A look out the back door in mid December.
Posted by Jeff Id on December 15, 2013
Posted by Jeff Id on December 14, 2013
There is a lot of dogma in politics regarding tax rates and general government performance. I personally have found that most people make statements about politics with literally zero data. On thanksgiving, I spent about 4 hours on the government data website – http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm looking at various numbers reported there. A reader, who shall be unnamed, even stopped by recently claiming that taxes were lower than 1950, conservatives only make decisions with emotion (a common claim applied to today’s Marxist authoritarian-style liberals) and even that we should have an 80% of GDP tax rate to maximize government revenue.
Why maximization of government revenue (and therefore influence) is assumed a positive goal, is something you should ask one of those authoritarians, because it runs counter to everything a government should be attempting to do. Still, I found some interesting facts about government tax taking and spending.
Are we paying more taxes than before? Taxes are taken from us in so many ways, it is very difficult to add it up. It seems from those of us experiencing it, that taxes are continually on the rise and rarely pull back even a little. Taxes are a financial load, where they are taken from does have an effect, but how much is being paid in total is important when we consider the cost to society. First I looked at the per capita tax paid into government across all sources.
So in 2012 dollars 1950 population paid on average $4000 per person into the US government. In 1998 that had increased to 14000 per person! We are definitely paying more tax than 1950. What it also means is that if you have a family of 4 and you are paying in less than 4 x $14,000 = $56,000 into the government, you are paying less than your share of those taxes and they are being taken on your behalf from someone else.
Most people don’t realize that even if they don’t write 14,000 in checks, they still end up paying that tax in the form of lower salary, higher prices, etc. and that means they have a loss of influence over cash. Loss of income (Taxation) in any form, is a strong limitation of behavior and is a general decrease of personal freedom. Said another way, when money is taken from your employer, that money was something you helped create, yet high corporate taxes mean you no longer have any control for directing the influence of that cash to your betterment. You are less powerful and free as an individual.
Many would say Jeff, that’s not fair. You need to recognize that people make more money since 1950. The GDP corrected numbers are a more fair comparison they say. This logical fallacy fails to recognize that we are still asking the government to provide 3 times more service per person than we needed only 60 years ago during our best years. This increased service represents further loss of control through added regulation and compliance with those regulations is a double hit for the economy on the same tax dollars. Paying our already massive government to create hurdles for the economy is very expensive, and we see results from it all over the country. Do you realize how many businesses have left California, and why? This also applies to the argument about whether we should ever try to maximize government “revenue” as a means to promote general welfare. Still the GDP graph doesn’t tell that great of a story either:
I’ve shown this graph before. Tax rates as a percent of GDP haven’t changed much since 1960. They peaked in 1999 under Bill Clinton but the percentage of GDP dropped off precipitously in the last two years he was in office. Combining the first and second graph with the concept that the additional spending per capita by government results in a double-hit on the economy as businesses and individuals invest more money and time toward compliance with EPA, Education, IRS, traffic laws, employment law, and many many other well-known increases in regulation. As a percent of GDP, it should be obvious even to the left that the total governmental financial load per capita follows the first “total dollars paid” graph, NOT the percent of GDP graph. This is a very important point that is lost in the discussion of tax rates – this subtlety is often missed with intent.
We are paying much higher dues for our government than we ever have in history. With each new group’s pet-peeve, excessive regulation has invaded every aspect of American life. The land of the free can’t make its own decisions even on the size of soda they buy. Obviously, compliance dollars are much harder to quantify than governmental budget dollars, so we will move on to some other interesting plots.
I’ve shown a version of this plot before also, the 4 years since Obama took office are incredibly stark considering that we are not at war. Where this money is going is going to be a bit of a surprise to some here. I found this next plot worthy of writing this blog post.
What this graph is showing is what percentage of government expenditures is being handed out as checks other than pensions or tax returns. If you get social security, social security disability, medicade, medicare, food stamps, unemployment checks, etc… this graph shows the total percentage of cash that is being handed to people in the form of checks.
Until 1970, 20 percent of government revenue was used to help those in need. By the 1970’s we had reached a full 30% That held flat all the way until Bush junior took office, he managed to jump socialist style payments to 40% of tax revenue. I haven’t studied which policies did what, but the website I linked has additional numerical detail that could allow us to figure it out. What is again clear is that when Obama took office, he jumped total payments to “needy” citizens by an overwhelming 15%. We are now paying 55 percent of total tax revenue as checks to these deemed by government to be in need -- Starting in the first year he took office!
Of the $14,000 taken from every American in some form or other, $7,700 is being handed out to the less successful. I can imagine no greater danger to economic health than this situation. Obama told us during the election that this was his intent. Remember the discussion with ‘Joe the Plumber’ where Obama said – “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”. Now you can see the result of new policy in dollars in the graph above, what many aren’t noticing is what these payments to not work, are doing to society.
A large chunk of this money is a massive incentive to single moms to avoid college and have babies. You can make solid five figures with health care if you avoid education and work while producing babies in the US and it isn’t hard to do. We have had dozens of employees who have chosen this rout. They work for a bit and when the benefits disappear, they go home and get the benefits back. They don’t make much money and complain that they are underpaid, but the money which used to go for salary 30 years ago, is being taken out the back doors of the businesses to support these massive social bribe programs, and ever greater regulatory costs.
