the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion


Posted by Jeff Id on November 7, 2015

I haven’t been blogging much obviously.  Life is more than a little busy these days.  The boys are getting older and work is getting busier.  With the continuing climate mantra of ridiculous papers studying asinine things like kangaroo farts, calls for cow methane regulation, and the continued failure of the sea ice to melt, climate science has gotten so literally stupid I don’t want to waste my mind on it.   We don’t live forever after all and it seems that skeptical bloggers are hardly required to point out the political idiocy so rampant in the field.  I’m living a rather unusual experience these days as we have made the transition from a startup to a smallish company and now growing to a larger more profitable organization.   Every entrepreneur I’ve met seems to take a different path.  Nearly all larger success stories are generous folks with big hearts who thrive on honesty and doing what you say you will.  I have also noticed that beginning an organization from a cashless unfunded start up gives us a perspective on business that is considerably different from the executives we deal with in large organizations.  On the journey, my partners and I have learned a great deal about regulations, taxation, costs, and unique legal liabilities for others actions afforded today’s business owners.   As you may guess, a lot of it is not good for proper function of a business.

I just watched most of the show Inequality for All by Robert Reich, Bill Clintons labor secretary.  It attempts to make a compelling argument that income inequality is the key problem America faces.   Robert Reich is certainly a good speaker and he had several CEO’s and wealthy investors who were also well spoken on the subject.  I do agree with him that Americans should make more in their jobs, however Robert blamed the discrepancy on low top income tax rates, globalization, technology and too little government investment in education.  While he discusses other pressures he sort of brushes them to the side without much additional comment and instead income tax and education were keys for him.

I can’t really claim the political credentials of a man who spent the majority of his career in politics or making speeches, but I can claim to know what happens in our world, and in our actual functioning business – and I think our reality should carry a bit more weight than a man who has spent his entire life as a professional speaker who has not created jobs or products.

First, lets talk about higher education because America’s once great higher education system has completely lost its way.   I’m not talking the costs right now, but rather the institutions themselves have become centers for the lazy.   They have less to do with transferring knowledge to students (the product) and more to do with grant taking and (everyone gets a ribbon) self-congradulatory accolades for the anointed.   Even worse, they have devolved into political indoctrination farms for the economically radical left-wing folk.

Now with respect to cost, the subsidized University of Michigan costs $30,000 US per year to attend.  The student might have 12 classes during that period so in an undergraduate class size of say 40 students, the total income from students per class taught is $100,000 for a class that meets perhaps three times a week.  This does not include the massive grants colleges receive which in many cases bring that number up to perhaps 150,000 per class if you divide it out that way.  As costs to attend college have risen, the ever compliant federal government doesn’t allow competition for students to take over, they have simply made student loans ridiculously easy to get, such that students are now spending hundreds of thousands on degrees which often times have no real function.   There even seems to be a new push to recognize some of the more useless and easy degrees by giving reduced payback requirements.  At some point we have to begin to question what is a reasonable cost for education, how much teaching should a professor actually do for his or her income.   For instance, the six figure income of Michael Mann is supported through ridiculously oversized grants for his sophomoric work, and he apparently is actually teaching for just 3 days per week and only for two semesters per year.  Yet the unreasonable people in politics continue to claim we don’t “invest” enough in education rather than noticing we are becoming dramatically less efficient at education.   The federal government is feeding both ends of the problem- loans and costs.

It seems cranially inverted to me, but then I’m not living in the shockingly sheltered world of infinite money in a US government university.  I live in the world of business where our products must provide a service, we must compete for that product to be accepted, and if we don’t provide more value than our cost, we go out of business.   Every minute of every day we work to provide our products and services at a better cost to more people.

The entire world is driven by incentivizations.   What I mean is that when you want less of something, you tax it and across the bulk of decision making made by the taxed, you get less of it.  When you want more of something you subsidize or cut taxes, and across the bulk of decision making you get more of it.  This applies on non-cost based decisions as well where positive and negative incentives drive decisions.  When the federal government provides large money to students with no assets that makes it easier to go into debt, they will carry more debt.  When universities raise tuition today due to incredibly lazy work environments, the federal government simply supports what would otherwise be a reduction in student attendance or pay cuts for professors with easier access to loans.  The problem is so severe that it is blatantly clear that the system has created a left-wing pro-government culture with massively overpriced services and equally massively underworked professors.  You get what you incentivize.

So I suppose Reich and I disagree on that but I’m off track a bit.  The movie was about the problem of income inequality, which itself is a false issue.  In the movie, Robert used the very poor unskilled workers and the very wealthy business investors as his examples, claiming that inequality is a huge issue.   The problems poor people in this movie face were obviously not due to the fact that the famous left-wing Warren Buffet made billions whatsoever.   You can redistribute all of the rich people’s money as China did, and the people who are poor will remain so, because there simply isn’t enough value to pass around. The problems the example individuals in the movie faced were not Buffets wealth but rather that they had too little money to have any visible opportunity for savings or any reasonable opportunity for a better life.   I’ve lived that way in the past myself where you must choose between food or new shoes and the $30 you have is all you are going to have for a long while.     When I hear about inequality, it makes me cringe because it has nothing to do with how much a CEO gets paid, it has to do with the VALUE of peoples time.    What does it cost to buy an hour of someones service on the open market. 

While there are plenty of things I can list that affect the cost of labor, the following major factors in the market are keeping the cost of our labor down:

  • Despite marginal economic improvement, supply of labor is still high relative to demand.
  • Working age people not contributing to availability of product and services.
  • Low cost of foreign labor.

These factors all affect the VALUE of a persons hour of work.

What happens to price of a good or service when supply goes up or demand goes down is something everyone knows, you get lower prices.   When supply is lower and demand is higher, prices go up.   The problem of wages is quite simple, supply and demand.   If you have excess labor in the workforce, real wages drop.

The second item above is a little more complex as a huge fraction of working age people in the US are not in or attempting to be in the workforce.  These people are typically not producing anything of value and are supported by government checks.  therefore do not contribute in a positive way to the economy, they become net drains and their negative influence keeps the availability of goods down and costs of goods higher while simultaneously consuming less themselves.  The available goods per functional employee must be a net positive as their consumption of goods is paid for by a fraction of what they produce.   In other words,  they must produce more value than they consume so non-working people are a net negative on the availability of goods driving up cost.

When we can purchase long term foreign labor for $3/hr and minimum real US labor cost of about $17, businesses must absolutely take advantage of this or the competitors will take you right out of the market.   This is not an effect of EVIL businessmen being greedy.  If the bottom line goes negative while trying to maintain competitive pricing, businesses are not governments, and they go bankrupt.   Often fairly quickly and with little fanfare.   In fact, businesses who do not seek out nearly every advantage go bankrupt all the time, and I have to tell you that this particular government with this president don’t give a fart what happens to my business or any other non-campaign contributing entity.   Our bankruptcy, which thankfully we are quite successful currently, wouldn’t even make the radar.

So this inequality the liberals are pounding on about is nothing but a recycled regressive Marxist redistribution style argument, that the poor people who work are not making enough and the rich make too much and it is the fault of the rich.   It is completely unfair and ridiculous to blame those like myself who work every weekend, evenings and early mornings, who are vastly more productive, create products of real value, should somehow not be compensated lavishly for successful results.   My partners and I certainly won’t be well compensated if we fail, hell we aren’t even allowed unemployment checks and we are the ones taking the risk.  Our employees won’t be terribly happy if we fail either.

But what about the ultra-wealthy.  The Trumps, Bloombergs and the Buffets of the world.   Certainly they hold too much value.   Robert Reich is of the opinion that they don’t spend enough.  They hold their money and THAT is somehow the problem with the world.   If they spent more (or perhaps were forced to spend or had their money taxed away), the money would flow more and the non-productive or low productivity people would be better off.   The false argument was made repeatedly that their tax rates were lower than any time in history, that despite their massive incomes, the taxes they paid were in the sub 15% range.   There is a lot to discuss about holding up the circulation of money, but it isn’t a zero net for the economy when it is stuck in a bank or re-invested in the stock market.  The argument Reich makes for taking money from the wealthy was incredibly oversimplified and completely wrongheaded.  Were releasing the cash such a big requirement for the economy, the giant piles of printed economic stimulus money which has never made it into the economy would be a solution rather than an inflationary ax waiting to fall on our economic necks.

