosperity to the greatest amount of people possible."

--By taking from the cucumber moguls and redistributing to the pickers? Hell, why bother to work hard at cucumbers if all I have to do is sit around and collect from the cucumber big shots. Of course, once they've been picked dry (the moguls that is) then the well has dried up. Just like Soviet Russia.

"The so-called free market isn't built to do that. The so-called free market is built to concentrate the greatest amount of prosperity in the hands of the fewest amount of people."

--I guess that's why the United States has been considered the land of opportunity for millions of immigrants for generations who have come here and succeeeded. Damn that unfair free market.

"We've seen that in action through the "trickle down" economics of the last thirty years.

--Times have been pretty good until recently. You have a short memory.

"Let's look at your little forest story. The big trees get the sunshine and the water, and the little trees get what's left over. If anything. That's natural, you say. That's life."

--Yes, and the forest is beautiful.

"Well, for something like 1800 years of written western history, the natural law was empire and monarchy, with wealth and resources and power concentrated in the hands of emperors and kings. And then America came onto the world stage and said "We, the people, can do better.""

--Now you're talkin'

"Our founding fathers weren't talking about emperors and kings. They were talking about farmers and soldiers and fishermen, coopers and smiths and tailors. Shopkeepers and businessmen. Everyone."

--Of course.

"And now you have a bunch of people wanting to restore the imbalance of the previous seventeen centuries. The businesses kings and emperors get all the sunshine and water. That's natural, you say. That's life."

--You will always have people craving power in any system and getting it, but ours is the best yet devised. It is like a beautiful woman who has been abused, but after a period of recovery, of healing,of austerity, she can become as beautiful as ever. Don't cast her away because she was taken advantage of."

"And we, the people occupying Wall Street and main streets across the country say "We, the people, can do better.""

--Well, if you tear down the system that gives you the liberty to march and occupy, what might the new one look like? Maybe you won't be so lucky. One thing is certain, there will still be fat cats of one kind or another. And you still won't be happy.

"Say what you want, the reality as we've seen it in the last thirty years of unfettered so-called free market capitalism is that money is concentrated at the top and the other 99% of us increasingly fight over the scraps while the business kings and emperors drink their champagne and laugh at us."

--I'm sorry you live in such a bad neighborhood. I see many where the standard of living is quite comfortable. Heck, the host of this blog,who protests the pall of misery cast upon the land by the evil rich, just bought a new car, hangs out at coffee shops when he's not taking tai chi or dancing lessons or vacationing on Maui. An awfull life, just terible.

"We, the people, can do better."

--Yes, but not through destruction. That's called a hissy fit by a whinning child who wants their applesauce sweet and spoonfed.

First, Brian, one can’t help but notice how quickly you abandon your peer review principles out of convenience. Please don’t lay it at the feet of AGW skeptics. AGW skeptics are supported by extensive peer reviewed study. To say otherwise displays either ignorance or willful deception.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Second, the study you cite seems like some sort of breakthrough… after all it is actually four separate studies that agree with each other. But when you realize that all four studies are merely data analysis of virtually the same NCDC data set – what else would one expect? AGW skeptics issued a peer reviewed study revealing concerns about reliance on this data set back in 2007.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf

Third, there’s a reason it’s called, “AGW.” True-believers try to portray otherwise, but AGW skeptics aren’t skeptical about the GW/Global Warming part of AGW; the globe has warmed quite a bit since 1600 after all. They’re skeptical about the A/Anthropogenic part and the effect (both positive and negative) such warming will have.

Is Richard Muller (a lead author of the four studies) skeptical about the “A” and the effects of warming as well? Based on his WSJ opinion piece we don’t know. Here’s how he closes that article: “Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

There you have it, “Global warming is real.” WOOHOO – What a Breakthrough!!!

PS, I’d love to comment on OWS also, but tucson seems to have my take on it well incorporated already.

DJ, you're free to keep on fighting against reality, but eventually the truth has a way of winning out.

I'm so sure of that, want to bet $100 that the scientific peer-review process eventually will determine that the climate change skeptics are right, and that humans actually are not responsible for the rise in global temperatures that even skeptics now admit is occurring?

Let's give the skeptics two years to show their scientific stuff. So if by October 23, 2013 there isn't a scientific consensus that the skeptics are right, you send me $100 (in cash, please).

We can have the bet notarized and all that. Want to play?

Brian, your ongoing narrative is funny. All sides agree the earth has most recently been warming since 1600 and you say “skeptics now admit” it’s occurring.