These people are being effectively enslaved, and when they go past child bearing age, they will have no skills, little personal property, and will end up with no ability to get out of the situation that this government created. Socialism, is universally ineffective at solving the problems it purports to address. These people, who are dis-proportionally minorities, are being effectively enslaved to low wage jobs and a long-term mediocre economy.
The same programs have reduced barriers to entry for social security disability, allowing functional people to find loopholes to permanent paychecks. Back pain, mental issues and other problems which people were forced to work through have now become passes to a soft easy life.
Worse, I don’t see many discussing these real and critical issues in a rational fashion. The media, which used to be the immune system for political corruption, largely believes in the endless flow of government cash and currently takes no time to call out pro-government politicians of any party. Republicans and Democrats both continue to march in the same direction as evidenced by the first graph in this post. Bit-by-bit and none too slowly we are reaping the increasing problems caused by these policies. It is blindingly obvious now that we should reverse course on much of the social spending and enact common sense pro-business, pro-industry reforms. Our quality of life in the US is being corroded by a bloated authoritarian central government, and is being rapidly replaced with something much, much bleaker.
Posted by Jeff Id on December 12, 2013
There has been a ton of interesting activity in the climate world and I’m tired of missing out on it. In case you haven’t noticed, Nic Lewis has established himself as a top expert on climate model performance. I don’t believe anyone in the climate community is turning out work to the quality and detail level that he is doing and eventually they will be forced to notice. Just because this is a “skeptic” blog, don’t assume Nic will take any of the opinions here as his own, they are mine. I’ve learned to trust his work though and that is admittedly the same problem much of the climate community suffers from, although their trust is based on something else.
In other news, NOTHING happened at the poles this year. Stupid ice didn’t melt enough to drown a single penguin well enough to make the news. Polar bears moved north and the polar bear waterwing emergency delivery from greenpeace fell from the plane onto hard ice. SOB, life is tough for the six figure climate scientists.
The IPCC report fell on deaf public ears. The complete failure of climate models was covered up by some nonsensical graphs and apparently the summary for “policy makers” (money takers) fell well short of Real Climate projections. Astounding considering there were still plenty of falsely exaggerated climate prognostications written by the now sans-credit IPCC, but we all knew anti-scientific claims were still coming.
I spent 20 minutes explaining to my son today that we live on a peninsula surrounded by fresh water and that it is ok to run the faucet while brushing his teeth. The water comes from the ground and goes right back into it. Net zero. Deprogramming is becoming a significant job as public schools, television and even scouts sells the same nonsensical message to the younglings. I’m supposed to find ways to save energy as a goal! Why would we do that when there is more energy than matter? Shouldn’t we be conserving matter? Hmm.. Well poop is matter and there seems to be plenty of that to go around.
Europe and Australia are beginning to wise-up that environmental and social costs can actually cause poverty in socialist style government. It looks like the faux environment laws are the first casualty. Who knew that if you took enough money from people, they wouldn’t have any left? Amazing!
So then there is the stupid old denialist temperature. That thing that won’t rise no matter how much Cialis the global government inspired UN-IPCC feeds the paper stack. For those who already know the shtick, in recent years it is hard for the Goddard Institiute for Space Studies to update their temperature series to this actual decade.
I suppose we’re the satellite generation anyway:
Apparently the picoseconds of time for global temperature averaging required by Nasa supercomputers in the last 6 years was where sequester cuts were made! I’ve used older and less amazing laptops than this one in the past so if Gavin would like me to do the work, I would be happy to calculate the graph for them. They do have to ask nicely though as my vacuum tube is flickering. Free work isn’t truly free – especially in government.
This is something I found very surprising. Randy Schekman – THIS years Nobel prize winner for medical Physiology flatly stated that Nature and Cell and Science, are no longer up to par for consideration of his lab’s work. Interestingly, Nature put Real Climate regulars Steig and Mann’s flawed work right on it’s cover. For an “in-the-news-today” Nobel scientist with little future need for money or fame, to take a public political stance against major journals, before even taking possession of his award —is unheard of. The same Nobel organization gave the peace prize to Obama before he took office, is not well known for its apolitical or anti-establishment nature. Wow!
Then climate science finally found a new (better) solution for climate models. The ACTUAL science fiction world – Pure genius.
Posted by Jeff Id on December 6, 2013
So I finally got a deer – while hunting! I’m 44 so most had completely given up hope on me ever shooting one, and the office humor revolved around how much drinking we were going to do and whether I was going to bring the gun this year, but the area we hunt in isn’t particularly easy. It took me quite a few years to realize some of the tricks to finding the critters in dense human-free woods.
Normally our deer camp has a good sized crowd of die-hard hunters ready to teach me what to do, but this year multiple camp regulars were hit with serious family related problems so the population of our thousand plus acres of Gaia’s wilderness, was approximately two. Dad and I had a great time but when ‘Sausage’ the deer poked his head from the woods, things got pretty interesting. Having 6 or 7 hunters to help with some of the inconveniences of shooting deer, is a lot different than two.
Sitting in my ladder stand on opening day this year, the weather was warm and there was a lot of activity in the woods. If you have ever spent extended time in the woods, you find hours of dead silence and times of amazing activity. In a tree stand, the wildlife seems to have a hard time recognizing that you are any sort of threat. After all, there aren’t that many two hundred pound predators lurking in the tree tops.
A red squirrel spotted me at one point, but didn’t know what I was so he ran up the pine tree next to me and ran out on a branch to where I could have reached out and petted him. Its important to sit still though so the critters don’t cry out an alarm so we just looked at each other for a while until he got bored and left.
