Friday, April 18, 2014

Climate Change; These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For

One of the first issues one has to deal with the Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) zealots is their terminology; they tend to use Global Warming, AGW and Climate Change interchangeably (Climate Change as defined by the zealots, always means Climate Change that is the result of AGW, but they will try and trap the opposition, making it appear they are denying the natural process of climate change that has occurred since the planet had an atmosphere). The point being it is well known that the climate has been warming since the 16 century, the question being what affect man has had on the climate, and the best information science has, is nothing; or it is so minor it is unmeasurable. Further, ask any AGW zealot what exactly would be the result of de-industrializing the world to reduce man's carbon foot print and the answer is a minor reduction in the timetable of the inevitable warming of the planet; a warming that humanatinity was has had no part in (AGW is based on the theory that increases of C02 in the atmosphere from the Industrial revolution has accelerated Global Warming; ie Climate Change). One problem with this theory is the fact that C02 in the earth's atmosphere has increased in the last 15 years (360 ppm to 400 ppm; this is the same rate of increase since the 1980's, from 336ppm in the 1980's to 395ppm in 2013) but there has been no global warming in the same period Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Atmosphere. Still the zealots wave their hands in front of our collective faces, trying the Jedi mind trick that "These aren't the droids you're looking for"; in other words any chink in the AGW is not to be dwelled upon because the science is settled.

Then there is the often quoted study that AGW has a 97% consensus amongst scientists. The so called survey by AGW alarmists John Cook, has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the poster child for the manipulation of information.

Then there is the often quoted study that AGW has a 97% consensus amongst scientists. The so called survey by AGW alarmists John Cook, has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the poster child for the manipulation of information.One of the primary criticisms is most of the studies Cook claimed to support AGW, were actually neutral on the subject (8,000 out of 12,000) or rejected it entirely (the 97% was based on a ranking system, not the actual number of studies). One researcher that critiqued the study said,  

"Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.  This study done by John Cook and others..., found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it". Musings on the 97% Consensus. Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis. Global Warming Alarmists caught Doctoring 97% Consensus Claims/

The settled science of AGW is usually based on proxy data being fed into a computer model, or more recently "multi-proxy climate reconstructions", both rely on the often mistaken belief that proxy data is accurate enough and can be used to document past climate changes in order to predict future climate change due to global warming; both have proved  problematic and elusive. The purpose of science is rarely to predict the future, but to understand current phenomena; pretty much all attempts to predict the future of any act of nature, unless it's constantly repeats like the tides, has resulted in failure. The amount of variables in the weather and climate change are so numerous, it was the impetus for Chaos Theory; "Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future". In other words, until you know all the variables in minute detail of the initial condition of a process (and understand how they interact with each other), you will never be able to make an accurate prediction of the future.

Michael Mann's famous (and now discredited) hockey stick graph was based almost solely on proxy-data (and a programed for success computer model). "(Proxy data is an) indirect measurement inferred from a property more loosely related to temperature (the relationship may be less well understood or less reproducible and require more measurements and analysis before drawing a conclusion)." When one talks about proxy data, it means such things as tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments; these and other proxy data is open to interpretation and requires a huge amount of repetitive results to be even come close to being reliable. It was the tree ring scientists (dendrochronologists) that first complained about the Manns lack of cross-check tree ring record.Tree Ring Records Spur Debate. Then there is the expos
é of the Phil Jones  Keith Briffa/ CRU studies,  showed that from hundreds of Siberian samples, Mann appeared to cherry pick only those that matched the criteria he was looking for. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies; now refereed to as "the most influential tree in the world." The Most Influential Tree in the World.

This is an IPCC graph before Michel Manns Hockey stick graph; there is still a hockey stick looking part of the graph on the right side, but it also includes the Medieval Warming period.

This is Michael Manns Graph that shows a similar "hockey stick" at the end, but ignores the  the Medieval Warming period.