While it is true that the wealthiest of investors reported taxes are that low, they are making the taxes through investment in corporations.  This gives the corporations operating cash to grow larger and these corporations gain value through various maneuvers which create profits.  Those profits are taxed at what I believe is the highest actual rate in the world today and any value remaining after tax causes the value of shares of the company to fluctuate up or down.  I’ll do some research on that rate and see if our tax leadership status has changed.   If profit goes down or negative news occurs, the investor loses their money, if it goes up, they gain value which if they are successful enough, and the stock prices perform, they can sell the stock for a profit on the corporations previously taxed profit and they receive a SECOND tax called capital gains — currently 20% of the amount gained.

Now think about this.  The money is taxed twice and only reported on the investors personal income FORM once, the rest of the influence of the invested money is taxed on the corporations tax return.  It makes the effective government tax collection rate on Warren Buffets money, higher than it appears to be on the investors balance sheet — but there is more.   Building a manufacturing company is difficult.  Our tax rate approaches 60% because of the dozens of layers of tax, our high growth, and the fact that certain things must be capitalized and depreciated.  In a growing company, the tax depreciation system creates a continuously increasing zero interest loan to the state and federal government based on unrealized income.  Despite the happy feelings that gives the high tax folk, you typically don’t get it back either as the company eventually will fail or be sold and fail later and there is no income against which you can depreciate the expense.  The result is simply that we have a tax rate which is much higher than is reported to the public.

More importantly, the capital gains tax is what is applied to a business being sold.   If the business gains value from the time of purchase to the time of sale, you pay capital gains on that increased value.  Keep in mind that the business has been paying at a 60% rate all along and then when sold, if it has anything of value to sell for, you are taxed a second time on the value of that sale.  Again, it is a second tax and certainly a large one considering what odds we face to keep a business from failing.

What does it do to the true stock value of a business if capital gains taxes on the sale of that stock are doubled? 

Will an increased capital gains tax encourage or discourage investment in US businesses?

Will reduced investment levels and the subsequent growth create more demand for employees?

Will income of the poorest people increase or decrease when there is less investment in the production of goods and services and less demand for jobs?

The answers to these questions are very clear, yet Robert Reich and many on the left don’t seem to want to grasp the situation.  Instead they attack a few high visibility billionaires ridiculous pay levels, or the fact that hedge fund managers are taxed on their income for other peoples investments at capital gains rates (the left is correct on fixing this item), but none of that IS the problem with the poor.  Nor will it make one scrap of positive help on the actual issue of the low end worker not having enough money.  Artificially propping up the bottom of the pay scale by minimum wage laws to levels almost nobody pays anyway, marginally decreases demand and subsequently marginally reduces the value of an employee’s time.  You get the opposite of the higher wages we all want.  It is also a non-solution to the real issue which is one of supply and demand for the low-skill employee.

Now we know from the cigarette and carbon tax fiasco’s that if we want more of something we tax it less or subsidize it (reduce the cost of the good or service) and if we want less, we tax it more (increase the cost of goods or services).  If you want to solve the low income problem (again the problem is not inequality), we need to as a country, commit to a stable pro-business reduced cost, tax, and regulation environment, such that people like myself (or perhaps you) who are crazy enough to take a ridiculous chance on starting a business, succeed at our efforts more often than we currently do.   What is better than that, and we see from the fact that the dollar continues to be reasonably strong, is that we don’t even have to be ACTUALLY good for business.  We just have to be better than much of the rest of the world, and the money will flow in to America in literal droves.   Demand for workers (especially skilled workers) will skyrocket.  Employers like myself will be forced by supply and demand to pay higher wages to keep our trained people.  The poor in America will continue to operate well above the median income of most of the rest of the world.

Now note, I said reduced cost and mentioned both tax and regulation.   Regulation favors the large company.  We struggled mightily with regulation when we were at the 20ish person employee level.   We are much larger now and can afford some of the additional costs of regulatory compliance but navigation of the rules is a massive burden on a corporation and this administration has added a very large additional burden for reporting, compliance, liability and necessary insurances to cover ourselves.  We talk regularly with 4 lawyers, and have multiple others we deal with.  All of these are costs, and while some is necessary, all costs are reductions in the  success level of American business and these costs often DO make the difference between success and failure.

Finally, the movie makes the point that we are at one of the lowest tax rates in the century.  Robert Reich put up a graph of the percentage paid by top earners for his proof.   The commentary which went with his graph can only be described as dishonest.   When deductions, and expenses are taken into consideration, America is at or near the highest percentage of collection rate our government has achieved.  I will take time before the election cycle to plot this again for people as I expect the lies on this subject to continue growing.  Taxes on the wealthy are currently high as deductions of expenses such as state tax or home interest are actually considered income on the federal tax. The situation is ridiculously convoluted and Reich owes his audience an apology for that dishonesty. The second tax reported on Warren Buffets personal return is not high, but again, it is not the whole story of taxes he contributes to our government by any means, the rest of his tax just lands on a different piece of paper.

This post has grown much longer than I intended but there is a lot of real information here.  I can write on about how regulation favors the ultra-wealthy and even high taxes on business capital gains favors billionaires who would definitely pay more.   The points I make above are facts as I know them.   It is extremely clear what it would take to increase the wages of the lowest earners, and it has not one thing to do with Marxist style redistribution.  We need more demand for employment and less strong government incentives for functional individuals to stay home and not contribute their available productivity.  Reduce some of the regulation on businesses, i.e. healthcare, environmental, employment liability, reporting requirements, tax complexity, capitalization taxes, and stop the added cost of insane EPA regulation on the energy industry —  and of course restructure taxes such that Americans get the best value for their money by investing here rather than holding money unused in other countries.










Posted in Uncategorized | 49 Comments »

Fox article on RICO

Posted by Jeff Id on September 29, 2015

Fox news has a good opinion piece by Judith Curry on the recent call by 20 fake scientists for criminalization of activities by people and organizations who can still objectively read a graph which shows climate models are complete failures.

See article here.

Two of many graphs of climate model failures are below:

CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1] CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS[1]Advocates like to say that these graphs are unfair due to baselining, then those same advocates publish work which uses the confidence interval of an absolute temperature at a single point to claim they are in the bottom edge of the CI rather than the model trend which has failed miserably.  In other words, they are gaming the plot to maximize their match and intentionally ignoring the elephant in the room.  Some of these papers have even gone through the fake peer review processes and reached publication.  It is truly a shame that climate science has stooped to this level.

In the meantime, those of us with the now criminal skill to read a graph and objectively interpret it, have been told we should be forced surrender our assets and be sent to prison by the always tolerant liberal left.  The models failed en masse and anyone who claims otherwise is simply pretending to know science and acting as a political advocate.

But where would punishment of skeptics be without religious involvement.  Skeptics have been accused of Galileo syndrome, I found it particularly ironic that the pope himself went to US congress to repeat these same sorts of establishment climate science falsehoods just last week.   Like Germans with politics, Catholic leaders seem to work hard to continue to maintain their dismal scientific record.


Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments »

Trenberth – (edited) Skeptics need to shut up or be shot.

Posted by Jeff Id on September 19, 2015

Judith Curry called attention to a fairly important event in climate science.  A number of scientists are calling for the government to prosecute criminally, corporations and individuals who will not agree with the extrapolated gloom and doom conclusions by fake scientists who base their opinions on failed climate models.   These fake government funded scientists have written a letter asking for the senate to use RICO law as a mechanism to prosecute normal scientists, institutions and businesses who won’t agree with their draconian, self-destructive behaviors.

Copied from Judith’s post:

In case you don’t know what RICO is (Wikipedia):

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.

The letter to congress is as follows:

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.


Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO
T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX
Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY
Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

Every name on this list is essentially a modern day Nazi.   These are evil people who have no idea the damage they do NOR DO THEY CARE.   They are small minded morons who think with their feelings instead of their minds.  This is a blatant call for the might of government to suppress not only free speech but correct speech.