Being the natural-born hunter that you know I obviously am from the intro, there were plenty of mishaps during the day. I dropped a glove, 14 ft down and had to go get it and later on I got so tired I was falling asleep in the stand – not the safest thing to do even with modern harnesses. I began shooting video of myself in the tree with whispered commentary, because it was keeping me awake. I was talking about how the deer would wait to come out at dusk and pointed out where they come from and which way they would go. It didn’t help me completely though because I put my head down on the shooting rail at around 2pm and the next thing I knew the iPhone was on the ground – 14 ft down.
Still, I kept hearing the shuffle step of deer in the woods behind me during the day. It kept me excited but right-or-wrong I was certain from past years that the critters weren’t coming out in daylight hours. Deer like to take a few steps then stop. It takes some experience to separate their sound from the sound of other wildlife. Red squirrels are actually louder in dry leaves and even snap twigs on occasion. Deer and large animals snap big twigs. Then there is the sound of falling logs and breaking branches from the natural processes of the general woods. You learn to hear the differences though.
Right at dusk, I was 100% awake and heard the shuffle sound followed by a large stick breaking. It was definitely a deer but bucks are more wary and rare than does. I was so alert that I saw his head poke out from the trees 60 yards away – right where I had expected! It was dark enough that it was hard to see if there were antlers but there was a hint of something there- you can’t shoot doe’s in our area during rifle season. I grabbed my grandfathers 30-06 from the shooting rail as he stepped from the woods and I looked down the scope. I got the hint of antlers again so I clicked off the safety. I was excited so the snap was metallic sounding and even from 60 yards the buck was so wary that his head popped up and he did that perfect ‘shoot me’ pose that you find on the side of every box of bullets or that bottle of Eau-Du-doe —- you know the one:
I wanted to wait for him to walk closer but he was way too alert though so I was expecting that rear-hoof stomp and that would be the last time I saw him. The antlers were still a hint on his head against the trees behind but I was sure and took the shot. The whole thing lasted under ten seconds. Eight years of hunting in the UP of Michigan and ‘Sausage’ and I knew each other for less than 10 seconds.
Unexpectedly, instead of laying down, Sausage decided to run! He took off into the woods running low and fast like a cat escaping certain vacuum cleaner doom. I wasn’t worried though, he wasn’t going far, I unloaded (removed) the other two bullets from the rifle I normally use and realized that I was shaking like a leaf. I took 15 minutes getting down from the stand and gradually walked toward where Sausage was standing. There were hoof prints but no blood or fur! I spent 20 minutes using my best engineer tracking skills (none!) and Sausage the deer was not there, there was no blood, no fur and nothing to indicate that he had any intention of becoming dinner. Just to be clear, that is not typical for a shot from a 2700fps 180 grain 30-06.
It was getting very dark and Dad had driven the truck to my pickup spot so I went to him and we tried finding him together in the dark. No luck, no sign, nothing. We went back to the cabin and had dinner. I spent the night worrying about whether I had actually hit him or if a twig had deflected the bullet. It didn’t make sense. From the deer’s reaction, I was certain he was hit but there was no blood. A book in camp called “Finding Wounded Deer” told a story of a double lung shot with no blood so I found that somewhat reassuring. The next morning we went out in bright daylight and still found no sign that he had been hit. We followed the tracks into the dense woods and Dad found Sausage right away. He hadn’t gone even 40 yards.
It took the two of us 2 1/2 hours to get the deer out of the woods. We had three mechanical problems with the game cart, dense woods to contend with and the fact that Sausage was pretty big for a UP deer! We were very tired to say the least. To give an idea of the size of him, this is a shot of my 6 foot tall father standing next to him on the deer pole at camp.
We got it done though. My field dressing skills turned out to be not much better than my 3yo son Ethan on a stick of butter but that got done also. The bullet entered the right side, snapping the upper leg bone, passed through the chest and exited the left side rib cage. On expert forensic review, the bullet actually turned immediately after the left side rib cage and traveled outside the ribs and under the skin without exiting. No external blood whatsoever! I had actually hit the heart and lungs at a good distance so my night of fretting about a long track or not being able to find Sausage, was completely wasted.
By the time we got him to camp and hanging from the pole, I was very tired. So when I shot this video and I tried to smile as much as I could, after 8 years of hunting it wasn’t that hard to do.
Posted by Jeff Id on November 11, 2013
I’m gone for a week and won’t be blogging after today. Perhaps Kevin will answer my graph on the previous thread while I’m gone. We will see if he embraces facts as well as he claimed.
As for me, I’ll be lost in the northern woods of Michigan, which means that this is the week climategate broke in 2009.
No people for miles except for our small hunting camp. I’m looking forward to the break.
Have fun folks.
Posted by Jeff Id on November 9, 2013
Some things in blogland make you smile, others, not so much. I just answered a comment from a reader which left me cold. If you want to comment here, bring more than a thimble full of facts with you. For reference, I am an EVIL business owner with a natural dislike for the authoritarian population.
Unlike Lewandowsky or Michael Mann, I don’t earn a large salary by writing political commentary or by supporting political goals. I earn my IMHO a far-too-small salary by selling things that work. And work well. In fact, unlike the self-promotional aspects of Real Climate, this blog is a major liability to me and our company. We experienced it first-hand last week, where the top VP level buyer of a major customer that, every single reader here knows by sight, discussed with me — sustainability. I did not explain my/our (as there are other non-authoritarian partners who were present) background to them, other than the fact that we make the most efficient lighting products in our category.