The limited proxy alone shows the failings of the AGW predictions. If there is any validity to Chaos theory (Choas theory is still the gold standard in the study of the behavior of dynamical systems) there is no way any amount of proxy data will ever be accurate or complete enough to know the initial conditions of the processes of global warming and climate change. Further AGW doesn't even qualify as a hypotheses or theory as by definition these must include a method to determine if the hypotheses or theory is false; if the science of human generated global warming is settled than is only scientific theory ever known to have reached this paradoxical state. Michael Manns Hockey stick graph has become a discredited object in the history of science The Hockey Schtick  The Hook 97% consensus survey has already been debunked Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring Consensus Claim as has the recent Lovejoy multi-proxy climate reconstructions (who simply omitted the Medieval Warming period again to prove his case)  Lovejoy Global Warming Paper 100% Wrong

Now, I would like to include a description of science to show how far from science AGW really is. Recently, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced their discovery of gravitational waves created at the dawn of the universe. These waves were created in a period of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation. This new evidence could prove the definitive confirmation of the inflation theory. But other researchers are not convinced. Discovery of Gravity Waves Questioned by Cosmologists The reason for questioning the these gravity waves is explained by the following, Science is a demanding and unforgiving business, and great discoveries are greeted not with parades and champagne but rather with questions, doubts and demands for more data. Really? So why has it been so different with AGW. The article goes on, No one is alleging an outright scientific error. It’s more of a debate about how scientists should communicate their uncertainties when presenting blockbuster findings. This is a case of “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Again one has to ask, where is the extraordinary evidence for the blockbuster findings of AGW?  The answer is there are none, because AGW is not empirical science, it  political (within the realm of fascist) science. Big-Bang Backlash.

Finally, let's look at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). This think tank was formed prior to the 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Summit. The GWPF as an enemy of US climate scientists becasue it takes the stand that it,  does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled;  and, Above all we seek to inform the media, politicians and the public, in a newsworthy way, on the subject in general (AGW) and on the misinformation to which they are all too frequently being subjected at the present time. Recently, Professor Bengtsson, a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and author of more than 200 papers, accepted an invitation to join the (Academic Advisory)  Council (of the GWPF) less than three weeks ago. His decision significantly enhanced the credibility of the foundation, which announced that “one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists” had joined its council. Unfortunately he had to resign soon afterwards, “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable. It is a situation that reminds me [of] the time of McCarthy.” The reason? because the GWPF takes the position that the science AGW is not settled. Professor Bengtsson Blames US Climate Scientists for Witch Hunt. Professor Bengtsson said the pressure was so intense that he would be unable to continue working and feared for his health and safety unless he stepped down. Yes this is the fascist political science of AGW.. but don't pay any attention, because "these aren't  the droids you're looking for".

Monday, April 7, 2014

The Ukraine, Benghazi and Obama's War on Reality

The Obama Administration continue their war against reality when we look at the Ukraine. First, there is no doubt in anyone with any knowledge of the area, that the vast majority of the population of Crimea is Russian, and the vote to be annexed by Russia was a populace and expected move. It is also known that about 50-60% of the Eastern Ukrainians are also Russian and do not want to be part of the EU; this has led to protests in the city of Donetsk and two other eastern cities by several hundred pro-Russian demonstrators. What is Washington's response? The United States says there is "strong evidence that pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern Ukraine are being paid." The White House said some of the demonstrators who took over a government building and proclaimed independence from Ukraine were not local residents. White House spokesman Jay Carney said "I think that at least suggests that outside forces, not local forces, were participating in the effort to create these provocations." The obvious question is, how in the world could they know this? It took the CIA and the FBI almost a month before they figured out the terrorists that attacked and killed our Libyan Ambassador in Benghazi on 9/11*, were not a local group protesting a YouTube video almost no one has ever saw, but now they tell us they have identified hundreds Ukrainian protestors and know where they came from. Perhaps the real reason is, like Egypt and Syria, the Obama Administration can not accept that world does not revolve around President Obama, and people in other countries may want something other than what President Obama believes is to his best advantage. So true to form, when reality doesn't present Obama with the narrative that suits him, he simply tries to create a different reality.

 *I mean who would have thought that a terrorists group linked with al Qaeda would attack an US embassy on the anniversary of 911? Of course it might the unsubstantiated story the CIA was smuggling arms  to the Syrian Rebels (used by both sides of the Libyan war), also linked with al Qaeda on the same night, and simply did not want to explain they what they were up to.