How do you propose to judge whether the skeptics prove their argument when you don’t understand what they believe or where they’re at odds with true believers? Heck, you didn’t even understand the very limited conclusion of the study you cited above.

As for the fallacy of scientific consensus, the late great Michael Crichton said it best:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period... I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way...”
http://afterall.net/quotes/490996

DJ, by and large, the scientific consensus based on peer-reviewed research is correct, and the naysayers are wrong.

You're incorrect when you claim that climatologists (98% of them, by all accounts) are unsure about the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming. This is so much a scientific fact, many peer-reviews simply take it for granted.

Check out these debunkings of skeptical arguments:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

I found this interesting:

"Even more fuss is made over the large percentage of neutral studies. Ironically, Oreskes emphasised the same point in 2004 when she published The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Nowadays, earth science papers are rarely found explicitly endorsing plate tectonics as the theory is established and taken for granted. The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc)."

And here's the entire second linked debunking, to make it convenient for blog readers who want to know the truth:

"Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did!

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change."

"human activities are causing climate change."

--They could be, in the same way a few extra drops causes an already full glass of water to spill over?


tucson, yes, that's pretty much what is happening. Human contributions to carbon dioxide emissions are relatively small, but the problem is that nature keeps things in balance, and we are upsetting that balance. This explains the situation well:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

Yup. Humans are upsetting the balance. That is why we exist. Nature, of course, will effect countermeasures by eventually eradicating most, or even all, of humanity. And then - life will have to find some new way to persist. (sic)

DJ, there's another untruth in your comment -- the assertion that global warming skeptics don't deny that the Earth is warming, just that humans are responsible for it. This is a rewriting of skeptic history, which the deniers are trying to do now that the Berkeley study confirms the accuracy of temperature measurements.

Here's the truth:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer.ars

Excerpt:

"With the papers released, however, a publicity war has broken out. Richard Muller, one of the leaders of Berkeley Earth, penned an editorial in which he ignores the previous work by NASA, NOAA, and others, and claims there was good reason to be skeptical of the temperature record. Until now, that is. Berkeley Earth has largely recapitulated that previous work, so now it can all be trusted, and climate skeptics should simply move on to something else. Muller may have been one of the only people to have actually done what anyone skeptical of the climate scientists should do—perform an independent check of their work—but his public spin on his results is completely unrealistic.

Of course, like the NOAA study before it, Berkeley Earth undercuts the whole rationale behind the Surface Station project, and the people behind that are not happy. After posting nearly any trivia that came along on their blog (called Watts Up With That, after its lead, Anthony Watts), they have suddenly gotten very upset that the four papers were released before going through peer review—at which point they think they should be rejected for publication.

Stranger still, Watts and a number of others are now disowning their past, claiming to never have doubted that the Earth had been warming, and complaining that Muller's editorial caricatures their view up as a straw man. That's hard to reconcile with Watts' past statements. In a document he prepared for a think tank, Watts had written, "Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant 'global warming' in the 20th century." Now, after Berkeley Earth's release, he claims to have never questioned that the Earth had warmed. Other prominent skeptics are saying similar things.

But Watts still doesn't trust Berkeley Earth's results. And, based on the comments on his blog, most of his readers don't either. That suggests that, contrary to Muller's expectations, this won't be the end of the skepticism of the temperature record.

What it may help do is drive those who keep questioning whether the Earth has warmed further to the fringes, where they can join those who question whether the greenhouse effect exists even after a century of work has confirmed that it does. That's a territory that doesn't merit the label skepticism anymore."

No, it merits being called craziness, a secular form of religious dogmatism that ignores facts and embraces beliefs via blind faith.

Brian, below/at bottom*** I’ve re-posted my prior comment from June that discredits your favorite source, skepticalscience.com. As Michael Crichton said, “Consensus is the business of politics.” There’s no better example of politics masquerading as consensus science than the incestuous UN/IPCC/Jan Dash/skepticalscince.com example.

Jan Dash (the lobbyist who receives UN money and writes skepticalscience.com) states, "Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.” Since scientists are still arguing (…please name a more argumentative contemporary scientific topic) isn’t this actually an admission by Dr. Dash that the science is in fact NOT settled? Oops. After all, why the need for so many “denier debunking” websites for a science that is settled?

As for whether AGW skeptics deny that the earth is warming – at best that’s an outdated lie. Singer and Avery even titled their book after it – “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every Fifteen Hundred Years.” Many AGW skeptics believe GHG’s may warm the earth, but unlike alarmists they question how much and the positive/negative effects. (Compare earth’s cold and warm climate periods and ask yourself – in which did mankind most flourish?) No, skeptics are not sheeple lining up to buy carbon credits (cha-ching) from their government masters and they’re not inclined to just take Green Billionaire Al Gore’s word for anything.