In my life, wealth was not something my family considered much. It wasn’t important. In my thirties, a non-work related event which was out of my control, left me far poorer than anyone I have ever actually met. I am certain that some have had similarly bad or worse money situations, but I just don’t know them. I was a white male with a very good job, yet still held large debt that could not be reasonably cleared through bankruptcy or reasonably paid off by any but CEO level salaries.
So having smart friends and no personal property for myself left to lose, I quit my job and we started a company. The work has been incredibly difficult, and I’ve blogged through more than half of it but we have succeeded in our efforts to date. I actually remember sitting on the floor of an unfurnished bedroom writing my first posts here back in 2008. Who knows what tomorrow will bring but last week, I found myself being told yet NOT replying to someone regarding their views of human-causes damage to the environment. Readers here know that NOT telling someone what I think is not part of my genetic makeup! Instead I listened about discussions regarding sustainability and Clinton and conferences……etc.
In the end, a good company does what is best for itself, and we are by far the best option for this particular group. They are still working that part out, hopefully to our betterment. What it means is that as our organization grows, the Air Vent is becoming an albatross which is hard to ignore. Exactly the intent of Lewandowsky’s and Mann’s recent sciencology methinks. We have years of work into this company and won’t take less than perfect results. If you disagree with my decision to hold back my opinions to this customer (which I doubt), give me a number as to how many years of effort (not money) would you be willing to forgo for the sake of commenting on personal politics?
In reality, I’m not fretting about these questions now. I have reached my decisions long before, and the business is more important than this blog. We have employees and shareholders that are far more important than explanations to powerful people. That fact makes me a pragmatic dissenter IMO. Some who would expect a more idealistic result should re-read my post more carefully. Still, I wanted readers to know another part of what us business owners go through. Cost is cost and it is important that this blog not become one. Our unfortunate curse at my company is that we are a bunch of tea-party conservative, anti-authoritarians who own a fantastically CO2 efficient business. Our entire business concept (no official plan, just driven engineers) was based on improved efficiency – for better costs. Environment is a side-benefit!
If we suddenly experienced a multi-million dollar loss because of this blog and its inherent political accuracy ;D , I could (and perhaps should) be removed from the board and my position by our shareholders. Seeing my name be trashed by Lewandowsky in a printed journal was more flattering than threatening. How cool is it that your ideas are intentionally misrepresented by what are apparently major psychology journals, on another continent, using other peoples tax dollars! The problem was the media publicity and the longevity of the fake claims. Imagine dealing with the same falsehoods repeated across the newspapers of this globe for decades on end. That definitely was something that I was concerned about, and that meant that Lew had to be addressed.
Some wonder what my recent blogging absence had been about. We have been incredibly busy, no doubt and that was primary. Still the political situation today means that the Air Vent could become very expensive at any time. I don’t think that any of us expect this situation to improve either! How to proceed, when you are being publicly attacked by people with endless flow of government money, and have literally zero respect for free market business owners, even when the product is “green”. It is very much shocking to see journals publish rants against those who understand capitalism as though it were some kind of defect. The journal gives up all pretext of an unbiased broker of science, yet they behave as though we shouldn’t notice the editors and authors have a vested interest in expanded authoritarian government.
Marginalization of my opinion was exactly Lewandowsky’s intent, and he and Mann more guilty than those they accuse of being blinded by their belief system.
I did a little editing this morning for clarity – Jeff
Posted by Jeff Id on November 6, 2013
So I’ve got the rest of the health care news for this year. We’re looking at an 18 percent increase, our previous plan was dropped because it didn’t make sense for the insurance carrier to have different rules for different companies and we have several added coverages which we didn’t need.
- Pediatric vision and dental care are apparently mandatory parts of health care. The vision and dental coverage is weak but we already pay for that on another plan so it’s only extra cost from our perspective. Why aren’t vision and dental part of your health? I often wonder how that got divided out in the first place.
- Obesity surgery is covered now, but only partially, I didn’t know it wasn’t before. It sounds easier than dieting!
- You can have as much drug rehab as you like apparently.
- No maximum out of pocket limits but they were like 5 million already, and usually if you have that kind of expense, your work insurance is no longer practical. I like this change in particular.
There are a few others but that’s about it though.
Excepting the massive cost increase, it isn’t much different for in network coverage. Out-of-network, our deductibles went up 2X but the network is the biggest and it is almost hard to go out of it. The net increase (not reduction in cost per Obama’s repeated prognostication) on a family of four was about $2700/year. In a 40 employee company, three thousand here, couple thousand there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
I do wonder if any government officials were actually dumb enough to believe that insurance carriers wouldn’t drop the old non-complying products when even a mild cost increase would force them to. Of those who were in charge of this ‘change and hope’ plan, I wonder how many would admit they knew.
Posted by Jeff Id on November 4, 2013
I seem to have a way with people. While they did allow quite a bit of critique in the replies, and nearly all were incredibly critical, my comments were snipped. — The Subterranean War on Science
I’ll just reproduce the critique here then:
Posted by Jeff Id on November 4, 2013
Another 17% annual increase, bringing the total for our 40 people to approximately 35% over the past 3 years and we will receive a new health plan. The reason I don’t have exact numbers is because we got pushed off our plan last year also and changed companies.