Another reason is the shore up what has been seen as a lack of any cohesive foreign policy in the region. Libya is in tatters (the President and NATO seems to have done the impossible of making Lybia worse than it was under Gaddafi). While President Obama had courted the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsi as the new President of Egypt, two years later the  people took to the streets by the millions (possibly 30 million; labeled by many as the largest public protest in history) to oust President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood; branding them as a terrorists organization (something President Obama has still refused to do despite atrocities carried out by the organization world wide). There is also the Syrian "problem" were President Obama promised Saudi Arabia he would dethrone Assad. But even with supplying al Qaeda and al Qaeda aligned  Syrian "rebels" and atrocities on both sides (evidence of poison gas used by both sides) Assad has not so easily dethroned (and it appears President Obama has moved on).  As the war was about to devolve into a proxy war  with the US (representing Saudi Arabia), al-Queda and the Sunnis on one side and Russia, Assad, Hezbollah, and  the Shiites on the other ( My Enemy's Enemy),  Russia brokered a cease fire giving Obama an out, leaving Saudi Arabia feeling like an American who thought he could keep their healthcare plan and doctor under ObamaCare, and then being told by the President, "I never said that."

As is typical, the authoritarian regime that has been constructed by Obama and the Democrats seek to control reality, knowing that any government that seeks to institute collective control, must be seen as trustworthy and infallible. This means the government must constantly fight the war against reality; never before has an American President told so many lies and never has the main street press ignored so much; both of which is part and parcel of any collective government (the truth is we are facing  fascism but most don't understand the meaning) Creeping Fascism.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

The Santa Cruz Sentential Owes the Dead Soldiers Families an Aplology

A recent letter published by the Santa Cruz Sentential shows the left will go to any lengths to disarm the American public, as it's war on reality continues; here is the letter;

Good guys with guns didn't prevent bad guy
The NRA is constantly telling us that the only way to stop the bad guys is to have good guys with guns. In last year's shooting at the DC Navy Yard and Wednesday's shooting at Fort Hood there were plenty of good guys facing a lone bad guy. Lot of good those good guys with guns had in stopping a bad guy.
— Gini M. Bianchi, Santa Cruz

This is my response

The Sentential printing the letter by Gini M. Bianchi thinking there were plenty of guns to ward off the attacks at the DC Navy Yard and Fort Hood, to stop the armed murdering rampages (showing good guys with guns can't defend themselves), could have only been allowed under one or more of the following three mindsets, 1) the Sentinel editorial board is as ignorant as the letter writer, not knowing that firearms are forbidden on military bases 2) the Sentinel editorial board knows firearms are not allowed on military bases and wanted to make a fool out of the letter writer 3) the Sentinel editorial board knows full well that firearms are forbidden on military bases but printed the letter anyway, hoping to use the murder of our courageous soldiers to further a political anti-second Amendment agenda. Either way the Sentinel owes these dead soldiers families and friends and it's readership an apology..

It remains to be seen if the Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial board has any character.

Charles Koch (the Koch Brothers) Defines A Constitutional Liberal*

(*The original meaning taken from the US Constitution as a lover of liberty; not current meaning from the post Woodrow Wilson era, as Progressives tried to publicly distance themselves from their belief in an autocratic and Eugenicists society.)

After the Supreme Court decision to strike down total limits on individual campaign contributions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked his favorite boogeymen, warning of future corruption in elections. This with half the US states having mandatory union membership and the members having no  right  to direct political donations taken from their dues; and the unions of course have pumped unlimited funds into the Democrat's political coffers for decades.

“The Supreme Court today just accentuated what they did on Citizens United, which is a decision that is one of the worst decisions in the history of that court,” Reid said during a press conference on raising the minimum wage. “All it does is take away people’s rights because, as you know, the Koch brothers are trying to buy America.”

 Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself. 

Unfortunately,the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism. 

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

(adding to what  Mr Koch says here, there is a truism that says, "Liberals (ie collectivists) are tolerant; as long as you agree with them". Real constructive diversity involves the blending of world views, but with a common interest, not conflicting world views with no common interest, as it leaves only the government to sort things out. When liberals discredit and condemn their opponents simply to discourage an alternate view (and often gives an absurd amount of attention to horrid groups outside the norm that they try and tie to their target of condemnation), they obliterate the reality that there is real hatred out there that has no place in a civilized society. While in a free society these haters are free to speak their minds, that does not mean anyone has to listen.).

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen.Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company: Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies." Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement. 

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal. If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too. 

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries. Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society