***Final thread comment at http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2011/06/republicans-reality-is-a-terrible-thing-for-the-us-to-lose.html:
And speaking of the UN, your source skepticalscience.com credits just one man for writing the 165 argument responses you rely on so heavily. His name is Dr. Jan Dash – he’s a PhD physicist – but his current credentials reveal where his true interests lie. Dash is a climate lobbyist at the United Nations Office of a global nonprofit/NGO – an organization that seeks to benefit by being on the receiving end of climate change legislation’s “spread the wealth” effect. Funny how all AGW roads seem to lead back to the UN. That’s not scientific consensus, it’s scientific incest. Just follow the money.
http://www.trunity.net/CoNGOSD/topics/view/59680/

DJ, you can keep on denying reality all you want, but the global warming skeptic game is over. OVER.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scientific-finding-that-settles-the-climate-change-debate/2011/03/01/gIQAd6QfDM_story.html

The world's climatologists were right all along. The fossil-fuel funded skeptics for hire were wrong. The truth is simple.

Brian, have you stopped taking/making comments on this post? I replied shortly after your last comment above. I got the usual "comments are moderated" notice but my comment never did show up. Can you check on it? Thanks --DJ

DJ, I don't see any unpublished comments from you. Will check more closely later.

[Note from Blogger Brian: more untruths from DJ. Before reading what follows and having your mind filled with anti-science, big-oil lies, read the following links with actual FACTS about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study headed by Richard Muller.

From now on I won't be publishing any more untruths from DJ until he sends me a link to his Facebook page, so this can be included with any future comments from him. Many blog services and newspapers (but not the one I use, unfortunately) are moving to require a Facebook login so real people are associated with their comments.

This is a good idea. If someone is going to obsessively keep posting lies about global warming on my blog, I and other readers of the blog deserve to know who that person is.

Moving on...

In the New York Daily News, after the study results were released, a story says:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870
--------------------------
"One of the most prominent global warming skeptics is changing is his tune.

Richard Muller, a physicist who spent two years trying to see if mainstream climate scientists were wrong about the earth's climate changes, determined that they were right, the Associated Press reported.

His findings showed the temperature had risen about 1.6 degrees since the 1950s.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller told the AP. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Scientists said that Muller can expect some serious backlash from the scientific community - especially climate change deniers.

"Now he's considered a traitor," said author Shawn Lawrence Otto, who wrote a book criticizing climate change deniers.

"For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

Muller said he was never a denier - he just wanted the studies to be done properly.

Now the scientist, who received part of his funding from a foundation funded by David and Charles Koch, prominent billionaire backers of the Tea Party, is recommending what many climate scientists have done before: decreasing greenhouse gases."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870#ixzz1rBpaeac1

And here's an analysis from the highly respected Climate Progress blog. These points are right-on, and apply to people like DJ who are desperate to deny scientific truth, stopping at nothing to fool the public and continue putting oil company profits ahead of keeping the planet habitable for humanity.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/30/356783/koch-fueled-study-finds-recent-warming-on-the-high-judith-curry/

"We have learned two important things from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST):

Denier claims that prior scientific analysis of the key land surface temperature data OVER-estimated the warming trend were not merely wrong, but the reverse was true. Warming has been high and accelerating.

The Deniers and Confusionists and their media allies can never be convinced by the facts and will twist themselves into pretzels to keep spreading disinformation."
----------------------
[Here's the disinformation from DJ, a Denier and Confusionist. I recommend skipping it, if you want to know the truth about global warming. Head to Climate Progress and Skeptical Science for fact-based discussions of the Earth's changing climate. -- Blogger Brian]
-----------------------

Some interesting follow-up here on the key topic discussed above, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study headed by Richard Muller. At the time of the study’s release, climate alarmists tried to portray it as proof that “human activities are causing climate change” even though Muller stated the study “made no independent assessment of that.” Alarmists also made hay attacking the likes of distinguished skeptic Anthony Watts (http://wattsupwiththat.com/).