We currently pay 100% of our employee coverage and it is a premium level plan with coverage for most anything. I will learn more details Wednesday.
Posted by Jeff Id on November 3, 2013
Sorry to have been gone so long. It seems impossible to blog with so many other fun things going on. Still, I read my favorite blogs and occasional climate paper, even if I don’t comment much. Recently Lewandowsky et Mann (birds of a feather?) published yet another pro-government rant claiming to be science related.
It is hardly worth reading but read it I did: The Subterranean War on Science. My willingness to read that is proof that I am literally as dumb as a rock. Don’t make the same mistake!
The article is one of the most disgusting pieces I have yet read from the “Climate Science™” community. It is written as though it actually has supporting references but the article is beyond reprehensible in content. It has literally zero scientific value and wouldn’t make the cut at a blog but somehow a “journal” managed to publish it. I did manage to leave a comment:
Of course, I may have been a little to harsh considering the article contains this amazing content:
“According to the World Health Organization, climate change is already claiming more than 150,000 lives annually (Patz, Campbell-Lendrum, Holloway, & Foley, 2005), and estimates of future migrations triggered by unmitigated global warming run as high as 187 million refugees “
For 50 points to those who have the chops – True or False?
“For example, mitigation of climate change or public-health legislation threatens people who cherish unregulated free markets because it might entail regulations of businesses ;
FYI – That scientific statement is not possibly, potentially or realistically politically motivated because it IS a well-known “Climate Science™” fact that free markets have destroyed peoples lives across the world. Especially true for those unregulated ones – very scientific.
As a trap to those like me, they also tried to backhand a point so often made here. I do love the scientific tone of this psychological observation:
The conspiratorial element of denial explains why contrarians often perceive themselves as heroic dissenters who — in their imagination — are following Galileo’s footsteps by opposing a mainstream scientific “elite” that imposes its views not on the basis of overwhelming evidence but for political reasons.
So Lewandowsky and Mann are the “Elite” and those who disagree with them are heroes fighting the good war. WOW! Ok, I’m going to have to step in the Galileo trap!
Now that leads to a few questions! If these mathematical wonders are the elite, why can’t they make a single good paper between them? Were they actually elite scientific minds, wouldn’t they practice in “actual” science like physics or chemistry? What sort of self-delusional moron would think themselves so above the rest of us because of….. It is truly shocking that their narcissism has proceeded this far. A life to easy – methinks.
Sounds like a psychology paper!! :D
The real elite in the case of modern Climate Science™, is comprised of those who control government money, taken from our hard working hands, and placed in the pockets of often moderately functional scientists and activists who naturally support more of the same. Such high opinions of themselves they hold eh? e.g. — recently Lewandowsky took fake questions from questionnaire study with descriptive results and applied distribution style statistics to make obviously pre-determined conclusions – it was accepted thorugh peer review! e.g. #2—- how about Mann throwing out piles of data which doesn’t match his pre-determined intent and averaging the remainder for the result!! hehehe.
All for the cause I suppose.
Teasing aside, it is only with the most serious heart that we can look at claims such as this:
This article surveys some of the principal techniques by which the authors have been harassed; namely, cyber-bullying and public abuse; harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests, complaints, and legal threats or actions; and perhaps most troubling, by the intimidation of journal editors who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient by deniers. The uniformity with which these attacks are pursued across several disciplines suggests that their motivation is not scientific in nature.
The paragraph is another fraud.
Harrassment of Lewandowsky with legal threats is particularly interesting to me. Considering that he blatantly and on two separate occasions libeled me in print, as a form of intimidation, in an actual (alleged -sorry) scientific journal, and refused to recant any of his false accusations until it escalated to the point where he and the journal were legally threatened, this comment is disgusting. All they had to do was fix the problem, yet he refused.
Many skeptic names are actually on a desmog list that an extreme left-wing activist professor (other than Lewandowsky, Mann, Bauld, Hastings, and Loftus) had PUBLICLY advocated for our government supported execution and not by private email on a university paid website. No he was not fired – in case you are newborn to left-wing Earth and were actually wondering. Why the desmog list of climate bad-guys even exists at all can only lead to the worst of conclusions. Unlike Lewandowsky’s new friends, I and many readers here, have been ruthlessly attacked by the climate science community for years behind the scenes and in public. Can you even imagine having your name published in a psychological “science journal” from another country as though you had some kind of mental condition PURELY because you dare to disagree with their scientifically and governmentally unsubstantiable climate agenda? I never thought it possible – until Lewandowsky did it.
This particular paragraph was troubling because it is dishonest. Far from harassed, these people are lauded wherever they go and their own self-aggrandized words give the truth of it. They are so held above the rest of us mortals by their government benefactors at worldwide events and conferences, that they actually publicly claim to be — the elite of the world. Claims that editors are harassed are cute, but are equally as perverted as the implied censorship. We have actual emails from the climate community, including at least one of these actual authors, working behind the scenes to ban journals and main-stream papers which didn’t bow to their anti-industrial pro-authoritarian cause.
Obviously, like skeptic big-oil funding, the strategy is to say the opposite of reality often enough that it becomes truth. In my opinion they are fools, because it will not change reality, nor mark their names in hallowed scientific history, but this is 2013 and they are OUR fools. We own them because our elected governments support them, and we therefore deserve their perceived successes.