I and others have written this so many times but it seems that people never learn.   When you vote for more government, you give up your choices for personal rational decision making, in favor of loss of personal freedom.   The corporations, organizations and ultimately individuals, whom are all already under numerous forms of government attack, will continue to be forced into compliance and will be rewarded financially if they capitulate.  The carrot and stick are both in full visibility. In exchange, the liberal politicians collect money in the form of personal campaign contributions, business favors, and new politically controlled ‘problems’ to discuss on the political trail.   This mechanism extends through both parties but primarily exists in the democrat party as they are able to OPENLY demand more government whereas faux conservatives must pretend to not notice the governmental creep.

I’ve written it before, and will  continue to write it again as we come closer to a serious election cycle.   Judith (and plenty of other people) deserves what she gets because she was duped into voting for it.   I just hope that people wake up and realize that we already have far too much government for our small population before we lose the last pieces of our freedom as we slide into the ugly morass of socialism.  It is late in the game though for America, and pseudo-intellectuals like the moronic signators on this letter deserve to go down first.  In fact, loss of their government jobs is what they deserve for suggesting using a legal loophole for the unconstitutional suppression of reasoned dissent.   Of course they will continue to receive that same government money as they nearly all have university jobs from which they cannot be fired.  They can rest comfortably knowing that it won’t be any of them who suffers the consequences of their economic ignorance.

It will be us.

These same fools have been predicting starvation and doom from population growth for decades.  When we suddenly have starvation again, you can bet the same morons who are currently demanding by legal fiat, that we create intentional economic productivity loss to save humanity, will then blame the very thing they intentionally destroyed for the problems the destruction creates.  The industry which would have otherwise fed them, saved them from war, helped their children grow and learn, provide world class health care, gave them homes and leisure time beyond imagination — free market businesses built by individuals and optimized for best output — will be a shell of its former self.  The reality will be that socialism and the high load of massive government will have been the cause, they will have the power, control of the media, and the universities, and through those mechanisms free market will continue to be assigned the blame.


Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments »

A Solution to Success

Posted by Jeff Id on September 8, 2015

America is voluntarily shutting down its energy production after only a little more than a century since the industrial revolution.   In fear of a nearly undetectable amount of warming from CO2, in the face of massive and well known benefits of this particular gas in the atmosphere, we have decided that fear of the unknown will dominate and destroy our progress.

In 2008 I started this blog after looking at the nonsensical political intentions of global warming activists.   I knew full well before I began, that even if global warming were as dangerous as they claimed, the alarmists socialist solutions were a far more immediate danger than anything we could do to the environment.   I knew that I would let science drive my own solutions, no matter the direction it took me, but socialism is only a solution to success.  I have learned more than expected about climate science and I am more disappointed in the science than I ever imagined possible.   Taken as a whole global warming is simply not science.   The field of climate study is so severely polluted that I cannot even read a paper on oceanic acidification without a jaundiced eye.  The money, the political money, and corresponding pressures from big government, the printed, fake, borrowed, stolen, redistributed money is far too great for any science to overcome.

Climate models do not match observation — tell that to Bart Verheggan and watch the fireworks fly — they do not match, they have failed and no amount of left-wing sophistry can help them.   That does not even slow the rampant decision making by our government.   No amount of common sense deters the power mad or the good feeling scientists.   It’s all about limitation, all about reservation, and it is falsely labeled as progressive.

As I write this, America is literally shutting down its primary energy production with no replacements intended.  We do this on the basis of an imagined problem, which can already be proven did not happen.   Scientifically proven to not match models.   The problems of warming DID NOT happen, yet we are destroying – literallly – the energy releasing devices which gave us freedom from poverty, sickness and oppression of numerous dictatorships.   Coal powerplants have been regulated out of existence and it is under one year before demolitions begin.  These plants must be not only deactivated or idled in case of need, but slaughtered into dust, such that property taxes aren’t paid on unused buildings and equipment.  Machines, technologies and equipment that took us centuries to build, that have no replacement coming in the near future, destroyed and pounded into dust to make idiots “feel better” about trees which ironically eat the same output gas we are eliminating production of.   When you are cold, poor, unemployed and impoverished in only FIVE years, will you reach your feeble hand out to the government for the pittances they will offer.   Will you accept their checks to “support” you, as we slide ever further into the poverty socialism offers.

My answer is yes, yes you will.   We have added tens of millions to those very roles in only the last 6 years of Obama socialism.  You are reading here so you are probably not one of the currently impoverished as free computers are not yet part of the government handouts.  When it comes time, you will have hands out, begging for help from the very people who caused the problem.   People you may have voted for, perhaps even to save the planet from the fabricated threat of a tiny bit of warming.  Except that you didn’t vote for the rules themselves because nobody did.  Our government is so big, so powerful, that even the unelected thoroughly leftist EPA is making its own law, its own crimes against the ecosystem, which when we are deemed guilty of we can be punished and our lives ruined for.  And as they are unelected morons, NO American vote can change them.  These same fools are intentionally destroying the most important thing America has – low cost energy production.   Their goal has nothing to do with your economic security, nor are they saving the environment.

There is no ‘renewable energy solution’ in existence.  What is worse, there NEVER will be.  We use too much power today for exaggerated science of ‘renewable energy’ to actually solve the problem. In the future we will need dramatically more energy, not less.  Renewable in today’s terms means incident solar power or geothermal and our required energy needs cannot be rationally met that way.  It is a pipe dream which will not exist.   Nuclear can solve the problem, as can gas, oil and coal while we continue to improve our nuclear technology.   Solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal, can never do it.  They WILL never do it.   The watts don’t exist in the required density, nor does the technology.  I’m just an engineer so you should listen to your stupid green feelings instead, or perhaps that know-nothing jorunalist with a big smile who looks great in a short skirt or whatever you like.  I will just continue to see you as a moron until you change your mind and you will then achieve the prestigious label of one of Id’s previously ignorant.

Of course we can pretend.  We can try to feel good while wrecking balls crash through our fully operational and very clean, perfectly functional powerplants next April.   The lack of smog and brown skies in one of the highest energy producing countries on the planet are proof of their cleanliness.   Of course if it makes you feel bad, we should recycle the remains of the power plants, throw some topsoil on their now green carcasses, fill in a few mines with water and fish and plant some trees.

I am thoroughly pissed off that America would even consider this, let alone let it happen.  I’m so beyond scared for our children when we turn off their heat and lights on f…ing purpose and tell them that “conservation” can replace usage, it is difficult to describe.   While I want to say this is only a symptom of the obviously bigger problem, it is like saying your leg fell off is a symptom of gangrene. The single most abundant factor in this universe is energy, and even Einstein can’t teach us to use it.

We deserve the monkey-like herd deaths which will come, because as a population we are NOT smart enough to deserve the gifts the energy rich universe gives us.  When suddenly the environmentalists proclamations that we will not be able to feed ourselves become true, because of our growing population, it won’t be for any other reason than that we adopted limitation of progress as a ‘progressive’ policy.  We have stayed ahead of their wildest imaginations with respect to food output, in large part due to availability of cheap energy. While they sound smart sometimes, none of these limitation folk are smart enough to attach their own actions to the cause, and considering millions of years of evolution it took to get us here, when we reach the point of starvation, they won’t be any smarter about cause and effect than they are right now.  History has demonstrated that the left will literally starve us en-masse, as Chavez did, as so many socialists have done to their populations. Examples are across the globe.   It didn’t stop Hollywood from actually making a movie to actually celebrate Chavez!  Socialism is still good!, and Chavez is a hero to the now starving, sick, broke, dying, powerless and impoverished people of a once nearly functional society but he isn’t the cause, he is the hero??!!

They will continue to preach to us the benefits of central control while our children starve in the streets.   We will die by the hundreds of thousands, and we will stick our hands out for the food lines, for the medicine lines, for the government chits, whatever brand of paper they conjure.  Yet die we will.  And we earned it, because we allegedly want to try and prevent our sub-fraction of a couple of degrees Celsius warmer weather– which we will ironically fail at.