What does Muller himself think today about Climategate, Anthony Watts, the scientific consensus on global warming, and other related topics? Here are excerpts of an interview with Muller from the current issue of Physics World:

- "I lost my trust," Muller says, referring to the alleged actions of the scientists at the centre of the "Climategate" scandal, which broke in 2009. Although all the CRU scientists involved have been exonerated by four independent inquiries, Muller, having read the leaked e-mails, is still scathing of these scientists and he is convinced that, while they did nothing illegal, they are still guilty of scientific malpractice and that big question marks remain over their scientific methods. "What bothers me is the way that they hid the data, and the way that they used the peer-review system to make sure that the sceptics' arguments - some of which I felt were valid - would not be published".

- Muller also had four specific concerns with the scientific consensus on global warming, which the BEST project was designed to address. The first - and most serious, he says - is the "stations issue", referring to a problem highlighted by controversial US blogger and former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts. In 2007 Watts initiated the Sur/acestatiQns.org project, which reported that 70% of temperature recording stations in the US were inaccurate to a level of 2--5°C. Muller says that the BEST team has now cleared up this issue by showing that when it comes to specifically measuring change in temperature, the 30% of good stations are not significantly more accurate than the 70% of bad stations. "lf Watts hadn't done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he's a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize."

- The second concern Muller refers to is the "data selection" employed by the three major groups collecting global temperature data: NASA; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US; and the Met Office's Hadley Centre in the UK. Muller says that the number of stations being used between 1980 and the present day has dropped from 6000 to less than 2000, with no explanation to be found anywhere in the literature. The third issue is that rapid urbanization in the regions surrounding temperature stations might have led to localized temperature increases, or what is known as the "urban heat island" effect. The fourth concern, which Muller calls "data correction", refers to the small adjustments that the climate groups make to temperature readings as a result of changes in instruments and locations. Muller says the records describing why individual corrections have been made are very poor.

- But while Muller has maintained his concern for the potential impacts of global warming, he always had doubts about some of the accepted scientific claims. He believes that too many of his colleagues have put their names to petitions calling for action on climate change without considering the legitimate scientific questions that are still outstanding. "I have a sense that many of my friends look at global warming and say 'this is so scary that we have to abandon the objectivity of science'," he says.

Muller is worried that these colleagues are abandoning their scientific minds and becoming politicians. This, he fears, is discrediting science in the eyes of the American public, resulting in a form of politics less informed by science.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/4/2/muller-on-watts.html

DJ, I'm about to post another of your anti-science comments, along with my truthful additions. I'm getting tired of having my blog being used for willful lies, so am going to ask you to include a link to your Facebook page along with any future comments.

As I note in the preface to the comment that will be published next: "From now on I won't be publishing any more untruths from DJ until he sends me a link to his Facebook page, so this can be included with any future comments from him. Many blog services and newspapers (but not the one I use, unfortunately) are moving to require a Facebook login so real people are associated with their comments.

This is a good idea. If someone is going to obsessively keep posting lies about global warming on my blog, I and other readers of the blog deserve to know who that person is."

Here's some additional info from the folks who did the Berkeley temperature study that confirmed the reality of global warming:

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary-20-october-2011.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary-20-october-2011.pdf

[DJ, I'm waiting for a link to your Facebook page, so I, and other readers, can verify your real-life identity. If you're a sincere citizen who has some un-scientific views about global warming, fine. You shouldn't mind being publicly identified as such.

However, there's a possibility that you're one of the "trolls" who frequents web sites and blogs, posting disinformation about global warming in an attempt to confuse the public. I'm just looking for evidence one way or the other.

The more personal information you're willing to share about yourself -- real name, address, profession, etc. -- the more I'll believe you're just a concerned citizen with uninformed views.
So, I'm waiting. -- Blogger Brian]

...[comment held until Facebook page verification is received, along with, possibly, proof that the Facebook page belongs to DJ. Some direct message emails between us could serve to prove that.]

--DJ

[DJ, as I said before, I'm simply asking for what the Salem Statesman Journal newspaper (along with most other Gannett papers), the popular Blue Oregon blog, and many other web sites/blogs require: a Facebook account "log-in," so a real name and real identity come along with a comment.

People who don't have anything to hide, or aren't Internet "trolls," have no problem with doing this. I sure don't. You do. Which tells me a lot about your motives for leaving anti-science, pro-oil lobby disinformation about global warming. I guess now your motivations are evident for all to see.

As to how I'd like you to proceed: send me a link to your Facebook account. If you don't have one, it's easy to open one. I'll then need to confirm that the email address used on the Facebook account belongs to you.

After that, you'll be commenting on this blog under your real name and identity. Since you claim to be conveying the truth about global warming, you should be happy to be upfront and open about the You who is doing the conveying. -- Blogger Brian]

Sure thing, Brian. Anything else? SSN? Credit report? Birth Certificate?