This bit was in the end of the second to last paragraph and it did warm my heart:
Lewandowsky, Oreskes, Risbey, Newell, & Smithson, 2013), and allegations of defamation have led to the re-examination of one of the first author’s papers to eliminate legal risks that is ongoing at the time of this writing (Lewandowsky, Cook, et al., 2013).
I am particularly glad that the paper is STILL being re-examined as I was the guy who claimed defamation. Because Lewie actually DID commit the offense. Two times in fact. The first was from an earlier “scientific paper” and could potentially have been held as accidental by a we-don’t-want-trouble biased review board. They board (or editor) did do the right thing though, and removed the false statement in that case. It was the second paper, which also specifically referenced me inaccurately, where there wasn’t any realistic potential for Lewandowsky to be simply misunderstanding my position. From my perspective it was intentionally fraudulent science, but that opinion implies understanding the mind of Lewandowsky’s intent, and is therefore scientifically not provable. However if Lewandowsky is being investigated along those lines to any REAL degree, I do have a few emails that the committee would probably be interested in.
I think other climate non-oath takers were likely defamed as well the second time around, and I admit not paying attention enough to know how far anyone else actually went to correct the record. Perhaps they are the victors keeping the dis-informative rag from publication.
What is abundantly clear is that the “scientists” of this paper, are nothing except political idealists with water-faucet money and big TV cameras who live by an ages long yet never-said mantra which not-so-ironically Galileo in his cell, did well understand:
You must not openly question conclusions of the self-appointed governmental scientific elite.
When things don’t make scientific sense, refer to the first.
THE governmental Elite…..
Some things change with time—– others will never.
Posted by Jeff Id on August 10, 2013
I don’t have much time today unfortunately, but there was a minor kerfuffel in the news about a study (a term very loosely used) which according to the media reporters (also loosely used) shows that Fox news watchers are being tricked by Fox into “distrust” of climate scientists. The study, which I read, is available on line but before you click on it, IT WILL COST YOU IQ POINTS! I accept no responsibility for neurological damage caused by individual failure to follow my warning.
You can see the basic conclusions from the title, it is also interesting how many media outlets covered the story considering that only ONE has bothered to cover this little gem:
IRS official who oversaw Cincinatti exempt operations office during scandal gets promotion — Liberalism does breed corruption folks. How many times do we need to see government power repeated before we catch on.
Problems from the core
hypotheses assumptions of the study:
H1: Conservative media use will be negatively related to certainty that global warming is happening.
H2: Non-conservative media use will be positively related to certainty that global warming is happening.
H3: Conservative media use will be negatively related to trust in scientists.
H4: Non-conservative media use will be positively related to trust in scientists.
Ok, so I think from the basic hypotheses we have ‘learnt’ that there is only conservative bias and ‘the rest’. Even MSNBC is specifically named as the “rest” in the paper.
For example, several content analyses have revealed that Fox News and conservative radio programs (e.g.The Rush Limbaugh Show) cover issues and events – from the Iraq War to the campaign for the US presidency – in a way that is more supportive of conservative and Republican interests than CNN, MSNBC, and the national network news programs.
“the national network news programs” – Don’t we all enjoy proper Vulcanesque clarity of unbiased climate science.
Of everything in the paper, this quote makes me warm:
Consistent with previous research (see Boykoff, 2012; Nisbet, 2011), our results show that global warming continues to receive a moderate amount of media coverage, with spikes occurring around important events (e.g. the December 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark).”
Why are these people paid to write papers you ask? Simply look to the donor list. I looked up every single one, and their connections to government. If you take your own time, you might find a few interesting connections yourself:
Rest assured that none of the funding came from extreme “non-conservative” associations having any indirect relationship to our current presidential administration.
No, we will not spend any time at this blog deconstructing any of their statistics. We have limited time and this one doesn’t make the cut.
Posted by Jeff Id on August 4, 2013
Real Climate is still trying to communicate the message that climate science needs to communicate better, never realizing that the content of their message is their problem. I mean, the first link on their page is to a Richard Alley presentation, where he flat says that there is no reason to adjust models. He uses multiple paths like a straw man argument that critics of the models are only looking at one study. He pulled up the example of the paleo-sensitivity plot where one recent study showed a lower climate sensitivity than the rest and complained about the amount of time he spent addressing that one. The whole problem with his argument, which is conveniently brushed over, is that paleo-sensitivity papers are made of the least accurate and least trustworthy data and as we all know, the papers are quite often comprised of the exact same data. Now he makes several other arguments, but the one he doesn’t make, is the one which holds the most credibility in the eyes of those of us who don’t collect government paychecks of a magnitude proportional to our climate activism — comparisons of models to observations.
Lucia has some nice and very current work on the matter. The chart below shows models from AR5 with their central trends and error bars in relation to GISS temperatures. note that every single model is well above the observed GISS temp trend line and the very wide error bars still do not meet the GISS red line in most cases. In a sane world, climate scientists should be very concerned about this, but instead we get piles of rubbish about how models are “pretty good” and a bunch of excuse making from Richard Alley’s of the world regarding ocean heat content. But for those in the “know” there is one little detail – models are supposed to have heat content taken into account already.
Why isn’t this a mainstream concern in a field that has become so dominated and enamored by modeling the addition of global warming gases to the atmosphere?