We need coal for several more decades or at least until we fully implement something else.   That we can even imagine shutting it off cold, is a sign of failed minds.




Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

True Green

Posted by Jeff Id on September 3, 2015

If you ever wonder what the UN, IPCC and Climate Science ™ are truly about.  Naomi Klein has your answer.  While some falsely claim that 97% of climate scientist alarmists agree with global warming doom, the reality is that the most powerful of those people believe in ending capitalism and embracing socialism.   There has always been this tendency in humanity to reject what is obviously true and embrace insane ideas, e.g. killing people for Allah or Christianity is just as bad as Muslim.   While both religions have bad history, taken objectively neither of these are reasonable opinions to hold.  Yet those are deeply engrained in today’s popular and insane culture. The acceptance of nonsensical ideology is front and center in the case of capitalism vs socialism and communism.

Every evidence of greater comfort, cleaner society, better quality of life, reduced poverty is fully in view in capitalist society, yet the public actually pays money to listen to ignorant fools prattle on about the benefits of central control and the need to destroy the very industry they rely on.  To these fools extreme poverty and human suffering so evident in Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, on and on, can all be cured if we just imagine the good people in control.   It’s like a war on air.  We need air, but we feel it is bad so lets get rid of it!!  From the idiot pope, the majority of media, to morons like Naomi, people are screaming for less production – so they can personally have more stuff and less poverty.  These people are literally that stupid.    And there are a lot of them out there.

I can’t pretend to understand how people get to that level of ignorance, but when Hillary and Bill Clinton are caught peddling US government influence to funnel money from foreign countries into their own “non-profit” company, it doesn’t prevent people from thinking that somehow she’s one of the good ones so that is what we should have for president.  Bernie Sanders pounding on about the evil rich and how his own version of robin hood where everyone gets free college paid for by everyone else.  He completely misses the point that much of the population isn’t smart enough to need college.  It is simply of no use to them.  You can’t teach them to be smarter but you could make them less ignorant. Today’s public universities are so polluted with liberal activist professors it is nearly impossible for any rational teaching to be done anyway, perhaps that is his real goal.  These once good schools have become left-wing indoctrination farms. Ignorance has therefore become a key component of their curriculum.  Students are often forced to repeat the nonsense knowing it will help their grades until it becomes part of their own thought patterns. In case you are one of the confused ignorant morons, there are plenty of ways to get through college and stealing from productive people to give to non-productive people is not a plan for societal success.

Climate science is often compared to a religion these days.   In the same way that Muslims can believe in an invisible man who will make them personally better off if they kill other people, alarmists posing as scientists believe that somehow stopping production will lead to a green nirvana.  Better living will come if we simply stop working to make our lives better.  If we prevent companies from improving efficiency, or delivering services at lower cost, we will all have more and the world will be better for all of us.   There is no more evidence for that than there is for Allah’s favor in return for murder, but believe they do and since it is an irrational non-evidentiary belief, you can’t negotiate with them logically.

That is what climate science is.  Left-wing radicals lying about dangers because they have a single poorly concealed goal in mind based on a projected future which cannot physically exist.   Naomi knows best.  Were that goal in any way rational, it might be a good thing, but their barely concealed goal is completely irrational and dangerously so from a societal standpoint.  That is why despite the shrill alarmism in the media and from the IPCC, there is not one single actual danger from warming that has been discovered.  No increased hurricanes, no dangerous sea level rise, no tornadoes, droughts, rainfall, extreme melting of glaciers, no extinctions, on and on.  Despite what you keep being told in the media, these things didn’t happen due to global man made climate change and many didn’t happen at all.  That is why even though climate models have failed completely, the “scientists” cannot admit that failure even while simultaneously trying to fix the ostensibly non-existent problems. That is why we get nonsensical “scientific” papers that conclude fish are shrinking, sheep are shrinking, pretty little butterflies passing away from heat stroke, and Antarctica is melting — these are all lies.  Flat lies, although I’m sure some of the irrational climate alarmists are crazy enough to believe their own nonsense.

The result of this ignorance is purely evil.  Peoples lives are already being destroyed by crazy regulations brought about by the same alarmist groups for the same purpose.  It is actually become quite a common problem across the world.  Yet people are lining up for more socialism, more regulation, less production, higher taxation so they can personally have more….

True green.






Posted in Uncategorized | 24 Comments »

Ignored Heat Capacity

Posted by Jeff Id on August 25, 2015

Something that has often bothered me about climate models and rain water is how the energy transfer to the rock is handled.   Each climate model I’ve read seems to address the problem in similar ways with bulk conductivity parameters that appear to ignore anything but conductive energy transfer to significant depths with basic flows of energy at shallow depths.   The result is that there doesn’t appear to be much effective thermal mass in our land area on Earth.  The consequence of this is that  land thermal mass holds nothing of great effect with respect to global warming.   Climate models are absolutely missing something important here.

I’m not sure what reference would best illustrate the point,  Trenberth has a powerpoint presentation up at this link which summarizes the complex parameterization of climate model land usage.  The reference is pithy but explains quite clearly how modern science interprets ground thermal mass.


The rock is treated as a solid non-moving mass

Land:  Small heat capacity, small mass involved (conduction)

Water storage varies: affects sensible vs latent fluxes

Wide variety of features, slopes, vegetation, soils

Mixture of natural and managed

The heat capacity is treated as small which on the surface (some pun intended) seems reasonable.   However, conduction is almost always a minimal factor in a situation where fluids are present and physical mass flow exists.   In the surface of the ground on earth, we have significant physical thermal mass flow —>downward.   Always downward.. well nearly always anyway.

The magnitude of heat capacity

Did you know that a century of today’s worst case global warming heat can be stored in the deep oceans with only an approximate 0.1C rise in temperature and that 0.1c is leaves the oceanic mass very near freezing in temperature?

Did you know that the huge oceanic thermal mass is only 10% of the water in Earth’s crust?

In effect, the only thing which conceptually allows our temperature to measurably rise with today’s minimal CO2 forcing is the lag in thermal transfer to these huge thermal masses.  Oceans are said to mix on over-century timescales.  Water and ocean, conduction and convection effects are stated by modern science to be too slow and therefore dangerous warming can occur.  Interestingly, land thermal mass seems to have a very high transfer rate and is quite nearly ignored.   I don’t believe this very significant aspect of global warming has been vetted thoroughly and you shouldn’t either.

While we do have a huge amount of water on Earth and contrary to public schooling, will not run out due to human usage, we have a lot more rock in the Earths crust than we have water.

This is how modern climate science thinks of land:

Moreover, heat penetration into land is limited by the low thermal conductivity of the land surface; as a result only the top two meters or so of the land typically play an active role in heat storage and release (e.g., as the depth for most of the variations over annual time scales). Accordingly, land plays a much smaller role than the ocean in the storage of heat and in providing a memory for the climate system.

This type of paragraph is surprisingly common argument, presented as a mere handwave rationale to define the necessary land depths used in climate models.   While annual temperature invariance of deeper soils sounds like a reasonable rationale to cut off the depths of modeling layers, it fails to take into account the relatively lower thermal mass of water passing through the soil on an annualized basis, and the continuing nature of the increased energy input to that same soil caused by warmer atmosphere.

Another example of a climate paper which discusses only conductivity of soil without discussion of net flow.

It seems really obvious to me that the heat from rain, and the slow but regular downward convection of fluid through the massive amount of rock will lead to little seasonal temperature change of the soil but a very large heat storage device.   The capacity for this storage can easily eliminate the higher frequency seasonal variations and yet ignore the conductive heat transfer of decadal term climate signals.  The result would be vastly underestimated thermal absorption by the thin surface layer conduction models used in modern climate science.   As an example, California’s rain has to pass through hundreds of feet of rock before it reaches ground water.   Does anyone expect a few inches of rain to affect the seasonal temperatures of rock?  I don’t, but over time the heat from 0.6C warmer than average rain will certainly be stored there.   The heat will have a great deal of difficulty conducting upward due to low rock conductance and a continuing downflow of new rain water percolating through the rock material.  Yet conduction is what climate science recognizes and a few meters of surface material seems to be the critical part of land thermal mass modeling.