I'm just itching to put all my personal information out onto the blogosphere. Should I send it straight to Spike Lee or will you take care of that step?

Can't wait to get started...just let me know how you'd like me to proceed.

--DJ

"2012 election. I'm starting to feel better about where this country is heading,"
quote poster

I was a democrat all my life until a decade ago. Very much disliked
the corrupt Republicans.

Now, I dislike the Democrats just as much as the Republicans. Why ?

There is something you people don't know that's going on. I think
swamianami may be the only other person here whom is highly
knowledgeable in this subject and is actively involved in trying
to stop it, as I am.

It's called the Central Banks in Europe and the Federal Reserve Bank
in the USA. The Fed is privately owned by other private banks.

These people whom own the banks are called Elites, or the New World Order.

They buy the politicians. They give to both Republicans and Democrats.

All the politicians since Jimmy Carter, except Reagan, were, or are, members
of the New World Order. Kennedy and Eisenhower were outspoken severe
critics of the new World Order and warned us about them trying
to take over the world governments.

Since George Bush Sr. they are out in the open and make no bones
they want one world govenment. Including Obama.

Obama has passed NDAA, which allows him and military to kill anyone in the
world without trial, or lock up without trial any USA or world
citizen without habeus corpus. Posse Commitas is gone and now the military
are holding Black ops in downtown Los Angeles and around he country.

Obama just passed another bill he can confiscate any private asset
of any USA citizen.

FEMA camps that will hold over 10 million American citizens have been
built and are now being manned. National guard are being trained
in riot prevention.

Why is all this happening ?

Well, MIT Research has just finished a study showing hundreds of
millions of human beings are about to die before 2020.

The world financial systems are about to collaspe. The fiat currencies
are about to die a sudden and shocking death.

The USA is over 100 trillion dollars in debt with Social Security,
Medicare, etc. They tell us we are running deficits of 1 1/2 trillion
dollars a year. Not true, we are running 5 trillion a year.

Bernanke just told Congress we are closer to collaspe then they realize.

Most of the countries in the world have the same problem.

Everyone is printing tons of paper to cover their debts.

The USA, for every dollar it spends, borrows 42 cents of.

A one world government might not be a bad idea. The problem is,
the New World Order wants the bankers to be our rulers.
They have already taken over Europe via Goldman Sachs.

All we can do is buy hard assets to get us by the coming hyperinflation.
But, before this we may see deflation as markets tumble.

Gold 1 oz American Eagles are the best bet. Keep them in your safe in
your home. Hyperinflation put Hitler into power in Germany.

The New World Order plans to be our saviour.

Also, recommend putting cash money in your safe and keep out of banks.
Recommend closing all stock accounts.

Keep your eye on Spain and Italy. If they go, the Eurodollar may collaspe.

I suspect this to start happenning in 4 years, but it can happen at any moment.

Derivative markets are 707 trillion dollars and they hold priority over
your savings accounts in banks. FDIC will not be able to cover
everyone.

All past fiat currencies in the world have all failed and become worthless.

The Greatest Single Threat to Humanity: Fuel Pool Number 4
Could it end civilization on earth as we know it ?

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-14-07/largest-short-term-threat-humanity-fuel-pools-fukushima

Mike, seemingly it's more accurate to say that the Federal Reserve is a blend of public and private. Here's how a Slate article on this question sums things up:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/09/is_the_fed_private_or_public.html

"In short, the Fed is an independent entity within the government... How did the Fed get to be the way it is? In the run-up to its creation, conservatives (mostly from big cities in the Northeast) favored a privately run central bank, whereas progressives (William Jennings Bryan types) called for a public, government-operated reserve.

The result of these competing opinions is our hybrid, quasi-public system. It's isolated from partisan politics—board members serve 14-year terms—but it serves the public interest since it's ultimately accountable to the legislature."

This fits with what a Federal Reserve site says:
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2003/0309.html

"Is the Federal Reserve a privately owned corporation?

Yes and no. The Federal Reserve (the Fed) enjoys a unique public/private structure that operates within the government, but is still relatively independent of government to isolate the Fed from day-to-day political pressures in fulfilling its varying roles. As stated in The Federal Reserve System Purposes & Functions:

'The Federal Reserve System is considered to be an independent central bank. It is so, however, only in the sense that its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of the government. The entire System is subject to oversight by the U.S. Congress….the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government.'

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight


  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
Blog powered by Typepad
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...