It certainly would cause a scientist in ANY other field to step back and take note. A person willing to step up and say that this result across every model is somehow “reasonable” or that there isn’t a problem, would be ignored in our drummed out of our fill-in-the-blank field with trailing guffaws, yet we are faced with a bunch of activist cheerleaders pushing for ideological “change” while ignoring the values on their instruments. In the meantime, instead of addressing the blatantly obvious problems with the modeled results, they hold an entire conference on improving communication of climate doom to the public.
It gets better though.
There are 4 highlighted presentations in the Real Climate link above. I couldn’t listen to the fourth one because it hurt my ears but the first three can be categorized as: 1 – argue that the science is still good and don’t present data to the contrary, 2 – Risk communication, more widely known as fear mongering, and 3 – Buzzwords, which perform the functions of the first two.
It isn’t an impressive plan when written out in clear English.
But what really got me going yesterday was the numerous news reports on two recent papers, which I don’t intend to read, where the scientists concluded that recent climate change IS TEN TIMES FASTER THAN ANY TIME IN HISTORY!
From one article:
One study, from Stanford University, suggests that climate change is happening 10 times faster than it has at any time in the past 65 million years. The other study, from the University of Texas, suggests that Antarctic permafrost is now melting 10 times faster than in 11,000 years, adding further evidence that Earth’s Antarctic is, in fact, warming just as Earth’s Arctic is.
We who read papers know that historic data is proxy based, and that for various physical reasons proxy based data has a very poor time and magnitude resolution. We also know that recent data is instrument based, and instrument based data has excellent time and magnitude resolution. Essentially, the scientists know full-well that instrument data captures a higher frequency component than the historic proxy data can. If today’s warming had happened and reversed at any time in the past 11,000 years, the event would be so short that it would look like a rounded imperceptibly small bump in the proxy based result instead of the clean high frequency response provided by modern instruments.
The “scientists” are fully aware of this, yet they make claims that are not just unsubstantiated, but they are known to be unsubstantiable with proxy data. The claims are as disingenuous as you can be. Now it is true that the equally activist media likes to exaggerate the claims further, but there sure isn’t a lot of correcting the record visible to those of us lowly CO2 producing readers.
If you wonder why people like myself, otherwise considered reasonably intelligent, would disagree with such a huge “scientific” consensus, you need look no farther than recent media for your answer.
Warming rate and problematic effects of climate change are mathematically lower than what is being claimed. Note the difference between that statement and the denialist meme Real Climate would write about skeptical bloggers like myself. If the dreamers of Climate Science, want to affect change, they need to start with the quality of their own work.
Posted by Jeff Id on August 3, 2013
The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States is one of the largest and most draconian governmental organizations on the planet. Under Obama, it has also become one of the most powerful. The ability to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, being one of the chief new results of Obama’s already horrific presidency. The problem with the EPA is that those in charge GAIN power by adding regulation. Their funding is directly related to the ability to say NO to any citizen for whatever reason. If you want to build a house, and the EPA has declared some feature of your property as protected, they get to say NO. They also then need to monitor that “feature” of your property which requires funding and resources.
We have seen numerous new regulations from the government in recent years, since America already had massive environmental regulations, these new regulations seem to carry little or no benefit whatsoever, unless you are an EPA employee or better yet – boss. A summary of some of the regulations and impacts is listed here. In particular many of these regulations are allegedly designed to prevent emission of CO2, however, they simply add costs to the energy supply chain. In fact, every single action the Obama admistration has taken has done nothing but add cost to business. There has been not one single regulatory improvement for business or the quality of life put into law since he took office. It is a credit to capitalism that the economy hasn’t collapsed a second time under his anti-common sense rule.
Yet our new EPA overlord Gina McCarthy, has set the tone for Obama’s second term of economic destruction with the following :
McCarthy signaled Tuesday that she was ready for the fight, saying that the agency would continue issuing new rules, regardless of claims by Republicans and industry groups that under Obama the EPA has been the most aggressive and overreaching since it was formed more than 40 years ago.
“Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs? Please, at least for today,” said McCarthy, referring to one of the favorite talking points of Republicans and industry groups.
As is the norm for the Obama talking heads, reality is simply ignored in favor of blatantly false statements which the media repeats as though they are reasonable and even factual.
“McCarthy said she planned to continue issuing new rules and felt President Barack Obama’s new Climate Action Plan could “fuel the complementary goals of turning America into a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing.”
The educated among us know that government burden for the simple sake of burden cannot and will not create jobs. Yes it does create the need for solutions to work around the government in order to feed ourselves, but that is a cost, not a benefit. Unnecessary regulations do not create wealth, they create POVERTY, reduce personal freedom and individual power while increasing the wealth, power and freedom of those in charge. The same three known results of every socialist party on the planet. Yet add them we do, because the media sings JOBS, and that government knows best. All the while, the fools of us who are allowed to vote move from one issue to the next, rarely noticing the increasing rate of enslavement they experience, while the truly wealthy don’t care.
We know that more is coming, because the evil people in charge have told us so:
“Climate change will not be resolved overnight,” she added. “But it will be engaged over the next three years – that I can promise you.”
Global warming as it is being sold is an exaggerated and therefore fake problem, with real solutions being used to enact a political agenda. An immoral agenda to take your freedom and transfer it to those who would carry the party banner highest and shout its wonders the loudest. As we watch, climate scientists produce horrifically bad quality work, yet still gain international fame and bloated salaries and awards for their unqalified support of the party banner. Do you ever wonder when the public will notice that their own wealth has decreased on average, while government employees roll in the cash? Will you be surprised in 20 years when CO2 emissions are doubled and warming still hasn’t caused any problems.
I wonder, but I hold little hope that people are smart enough to figure out the answer – and that is right where Obama wants us.
Posted by Jeff Id on July 30, 2013
Well, I’m not really interested in replacing coal plants as our eco-nazi climate science community would have us do, but there are a bunch of forms of nuclear power which are viable replacements and this one is fairly interesting to me. A smaller modular plant produced in a factory using the latest passive cooling safety features. The idea seems quite viable, excepting the strong anti-anything-that-actually-works stances which EPA enviro’s regularly spout. I like it because it is a simple step forward in production relative to already existing fission technologies. No giant leaps here, yet many of the bigger problems with running ancient 50 year old plants are addressed. Honestly, I don’t like living next to 1950’s fission technology being deliberately held on the continual edge of a cascade failure by 1970’s electronics. I’m not afraid of it, it just doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense that we can’t build new ones which use passive cooling and better reaction control geometries .
Modular in-factory construction gives repeatable plants:
B&W has taken the lead in the development of SMRs with its mPower design. Eighty-five feet tall and 13 feet wide, it incorporates several systems into one unit. The unit is built in a factory, instead of in the field, and then shipped to the site on a truck.
The technology, called “small modular reactors,” will be the centerpiece of an entirely new way of thinking about nuclear power. They are much smaller than what traditionally has been built in this country — producing about one-sixth the power. They’ll also cost less — about $1 billion-2 billion apiece, compared with $10 billion-$15 billion for a large plant.
It is asstoundingly (2 ss’s) anti-science to believe that wind, biofuel, solar or gas are the long-term future of power in this world. There isn’t enough of it available for it to be the primary energy source in 1000 years (without giving up huge land masses) and we have mountains of fossil fuels available in the short term. Fortunately for us, if the dirt in tAV readers smallest yard were converted to energy, we would have enough power to run the entire planet for eons.
There are 9.0 × 1016 Joules of energy in every kilogram of mass. All mass is created equal so whatever matter you chose as fuel, it does not matter which matter is THE matter. In our modern vernacular, the unit of choice for a kilogram of energy is a “shit-ton”. Kiloton or Megaton of TNT are the old units. One kiligram of mass is 21 megatons (millions of tons) of TNT. The largest nuclear bomb ever built was made by Russia at somewhere around 56Megatons, or 2Kg of mass-to-energy conversion. In other words, if you put the atoms of the atomic bomb back together a year later, you would be missing about 2.7 kg worth of photons!
Posted by Jeff Id on July 15, 2013
Socialist Liberalism is completely out of control in this world, and now it has infected every aspect of American governance. Nearly every news article is biased with complete left-wing nonsense and any prospect of fair representative governance is in ruins. There is no media check for the racial and social hatred brought by liberalism, no thoughtful balance to fake policies by the government. Political activism and affirmative action have gone beyond their original intent and have morphed into a policy in full opposition to the stated message of compassion and equality. A new and equally disgusting chapter of history has been opened in America and the fools which bring it, eloquently and without concern for reprisal, spout policies in opposition to racial and social justice they allege to promote. Freedom in this country has been completely destroyed. America equates to sexual and drug freedom under the single largest set of rules and regulations of any country on the planet. Our still powerful wealth guarantees incredible enforcement abilities, while political control of the media equally guarantees freedom of action for those in power. Efficient and uninvolved government has been replaced by wasteful, overpaid and powerful bureaucrats who make a career of collecting checks and paybacks at the highest levels for very little work.
Our “justice” department literally funded pre-trial protests against George Zimmerman with no consequence whatsoever.
Our government gave guns away to known criminals with no consequence whatsoever.
Our Ambassador was murdered in a completely predictable fashion, yet without any media to “investigate”, there was no consequence whatsoever.
Our emails are searched, and phone records taken without probable cause, and no consequence whatsoever.
The liberally controlled IRS aggressively attacks conservative groups with no other point except to help swing an election. Again, no consequence whatsoever.
Our government is looking for more ways to attack George Zimmerman, after firing and replacing those who wouldn’t attack him enough, again without any consequence whatsoever.
Gas prices are through the roof and the economy still stinks because of liberal policies, again without consequence whatsoever.
Anti-industrial global warming activism continues to expand without check, again no consequences whatsoever.
Student loan costs have been artificially increased by the liberals (with intent) and mindless students again failed to notice, no consequence whatsoever.
Quid pro quo is now status quo in America. Money is being funneled through congress at an unprecedented rate to supporters and friends of the government, as you may have now guessed, without ANY consequence whatsoever.
Our wonderful policies have resulted in more people on food stamps than at any time in history, again with no consequence whatsoever.
Our FOI’s and congressional information requests are regularly circumvented, again with no consequences whatsoever.
I received this little note by email:
It’s just not sane. Everything normal people have said would happen, has. The uneducated poor people are being willingly enslaved by the racketeers in charge for literally pennies. By voting, the political class steals worker’s money in piles and hand it to the undeserving with the promise of a better life, when any half-wit knows that those who receive permanent money flow –STOP WORKING. The problem is so widespread that plenty of people aren’t even worried about educating themselves in the US anymore. There is simply no end to the left-wing driven self immolation in sight.
When those poverty stricken voters lives end in failure, recent history teaches us exactly what consequences we should expect for the politicians who will have been handed 100% of the power by those same ignorant voters.