This is wholly inconsistent with the much better known science of hydrogeology.  Here is an article showing the age of water in a typical well. The oldest being ~ 300 ft deep and 30 years old.   So gradual down-flowing rain has been pushing extra heat from globally warming temperatures into this rock for at most 30 years.  A hundred meters of rock over 30 years as a typical measure of land mass thermal absorption.  The water went through the rock, the heat definitely reached equilibrium with the rock over that time and the water holding the global warming heat is still contained within the rock!

Of note, while the wells in the paper seem to stop at 100meters, the water certainly didn’t.

Do you think climate models take into account this massive heat storage capacity?

Here is what GISS had for ground layers in 2005

Continents: each 4×3 cell is
either all ocean or all continent
1. Resolution: fixed
fractions of continental cell are
ground, land ice, or lake,
ground can be partially covered by snow,
lake can be partially covered by lake ice;
ground has 4 layers plus fith layer for snow,
ground layer thicknesses: .0625, .25, 1, 4 (m);
land ice has 4 layers;
liquid lake has 2 layers,
lake ice is treated like sea ice

So we know from my link above that water can regularly get into a 100 meter well in 30 years or less, yet this climate model only calculates the first 1.4 meters, and apparently only for thermal conductivity.  I’m just not seeing the convection parametrization you would expect for downward water flow, not that I couldn’t have missed something in this model while reading another, but it does not appear to be there.

Numerous modern climate models suffer the same lack of depth (again some pun intended – sorry):

Our latest version, CRCM4.2 is even more in-line than CRCM 3.7 with the CCCma GCM3 package (Scinocca and McFarlane, 2004). The most important change consisted in the implementation of GCM3’s multi-layer surface scheme CLASS 2.7 (Canadian LAnd Surface Scheme; Verseghy, 1991; Verseghy et al., 1993) in the CRCM to provide a more realistic description of water and energy exchange between the land surface and atmosphere. Starting from the surface, CLASS uses three soil layers with thicknesses of 0.1 m, 0.25m and 3.75 m, corresponding approximately to the depth influenced by the diurnal cycle, the rooting zone and the annual variations of temperature, respectively. CLASS includes prognostic equations for energy and water conservation for the three soil layers and a thermally and hydrologically distinct snowpack where applicable (treated as a fourth variable-depth soil layer).

I know that in our house, we have a cracked basement wall, and after a very hard rainstorm our wonderful finished basement can get water in that particular corner.   The wall is 2.5 meters underground at the base and it takes literally hours for the water to reach that depth. We have had some specialists out twice for the problem and they will be coming back again.   However, 1 day isn’t an unreasonable expectation on any percolating soil to over 2 meters depth.    The increased heat added to the ground of a single rain at that depth is going to take months to measurably influence the rock, and if another rain hits, it will be dragged further downward instead of conducting up to the surface.  

The heat capacity of water is 4 Kj/kg-K  and the heat capacity of sand is 0.19 or about 21 times less than water.   However the density of sand is 1600 Kg/m^3 and water is 1000Kg/m^3.   If you get 0.1 meters of rain in a month, as we approximately do, an equal heat capacity layer of sand has a depth of 1.3 meters.  If the water is 1 C warmer, and was contained to 1.3 meters, then the land should warm by 0.5C at that depth and the water should cool by 0.5C.  In practice, the continuing downflow will carry that warmth to an even greater depth.  New rainfall continues the process, carrying the new heat ever deeper.

Of course we would expect very little monthly temperature variance at 3 meters depth because the thermal mass of the rock has dampened the variations in rain water temperature.  I hope I have explained well enough to show that while this thermal capacitance dampens high frequency signals, it does nothing to preclude energy from hundred year warming caused by CO2 from penetrating to great depths.

To me this is a very big problem with climate modeling.   It is not a minor issue to be brushed off as current modeling does, and this missing heat should be considered carefully.   Perhaps I’m missing something special here, it wouldn’t be the first time, but at this point I can’t imagine what that might be.



Update per request from Mark Cooper.  A typical soil temperature range vs depth in winter and summer seasons.  The graph shows net power flow is upward in the winter and downward in summer.  For some reason the graph won’t upload to wordpress, so the link is the best I can do.I tried to make the point that the net direction of heat flow is not the important factor with respect to global warming but rather the change in magnitude of heat flow due to warmer temperatures is the critical factor.  That may not be clear in the post above.












Posted in Uncategorized | 27 Comments »

NSIDC Polar Hole Correction

Posted by Jeff Id on August 14, 2015

Data is dangerous as many a paleoclimatology paper can demonstrate. Big data is statistically more dangerous, and the satellite sea ice data record is a multi-gigabyte set. Some years ago, your not-so-terribly-humble correspondent made a small error which was published here, and at WUWT.   I downloaded the global satellite data for sea ice and did not correctly apply the missing “hole” in the data for the entire time series.  The result was an inaccurate trend and associated conclusions.  It was of course, embarrassing, and I did apologize quickly and fixed the data set.  Any scientist would.   The reason for the problem was that the documentation at the NSIDC wasn’t really up to snuff and I was new to the data.  They very efficiently and quickly corrected the metadata record.  Grant Foster, who posts as Tamino on the inappropriately named “open mind” blog, took a couple hours of his day to write a teasing post on the error.

Well today, on perusing the NSIDC site, I received a little redeeming gift.  It turns out that even the NSIDC which is comprised of the literal best experts on the sea ice data, is capable of the exact same mistake I made on my first ever compilation of the massive dataset:

Correction in Application of SMMR Pole Hole for Daily Data and its Consequences

In March 2015, while editing the data processing code to apply the SSMIS pole hole mask, it was found that the Sea Ice Index processing code had been applying the SMMR pole hole mask over the entire Sea Ice Index time series when computing the daily extent numbers instead of using the SSM/I pole hole mask beginning in July 1987 as the monthly data processing does. Because it is assumed that the entire region under the pole hole mask is ice-covered and because the SMMR pole hole mask is relatively large, some sections of open water, regions with less than 15 percent ice concentration, were being unknowingly included as sea ice in the daily Arctic-wide ice extent number.

At the time of this mask correction, 132 incursions of open water into the SMMR pole hole mask had taken place in recent years. The first occurred in 1987. However, until 2007, all of these incursions had areas of less than .01 million km2 which is below the precision of these data. Between 1987 and 2013, the size of the open water in the SMMR pole hole mask ranged in area from 1800 km2 to 10,000 km2. Figure 19 shows the worst-case scenario, 22 September 2009, where approximately 10,000 km2 crept into the SMMR pole hole area (red area in Figure 19).

The version 1.2 release of the Sea Ice Index corrects this processing oversight. All concentration data up to the latitude of the appropriate pole hole are used in the calculation of Arctic-wide extent. As a result of this change, there are slight decreases in the corrected daily extent number for some days in the record. These small changes do not affect the monthly anomalies and trends, however, which are reported to two significant figures.

Again, they professionally and scientifically announced and corrected the record.  Kudos again NSIDC.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Dead Ice

Posted by Jeff Id on August 13, 2015

The Antarctic ice is melting and is well below average for the first time in 3 years.  Global sea ice is also below minimum. It looks like the death spiral has come to pass….

From Cryosphere Today


Except that it is winter there and that means it is simply not freezing at a typical rate.   It still spells doom though, I’m just not sure how.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

Dual Title Day: Line up for your Brownouts. or Future America to Produce Energy by Harnessing Happiness.

Posted by Jeff Id on August 2, 2015

The most anti-industry president we’ve ever seen continues his rampage against success with his inexplicable anti-scientific and draconian cuts to CO2 emissions.  Why anyone liberal or otherwise doesn’t have the common sense to see the error of this policy is beyond my understanding.   We are violently attacking the very thing which makes us successful — energy.   The costs of these policies are so underestimated they are simply lies,  the consequences will be negative to the environment and the negative consequences to industry are intended to be dramatic.  From here:

By clamping down on power plant emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he’s seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.

