the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Archive for November, 2013

Climategate Week 2013

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 in Uncategorized | 22 Comments »

Winning and Losing

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 in Uncategorized | 26 Comments »

Change and Hope – ($2700/family/year)

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 in Uncategorized | 26 Comments »

Snipped at Psychological Science

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:

I can’t believe the self-righteous tone of these alleged scientists. I also am stunned at the fact that fake work like this continues to be touted as having any foundation in actual science.

Whether you agree with their other work or not, this paper is nothing but government funded pro-government propaganda and they, and their coworkers, should each be ashamed at having their names and institutions associated with it. Completely disgusted.

I take it that means they truly miss me.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Health Insurance – Preliminary

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 in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

The Revenge of Lewandowsky

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:

I can’t believe the self-righteous tone of these alleged scientists. I also am stunned at the fact that fake work like this continues to be touted as having any foundation in actual science.

Whether you agree with their other work or not, this paper is nothing but government funded pro-government propaganda and they, and their coworkers, should each be ashamed at having their names and institutions associated with it. Completely disgusted.

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?

.

.

Or this:

“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!! 😀

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.

Respectfully yours,

THE governmental Elite…..

—————————

Some things change with time—– others will never.

Posted in Uncategorized | 57 Comments »