The people who support this policy are comprised of complete idiots, power hungry politicians and anti-industry left-wing radicals who pretend to have knowledge.  Some of you read here so if you support this idiocy, you can find your own grouping.  Of course all of the pro-government nonsense is funded by theft of our money through unsustainably high government taxes.

The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.

Does 4.9% even begin to pass the smell test for costs created by stopping power generation from combustion – without the introduction of safe clean nuclear power?    NO it doesn’t, for those who can’t figure it out.   You need to be an idiot to believe that it might but plenty will ‘feel’ exactly that.   Rocks and feelings do not make good decision engines.

I’m not alone in this, America just does not have enough thinkers anymore to see clearly and overwhelm the political nonsense.

Posted in Uncategorized | 33 Comments »

John Cook – Missing the Point Again

Posted by Jeff Id on July 25, 2015

So a couple of days ago Lubos Motl of the Reference Frame blog discovered that his name was being used by extremist envirowhacko John Cook.   Lubos wrote a rather funny reply in an unserious tone which was then followed up on by a number of blogs including this one.   Lubos’s post was titled: Identity theft: the thief of Lubos_Motl turns out to be a well-known man.  I followed up with a rather angry post about Cook lying to people for his own gain.   Note the title I used:

John Cook Proprietor of SKS, Repeat Coauthor of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky Caught Red Handed Impersonating Lubos Motl for Purposes of a University of Australia Research Project

What am I saying in that?

Cook impersonated a known scientifically credentialed skeptic with fake bad arguments, showed those fabricated bad arguments to people (possibly changing the name on the comment beforehand) and planned to use their responses in another publication attacking reasonable climate skeptics.    In his own words:

As the second part of our experiment on science blogging, we’ll be showing 4 conditions to lab participants at the Uni of W.A. The condition for this thread is Skeptic Blog Post, Skeptic Comments. So would be great if a handful of SkSers could post glowing, very skeptic comments to our Denial blog post – posted here in this forum thread. We need exactly 10 skeptic comments.

Here are links to four versions of articles Cook put together so you can understand the tone of what he wrote: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4. These show the articles and the poorly contrived ‘skeptic arguments’.

This is what passes for a scientific study at the University of Western Australia.

The claim that his argument was a skeptic argument, is of course a lie because extreme advocates made the arguments in very poor fashion.  The claim that Cook has the scientific know-how to evaluate a scientific argument is a problem for me, but beyond basic competence it is quite clear that on climate science he has lost all objectivity.  Of real concern to me, did he get paid for the work, has it ever been used in print or will it be in the future?   I don’t really know but I do know that he intended to publish it from this comment.

Will definitely post about the experiment
John Cook Probably after it’s been accepted or published though, best not to pre-empt the peer-review process.Not sure if I’ll post the actual article and comments – that will be something to ponder way down the track. Could have a bit of fun with it.

That quoted comment was in a file where thoughts on the study implementation were discussed prior to beginning.   Interestingly Glen Tamblyn, expressed the same concerns that we all should have about this kind of chicanery. HIS bold, not mine.

Glenn Tamblyn Once your experiment is complete it might be good to actually do a post on it, showing all 4 versions and commenting prominantly that both warmist and skeptic comments were written by the same people

Also in that same file, another commenter Steve Brown expresses concern that the skeptic arguments were a bit too realistic.

Steve Brown It’s really got me wondering how many of the regulars at WUWT are genuine and how many are SkS contributors having a laugh after the pub.  Some of those skeptic comments were a bit too realistic.

Which is of course the point of what I’m writing.   The arguments are not realistic as they are made by and interpreted by advocates, biasing the study irreconcilably prior to it even being launched.  Cook is such an advocate though that he even suggested handing out a flyer to those who read the “denier” stuff such that too many don’t get converted by accident.

Why write about this again today?

So I was sent a link to a facebook post today.   John Cook wrote a ‘scathing’ reply to Lubos’s funny post.  John is peddling his debunked claim that skeptics believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories.  In it, he admits to moving forward with this above experiment.

Here is an excerpt of John Cook, unwittingly admitting to his gamesmanship.

The stolen private correspondance from 2011 involved Skeptical Science team members developing comment threads (both supporting and rejecting climate science) for use in a psychology experiment. In the private forum (only), I posted a few comments under the pseudonym Lubos_Motl (to signify that the comments were taking a contrarian stance). The username was changed to an anonymous name for the experiment. In other words, it was not used in the experiment and was never used outside of the private Skeptical Science forum.

Consequently, Motl’s accusations of identity theft are demonstrably false. Further, I find it extraordinary that Motl publicly posts comments about me being hanged, and allows public comments on his blog that approve of torturing and murdering me. I find it equally extraordinary that such misleading and venomous posts are uncritically endorsed by third parties such as Richard Tol, Anthony Watts and Roger Pielke Jr.

And this is where Cook missed the boat,  Starting with the fact that the allegedly ‘stolen’ correspondence quoted here was left on line where anyone who was interested could find it and could hardly be considered private.  Besides that, we only have his word that he didn’t share Motl’s name with his experiment victims, I do tend to believe this because he does take himself pretty seriously and you wouldn’t want to bias such a well-considered experiment, but we don’t really know do we.  In this episode, he admits actually performing the experiment where he and other advocates from SKS pretended to be skeptics, and then likely rated answers of his hapless victims who responded to the fake arguments he happened to conjure. Perhaps the reason we cannot find the results in the promised paper, is that they weren’t up to Skeptical Science(TM) well known standards for proper ridicule of non-advocate climate scientists (AKA normal folk).

Keep in mind that John is a man who is completely incapable of objectively recognizing that climate models are not matching observation.   In other words, he and other SKS’rs intended and initiated a scammed study, falsely claiming to be comprised of climate skeptic arguments, for their own purposes.  The study was likely funded by government tax dollars of some sort through UWA but we don’t know.  He did use Lubos’s name on a non-linked public forum on the internet, and may have used them in the actual study, however his protests of innocence on this miss the point and instead confirm the type of “statistical study” he and by association Lewandowsky prefer.

And he is so thoroughly confused on the matter that he doesn’t even recognize his own chicanery.

All for the cause.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

John Cook Proprietor of SKS, Repeat Coauthor of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky Caught Red Handed Impersonating Lubos Motl for Purposes of a University of Australia Research Project

Posted by Jeff Id on July 23, 2015

UPDATE:  Just to be clear to the crowd.  Nobody believes this had to do with LOG 12,13 or papers of the moon landing genre.  Not sure what the study had to do with.  Also, these Lubos posts were not initially visible to the public but were made visible to an unknown number of others by John Cook and eventually released to the public by someone else.  Not that I care either way, I just don’t want to be accused of saying something I didn’t say.   I was rather grumpy when I wrote the post and I suppose I still am, that is why it is called the Air Vent after all.


After being libeled in a journal by Lewandowsky and Cook in 2013: “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation” where Cook and Lew made claims which they knew from personal emials between us were false, I’ve learned today that none other than John Cook was apparently impersonating Lubos Motl for purposes of a UWA Experiment. An excerpt from his emails at this site is below but the link to the bitwise record of the mess is here.

Tom Curtis would you please stop posting as Lubos Motl.  There is reason to doubt his sanity, so I don’t like seeing his name.  Further, it is his name, and therefore one you are not entitled to use.

John Cook

Sorry about the Lubos thing

Was posting someLubos comments for theUWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.For the record, if just one or two of you SkSers jumped over to the Technical Forum and posted some comments to the 4 Experiment Conditions, I’d get my 10 comments and wouldn’t have to log in as Lubos anymore. Only one or two more comments required to get the quota. Just some incentive for you 🙂

EDIT: one of the conditions now has 10 comments, so only 3 more threads (with 2 of them only requiring one more comment). So Lubos very close to being put to bed 🙂

UWA being the University of Western Australia.

Now they have libeled me multiple times, libeled numerous other climate blog writers less obviously, violated basic ethics rules of psychology as a matter of habit, yet are very heavily government funded.  From Lewandowsky and Cook’s last paper:

A more extended variant of this hypothesis cited S.L.’s research funding available on his webpage (A$4.4 million
in grants) and drew attention to A$762,000 specifically for climate research. Moreover, the commenter argued
that this funding did not include A$6 million that the Australian Commonwealth Government provided S.L. and
colleagues to run ‘The Conversation’ [DC 122]. ‘The Conversation’ refers to an online newspaper (https://theconversation.
com/au/who-we-are) that is primarily written by academics and is funded by a consortium of major
Australian universities and other scientific organizations. (S.L. has no editorial role in this initiative but has written
numerous articles for TheConversation.)

And even better, for those of you who consider CNN to be a news source, CNN considers John Cook of enough credibility to publish this very article today:

Ostensibly to inform the audience of Cook’s idea of climate change denial.


So we now know with certainty that John Cook of Skeptical Science is a paid professional liar.  He should be deeply ashamed of himself.   This kind of activity is beneath the foundations of what liberalism is supposed to be, and matches every bit of what I see liberalism is.   CNN allowed him to publish an article on their news organization yet this same man is willing to lie for personal gain.  Untrustworthy, pathetic, small men.  I am a known skeptic, one disparaged by his CNN article, libeled by Cook and Lewandowsky, and I wouldn’t even consider for a moment acting in this manner to prove any cause.

He’s wrong on the science too.

I’m thoroughly disgusted with you Mr. Cook.  You have permanently spent your honor for a SKS blog with no credibility.

For the rest of the story, here is a link to Lubos Motl’s blog.


Posted in Uncategorized | 45 Comments »

Pat Michaels Powerful Testimony

Posted by Jeff Id on July 23, 2015

Pat Michaels testimony at the Committe of Natural Resources was fantastic.  Very short but he really nailed it.  He mentions Nic Lewis who was a coauthor of our Antarctic rebuttal paper to Steig a few years ago.  Nic has been doing some of the best work on climate sensitivity for several years now.   He and Judith Curry released a paper which showed a much lower climate sensitivity is likely accurate, but more importantly, they narrowed the range of sensitivity.   It was great seeing it mentioned to congress.
Anthony Watts covered this yesterday at WUWT, apparently Dr. Michaels rewrote his speech right before he talked because of some denier rant by Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) another left-wing know nothing, just before he spoke.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

A Different Opinion

Posted by Jeff Id on July 22, 2015

What if global warming were reversed and the release of CO2 caused cooling.   Would that be better or worse than today?   Would we be happier as biological entities in a cooling world or would food have a harder time growing?  Would more snow, and more glaciers help the biosphere of planet Earth be stronger?  Would lower sea levels and increased glaciation make life generally better across the planet? I read a post at Judith Curry’s blog today that started with a single phrase that I disagree with:

We know that climate change is a problem

Climate change as we are now taught being global warming of course.   I’m feeling a bit like the slow kid today, because I’ve been studying this subject for a while and I flatly don’t see any of the problems from warming.  We aren’t seeing any more storms, rains, droughts, or weather extremes than we have seen in the past.   They are simply and scientifically not happening.   We have only seen very mild warming, vastly less than predicted, and ground measured temperature had no statistical trend in recent decades until the alarmist types inexplicably yet predictably tweaked upward the temperature trend of the incredibly confusing and weak quality oceanic data that makes up 70 percent of the record.  Even that new higher trend doesn’t match models.

BUT what if we had global cooling?  Now that would be frightening to me.   Plants don’t like cold, and nor do animals, especially furless pale skinned monkeys like me.  I like beaches and sunshine over cloud and snow. The next ice age is definitely coming if we trust the incredibly rhythmic history in ice core records, it is due, and it will surely be devastating and not the kind of devastating of a few C of warming, the kind of devastating that puts a mile thick glacier in my back yard for 80,000 years or so.  I would suggest that even 4C of cooling would be horrifically bad, and I would also suggest that every aspect of mainstream science suggests that we are overdue for a chill of greater magnitude than that.   Even without the big ice age, the vastly milder little ice age in recent centuries is powerful evidence that even a small temp change downward has a seriously negative consequences to life in general.  Less food production being right on the top of the list of bad things. If cold is bad, and it surely is, and extreme scientists claim that more than 2C warmer is death to the planet, we must be in the ideal life window!!

I wonder what makes scientists so sure that the planet Earth has achieved the best temperature for life in this exact millennia?  I’ve seen no case made for this argument.  No papers released which prove or even rationally demonstrate that today’s temperatures are the best ever!   I’ve only seen doom and gloom predictions in both temperature directions from government science, while us unfunded science practicing folk having no realistic expectation of Earth balancing at this exact temperature range over any kind of pseudo-permanent time frame.  The planet will be different no matter what we do.

And then there are those reasonable people who see warming as mild, yet still want to do ‘something’ to help poor unwitting Gaia.  The middle grounders.  With so much nonsense going on in the subject, it is quite relaxing to see a bit of pragmatism from someone, but I don’t think even this group has the right of it.

A different view:

I want to suggest something to you folks who are so certain that even moderate warming requires a ‘response’.  Especially those many of you who believe in the limitation of burning fuels.  Instead of making the assumption that change caused by humans is necessarily and absolutely a bad thing, as so many of you readers and self-declared moderates do, I want you to consider an entirely reasonable alternative.  Warming is net beneficial for life, humanity, weather, plants, animals, polar bears and penguins.  The evidence for this is not minor, it is in fact everywhere.  Observation ahead of theory.

We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and will have doubled the microscopically small pre-industrial CO2 levels in the near future no matter what we do with government policy.   Of course that atmospheric concentration is still vanishingly small as a percentage of the air, but it is unequivocally known that this gas will still cause additional warming.  It turns out that it is a small warming effect because even with the most aggressive warming assumptions, as the oceans can absorb literally a thousand years of the energy involved global warming with only 1C of temp change.  That fact is way too often overlooked in climate science, even by the most skeptical of scientists and bloggers.  More importantly though for this article, is that plant life generally experiences extreme reduction in growth at below 180 PPM concentration.  Basically, CO2 levels are near plant starvation levels and in pre-industrial days we were right on the edge.  Greenhouses respond to this known scientific fact by intentionally increasing the CO2 levels to as much as 1000PPM, to achieve better plant growth, which is a fact far too often overlooked in alarmist science.

So I would suggest something different for consideration.   I would suggest that instead of being a disaster, or a problem on any level, increased CO2 levels at the magnitude we have and will achieve in the next 200 years, are in fact the single greatest positive environmental improvement that humanity has been able to achieve for life on planet Earth.  More plants, greener oceans, more dynamic pole ice keeping oceanic currents flowing, powerful fertilizer, more land, slightly more humid air.  All of these effects are scientifically justifiable and likely more realistic than the more hurricanes and shrinking fish, acid water nonsense our delicate neurons have been assaulted with per the whims of our extremist ridden scientology class aka “Climate Science (TM)”.

The single best thing humanity has ever done for wildlife on Earth.   Greener, better, stronger, all because of CO2 and a bit of mild warming.   In net balance, this positive isn’t a minor effect either, because atmospheric CO2 fertilization of near critically starved plant life has a huge impact on growth, improved biodiversity in the long term and will impact animal life in the same manner for years to come no matter which new productivity choking regulation our extremist overlords imagine.

So to those who believe CO2 emission should be reduced in any way, I tell you that there is no scientific evidence to support your assertion.  By simple reason, we are very unlikely to be at the perfect temperature as a planet, by the same reason, colder is certainly worse for life.   It seems pretty obvious to me that warmer is better for humanity and all of the wildlife on Earth but the amount ‘warmer’ we can expect from CO2 process is highly limited due to oceanic thermal mass and the extreme coldness of that mass.

When we think we “know global warming is a problem”, I am stating to you that we know no such thing, those who claim to know it is a problem have mislead themselves.  I would suggest that we know global warming is not a problem, that it is nicely beneficial for all life on earth.  It is greener, better, stronger and if we are really lucky, might help us stave off that next ice age for a short spell, although I doubt CO2 will have that kind of power over the weather.

It really is the greatest travesty of the whole global warming meme, the assumption that the net outcome is a problem.  It is so easy to accept and so hard to objectively reject that a human induced change to planetary temperatures caused by various forms of combustion, is a bad thing.  In reality, fossil fuels are an absolute boon to plant life, wildlife, human life and our economy.  I urge those of you who fall into the category of ‘must do something’ to reconsider.  Scientifically, the combustion of fossil fuels, humanity is likely one of the most environmentally beneficial acts we ever performed as a species and stopping that combustion is expensive, environmentally ignorant, and fortunately for the ‘do something crowd’, impossible to stop.

Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments »

Lewandowsky’s Mess – A question of misrepresentation and scientific integrity

Posted by Jeff Id on July 15, 2015

With the endless continuation of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky’s attacks on those skeptical of the conclusions of activist climate science, I don’t think I’ve made something clear enough in the past.  In his Recursive Fury article, Lewandowsky published a derogatory statement as a scientific fact, completely contrary to the facts he had in his possession (generally a scientific no-no)and I can prove it fairly convincingly.  The article in question was taken off line immediately in response to my complaint, the reference was changed to something else equally inaccurate but less derogatory and the article went back on line.  Others were still affected by the slash and burn tactics and the paper was eventually retracted in its entirety due to numerous complaints about ethics and statistics.  Now Lewandowsky is on line with the same ridiculous conclusions of his retracted article still boldly stated, and he is making as much publicity of it as he can yet the names of the subjects studied removed.  Below, I have clarified what Lewandowsky published inaccurately about me and what information he possessed at the time he published this retracted article.

In our first run in with Lewandowsky here he published a scientific article titled “MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”, citing my name and ascribing a belief to me which I do not hold.  Citation of a subject by name, while ascribing what is basically a mental pathology to them as a form of diagnosis, is clearly unethical thing to do in a psychology paper, but that is beside the point I am trying to make.  I contacted him directly,  explained my beliefs and requested a retraction.

His inaccurate claim was:

Thus, AIDS denial has been linked to the belief that the U.S. Government created HIV; the tobacco industry viewed lung cancer research as an \oligopolistic cartel,” and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).

While the claim is inaccurate , it could be potentially interpreted as an honest mistake by an uncareful researcher.  I wrote the following to Lewandowsky personally by email which he received and responded to.  Basically he cannot claim to not have knowledge of this matter.

Surprisingly and unfortunately, your recent paper has garnered a lot
of attention in press which has created concerns on my part.  Besides
obvious ethics issues with respect to intentionally damaging the
reputations of those you “study”, you should be aware that upon
review, you have used my name and reference in this paper in
demonstrably misleading and libelous manner.  Your recent article has
falsely represented me as a global temperature trend denier amongst
numerous other inaccurate characteristics.  Specifically, you have
referenced an on-line article that I wrote about access to data (not
the result) to represent that I hold an anti-science position.  In
other words, your reference does not support or even address your
conclusion. Leaving the other ugly implications in this publication
aside, it is only a complete ignorance of station adjustments which
could legitimately lead you to conclude that my mention of these
substantial corrections was “anti-science”.  Had you contacted me, I
would have explained you that these large adjustments to temperature
are real and necessary, but every working scientist questions their
magnitude to varying extent.

My email continued:

Admittedly, it was rather shocking to be attacked with such stunning
inaccuracy when I have so often argued in support of the reality of
anthropogenic warming.  There are hundreds of examples of my
scientific opinions on line.


I never have “denied” global temperature trends or the
anthropogenic component and have often argued their unequivocal
existence in print.

Lewandowsky acknowledged my email with a short reply that acknowledged the problem.

I don’t believe I cited you inaccurately given the context of what I was saying and referring to—although I agree that your  name was listed in a sentence with the noun “denier,” thereby creating a tacit association that was in fact not intended on my part. All I wanted to do is to cite an example of criticisms of adjustments that—like it or not—often involve conspiracist ideation.

Again, this of course does not appear to reach the level of intentional misrepresentation.   He’s arguing some kind of sophmoric nonsense possibly out of embarrassment and despite his apparent reasonableness in his first email, I eventually had to go to Eric Eich to get the matter resolved for THIS article.  As you can see, Lewandowsky was fully informed of my work and my opinions on the matter of global temperature trends by email.  He had plenty of time to check the veracity of my claims online if he somehow doubted my email and I had clearly stated my own belief in global warming directly to him personally.

So then a short time later Lewandowsky published another paper, this one claiming to study the supposedly irrational response of people to his fake Moon Landing article — “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.”

The paper contained the statement I believe we can accurately classify as intentionally misrepresenting his data:

“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..”

A more dishonest representation of my own repeatedly stated opinions is hard to imagine.  Dr. Lewandowsky was clearly aware of my blog as he linked two times to it and he had my opinions by email.  So those are the basic demonstrable facts (data in terms of a soft Psychology paper) which Lewandowsky had in his possession.  Since the facts directly contradict his scientifically published assertion, we can hypothesize as to the reasons for his repeated misrepresentations.   Ironically, the good doctor may have diagnosed his own condition in his recent republication (sans names) of the previously retracted recursive fury paper:

Several of those hypotheses were based on what we call unreflexive counterfactual thinking; that is,
the hypothesis was built on a non-existent, counterfactual state of the world, even though knowledge about the
true state of the world was demonstrably available at the time.

However, a second, somewhat simpler explanation is plausible.  Knowing Lewandowsky’s outspoken political extremism against free market capitalism, it could potentially fit our current state of knowledge about his reasoning as well (from here):


A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

I suppose we will never know the truth.

After this unpleasant experience, I do wonder though if even that can reach the limit of an ‘ethical violation’ in some of these psychology journals. Considering that Lewandowsky, a government funded psychologist who is very much active in promoting governmental solutions, would publish and republish attack papers only loosely disguised as science without negative consequence to his reputation and continued funding, is a matter we should all be concerned about.  That multiple psychology journals have now carelessly passed several unethical and scientifically inaccurate articles of this type through their peer review process without negative consequence to their own reputation and funding is simply beyond comprehension.

Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Comments »

If you made six figures for writing nonsense, would you stop?

Posted by Jeff Id on July 9, 2015

I received an email today from a reader who generously shared some Lewandowsky related news on the climate front.   As you know, I haven’t exactly been energetic in my posting.  I’m rather disgusted with climate science and while I still read regularly, I don’t seem to be able to find the energy to actually give a crap about what the leftist Climate Science(TM) crowd says.   Still, I can be dragged from my grumpy shell.  Here is the article of interest, written by these luminary visionaries – bork!!
In short, Stephan Lewandowsky has published yet another piece of fake science, using yet more government money, stolen from productive free-market minions, for purposes of bashing on those of us who can read a graph.  AKA, climate skeptics.   At this point, even other leftist scientists like Dr. Ivar Giaever are bailing out of the climate science wagon.  You have to be a shill or a moron to not understand that climate science is a scam at this point.  Not that it stops the ever-less relevant Real Climate guys from diving on the constant grenades to cover the scam.
Here is Steve’s real funding disclosure for his fake paper:
The first author was supported by a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council during
part of this research, and he has been supported by a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society since 2013. In
addition, the research was supported by internal funding from the University of Bristol and the University of Western Australia.
The remaining authors have no funding to report.
I literally cannot imagine living in a world where the likes of Stephan Lewandowsky receive “outstanding researcher awards” (lc intended).   The man is the lowest form of life on this planet as history will certainly show.  There is no value in his publication other than to slander those who disagree with him.   Intellectually, and mathematically he doesn’t reach the kneecaps of the majority of readers of this blog and the man has reached high fame by slandering our group.
Anyway, I replied to the email as follows:
I’m trying to make myself care about this. Lew is a leftist political hack who will never give up.  Cook is tagging along with a moron, so what does that make him.
I read/skimmed most of the article because I found myself fogging out after a few paragraphs.  How does a “journal” publish something like that?   How do “scientists” take it seriously?
It ain’t much like engineering.
Publish away Lewie.   No matter how extreme you are, you cannot stop basic observation which contradicts theory.

Dr. Roy Spencer

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments »