Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

    Originally posted by Prazak View Post
    I thought Friedman wrote a pretty good piece today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/op...dman.html?_r=1

    ...

    C1ue, which of Friedman's premises do you dispute?
    Friedman writes in the above linked piece:
    When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance.
    I might buy insurance, but I don't setup a world-wide tax and regulatory authority, and impose massive confiscatory taxes on the energy production that is vital to the worlds economy, primarily profiting some of the same vampire squids who have already benefited greatly from their corrupt capture of the vital regulatory, legislative and judicial processes of many governments.

    The "cure" is way more certain to cause great impoverishment than the "ill." For the lower billion people on humanity's economic ladder, "impoverishment" looks like this:



    If I am living in my nice safe American home and there's a rabid moose loose in the neighborhood, I may well focus my attention on avoiding that moose. Were it not for that one moose, life would be easy.

    But if I am trampling through the Amazon jungle (is any of that left?) and I focus too much attention on avoiding poisonous spiders, I risk dying of some disease or snake or such.

    In more straightforward words, we have many threats. An out of control response (well, only within the control of a few hyper-wealthy benefactors) to one threat weakens our ability to adapt to other challenges.

    Your response, Prazak, sounded all nice and even handed on the surface. But you reference, with favor, only an AGW alarmist, and you call out by name only one iTuliper, c1ue, to explain himself better. Let us not confuse your softer rhetoric with even handedness.

    Both you and Friedman actually have to examine the science for yourselves. By what are apparently your standards, any alleged threat which results in a sufficient controversy deserves any proposed response, however damaging to the economy or liberty of billions of people, however unfairly it rewards a few powerful profiteers. "There's a big stink, so we must do something, anything, something NOW NOW NOW." That's no way for us humans to manage our affairs.

    P.S. -- Actually, I don't always buy such insurance. I consider the companies from which I might purchase such insurance and if I don't trust any of them to behave ethically and remain financially sound, I forgo the insurance.
    Most folks are good; a few aren't.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

      Originally posted by Prazak View Post
      Last time you two stopped your food-fighting and started engaging on the merits it turned out to be a very good discussion.

      I suspect if you put down your side-arms and climbed out of your respective foxholes you might find some things to agree on.

      I thought Friedman wrote a pretty good piece today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/op...dman.html?_r=1

      Any comments? Toast, is Friedman under-acknowledging the certainty of this thing? C1ue, which of Friedman's premises do you dispute?

      Grateful if we could have rational discourse about this.
      Global Warming is a question of science not an opinion. Science follows a specific method that is designed to promote rational discourse. The scientific method is defined:
      1. Define the question
      2. Gather information and resources (observe)
      3. Form hypothesis
      4. Perform experiment and collect data
      5. Analyze data
      6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
      7. Publish results
      8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)


      Scientific evidence is defined by the doe as:
      "Experimental data from a scientific observation that supports a theory based on a reputable journal or paper that has undergone a process of peer review..."

      So how will we proceed with this rational discourse?
      Can I go to any website on the internet and present whatever I find there as evidence and then demand others disprove it? If you provide something from a scientific journal or from the prevailing scientific opinion, can I then claim the evidence is unacceptable because there is a conspiracy to reject the things I've pulled from internet websites? May I then continue to repeat this cycle over and over again?

      So please tell me, what rules or method would you propose to have a rational discourse about a scientific matter?

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

        Originally posted by we_are_toast View Post
        Global Warming is a question of science not an opinion. Science follows a specific method that is designed to promote rational discourse. The scientific method is defined:
        Scientific evidence is defined by the doe as:
        "Experimental data from a scientific observation that supports a theory based on a reputable journal or paper that has undergone a process of peer review..."

        So how will we proceed with this rational discourse?
        Can I go to any website on the internet and present whatever I find there as evidence and then demand others disprove it? If you provide something from a scientific journal or from the prevailing scientific opinion, can I then claim the evidence is unacceptable because there is a conspiracy to reject the things I've pulled from internet websites? May I then continue to repeat this cycle over and over again?

        So please tell me, what rules or method would you propose to have a rational discourse about a scientific matter?
        The deniers cannot win if they play by the rules of science established over the last three or four centuries. That's why they're left with only the ridiculous notion that the entire world is in on a conspiracy and that their sources, random websites and crackpots around the world, are the ones that have found the truth.

        I do give c1ue credit for boldly asserting this position and sticking to it, but really he has no other options.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

          I found a really nice site which lays out many of the claims (and responses) to a number of climate change issues. Looks like it comes down on the side of climate change, but regardless of how you feel, was a good summary (to a neophyte like myself) on several of the issues.

          http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...the-consensus/

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

            Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
            Your response, Prazak, sounded all nice and even handed on the surface. But you reference, with favor, only an AGW alarmist, and you call out by name only one iTuliper, c1ue, to explain himself better. Let us not confuse your softer rhetoric with even handedness.

            Both you and Friedman actually have to examine the science for yourselves. By what are apparently your standards, any alleged threat which results in a sufficient controversy deserves any proposed response, however damaging to the economy or liberty of billions of people, however unfairly it rewards a few powerful profiteers. "There's a big stink, so we must do something, anything, something NOW NOW NOW." That's no way for us humans to manage our affairs.
            I'm not trying to sound "nice" or "even-handed", not trying to engage in "rhetoric", only trying, as a lay person with very limited understanding of the science involved, to wade through the claims and counter-claims.

            I'm willing to consider that a great deal of experts in a field can come to a wrong conclusion. And as a contrarian by nature, I find myself instinctively questioning any proposition that is being asserted so uniformly and insistently.

            But I also find it very difficult to believe that hundreds of scientists, across dozens of countries, are all engaged in some conspiracy, or even a lock-step group-think, designed to scare the world into some central regulatory regime. There's a paranoia, a stridency, an emotionalism that underlies quite a bit of the rhetoric on the part of the AGW deniers (like the title of this thread), that makes it difficult to take seriously their arguments on the merits. It's reminiscent of the creationists.

            By posting what looks to me like a reasonable take on the issue, and inviting the skeptics to comment, I hope to see the issue joined rationally.

            Instead I'm attacked as some wolf in sheep's clothing, and shown a picture of starving children in Africa.

            Never mind.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

              Originally posted by Prazak View Post
              By posting what looks to me like a reasonable take on the issue, and inviting the skeptics to comment, I hope to see the issue joined rationally.
              Actually, your point is of critical importance. Not just for this discussion, but for ALL discussions. If one or all parties refuse, or are unable to carry on rational discourse, and if readers are unable to distinguish between the rational and the irrational, then all hope of advancing important factual information is lost. But don't confuse rational, with the volume or appearance of a discussion.

              Maybe we can look at iTulip as an example. I've noticed when they present a chart or some data, it's usually from something like the StLousFed, or BLS, Standard and Poor's, IMF, or an industry source of data, but it's never from whatsupwitheconomics.com. iTulip tends to quote reputable economic sources and trys to use data that can be traced back to a direct measurement in order to model the macroeconomy. Of course we could simply state that there is a vast conspiracy by all these sources to manipulate the data, and therefore all of iTulips logic is wrong. In fact we might go so far as to say iTulip is part of the conspiracy.

              Now I can produce many, many websites that claim the data sources that iTulip uses for it's analysis are all faking the data and therefore iTulips analysis is completely wrong. I can produce an endless supply of contrary data (of which none may be traceable in it's accuracy), I can find errors in the data iTulip uses, I can find people who disagree with iTulip's analysis. Then I can ask iTulip to prove (but not using any of the data sources they typically use, because it's all fake) that my claims of data, the errors, and the people i've found, are all wrong?

              But would the burden of proof be on iTulip to disprove all my claims, all the data, and all the people I produce? NO, of course not! If I claim the techniques and data iTulip uses are fake or inaccurate, the burden of proof is upon me to prove it, using the same or better quality data, proven techniques, and people who's expertise and records are the same or better than those of iTulip's. Simply presenting undocumented data, unproven techniques, unqualified opinions, fragmented information taken out of context, or misrepresented information, from nonauthoratative websites, does not constitute anything remotely close to rational discourse.

              So your concern over rational discourse is more than justified and a clear understanding of what exactly rational discourse means is vital for the advancement of civilization in general and especially science and technology.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

                Originally posted by Prazak View Post
                But I also find it very difficult to believe that hundreds of scientists, across dozens of countries, are all engaged in some conspiracy, or even a lock-step group-think, designed to scare the world into some central regulatory regime.
                Well, it was not my intention to attack, though I see now what I wrote sure looked that way. Sorry.

                I was intending to point out what you had left implicit before, but now state clearly, that you find the pro-AGW side more credible than the anti-AGW side.

                As I find more and more ways in which similar tactics are used to advance agendas profitable to some large interest group over the last half century at least, I beg to differ. But I am at a complete loss as to how to persuade those who still differ. The only way I was persuaded myself to my more skeptical view of many topics (AGW, vaccines, ...) was to first realize that a couple of the conventional truths (conventional medical nutrition recommendations and the causus belli of the war on terror) to which I held dear were Big Lies, and then start noticing other such following the same pattern.
                Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

                  Originally posted by Prazak
                  Any comments? Toast, is Friedman under-acknowledging the certainty of this thing? C1ue, which of Friedman's premises do you dispute?
                  You probably already know my general opinion of Friedman, but even putting that aside and examining his 'arguments'

                  1) 1% chance/insurance: this has already been discussed before. You pay 1% or less a year to insure your house in case of fire. The proposed CO2 regulatory framework is estimated to cost something like 10% of global GDP for the next 20 or 30 years, with estimated damages roughly equal to or less to this number.

                  First of all, this tradeoff isn't very good. If the guaranteed payoff is equal to the damages, what is the point of insurance?

                  Secondly, unlike fire insurance or auto insurance, the actuarial equations for climate change are completely without precedent or even exist. Thus comparing 'climate change insurance' with 'fire insurance' is ridiculous. When you buy fire insurance, you have a proven statistical/actuarial likelihood of need. The 'climate change insurance' has no such backing - no more than the 'give c1ue all your money otherwise he'll destroy the world with his preternaturally powerful overmind insurance' would.

                  2) Friedman clearly has not even a smidgen of background on the science - whether inherently or deliberately. Example:

                  This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.
                  As I've noted in great detail - AGW-CO2-Catastrophe theory has a long string of assumptions following one basic principle: that the earth is warming. Friedman is taking this first point and expanding it (as do all the AGW alarmists) to cover the veracity of the entire chain.

                  To repeat:

                  a) there is a 100 year trend of 1.5 degrees C/100 years. With such an ongoing trend it is almost guaranteed that the current decade is going to be the warmest, but more importantly given this trend has been going on since large scale temperature records began in the 1880s, it is very hard to prove that man made CO2 is the primary cause - the next assertion:

                  b) This trend is due primarily to CO2 - not just any CO2 but man made CO2. This part is more questionable. Certainly it is likely some part is, but in reality the temperature trend existed long before the CO2 levels spiked thus is it unlikely that CO2 is a primary driver. Roger Pielke Sr. has a list of major other likely human derived drivers.

                  The worst case greenhouse gas calculations for CO2 show an effect roughly equal to the existing trend but this is still not useful - because the trend existed BEFORE significant quantities of man-made CO2. But note this is still the 1.5 degrees/100 years trend. The point is even granting this second assumption you still don't get 'climate catastrophe'.

                  c) This trend will accelerate due to positive feedback mechanisms due to man-made CO2. This is where the 2.5, 4, or even 7 degree/100 year numbers come from. This so far is complete crap. No experimental evidence thus far. No empirical evidence thus far. IPCC projections continuing to fail to match reality. Yet these accelerated trend numbers of 2.5, 4, or 7 degrees/100 years are what are being touted as the reasons for radical economic changes.

                  Thus half his article talking about avoiding global warming is complete crap: even a magic wand removing all future emissions is not going to remove the existing 1.5 degree/100 year trend.

                  The other half is crap being based on the thesis that the science is settled. It is in no way well 'settled' enough to base any type of actuarial assumption.

                  Originally posted by Prazak
                  But I also find it very difficult to believe that hundreds of scientists, across dozens of countries, are all engaged in some conspiracy, or even a lock-step group-think, designed to scare the world into some central regulatory regime. There's a paranoia, a stridency, an emotionalism that underlies quite a bit of the rhetoric on the part of the AGW deniers (like the title of this thread), that makes it difficult to take seriously their arguments on the merits. It's reminiscent of the creationists.
                  I don't actually believe there is a conspiracy as normally defined as such, but it is very possible that a self reinforcing spiral could have occurred.

                  As I posted elsewhere - there are clear benefits to those scientists who agree with the AGW-CO2-Catastrophe thesis whether from grants, from the media, from the NGOs, or even from the CRU-cabal scientists.

                  If indeed research is being paid for on the thesis that AGW exists and has impact on humanity as has been alleged by Steve Vaughan, this itself goes a long way to explaining the 'consensus'.

                  Throw in the thuggish Jones/Mann/etc behavior of professional attacks, peer review slanting, etc - and what we see now is very much possible.

                  But you'll note that I keep returning to the same points:

                  What is the actual science behind the theories?

                  I continue to pose questions which the 'settled science' has glossed over; in my view these questions are central to the debate.

                  So far I have yet to see good answers to them.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

                    Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                    I was intending to point out what you had left implicit before, but now state clearly, that you find the pro-AGW side more credible than the anti-AGW side.
                    I'm just scratching the surface. It's not that I find the pro-AGW side more credible on the scientific merits, because quite simply I'm not a scientist. There are claims and counterclaims on both sides that I find persuasive. But when the large majority of climate experts is persuaded that there are direct correlations between human emissions of C02 and a warming climate, and when the impacts of that warming are potentially catastrophic, wouldn't it be prudent to err on the side of accepting the scientific consensus that spans hundreds of experts across dozens of countries? Particularly if the effect is to help transition our economy away from resources that have Peaked -- and the continued reliance on which will also lead to potentially catastrophic financial and social costs?

                    Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                    As I find more and more ways in which similar tactics are used to advance agendas profitable to some large interest group over the last half century at least, I beg to differ. But I am at a complete loss as to how to persuade those who still differ. The only way I was persuaded myself to my more skeptical view of many topics (AGW, vaccines, ...) was to first realize that a couple of the conventional truths (conventional medical nutrition recommendations and the causus belli of the war on terror) to which I held dear were Big Lies, and then start noticing other such following the same pattern.
                    I agree instinctively with that, and one only has to look at the K-12 public education system, the food industry, the medical sciences, the security-industrial complex, and the FIRE oligarchy as ready examples. On the other hand, many conventional truths really are conventional truths, and those rebelling against such truths are often captured by ideology or money. One only has to look at the creationists as an example of the former and all those scientific studies financed by the tobacco industry as an example of the latter.

                    The energy industry has had plenty of incentive to finance studies that call into question the consensus on AGW. Who has the incentive to finance studies across dozens of academic institutions, international organizations, and national governments around the world slanting the science in favor of AGW? (If anything there was pressure in the previous U.S. administration on scientists to disavow their own conclusions on the issue.)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

                      Originally posted by Prazak
                      Who has the incentive to finance studies across dozens of academic institutions, international organizations, and national governments around the world slanting the science in favor of AGW? (If anything there was pressure in the previous U.S. administration on scientists to disavow their own conclusions on the issue.)
                      P,

                      There are several things to consider with your above statement.

                      1) The amount of money flying around in favor of AGW-CO2-Catastrophe is very large. As documented at the SPPI, the US government alone has spent $70B+ in the past 20 years between alternative energy and straight out 'climate change' studies.

                      Yes, it is true that much of this money is research - but if the stated goal of the research is to document climate change, the research generally finds it. This is doubly true when human-controlled climate change is as equally impossible to quantify as it is impossible to disprove or to prove.

                      2) CO2 emissions don't affect oil company profits in any way.

                      First of all, the price of oil is very poorly correlated with oil industry profits: in the past decade+ oil has gone from $20/barrel to $147/barrel - but oil company profits have not gone up even half of this spread. Given that their costs are relatively fixed, this makes no sense unless you understand that oil companies' profits are more complex than more/more expensive oil is good.

                      Second of all, CO2 taxes - while they are intended to drive down oil consumption - don't destroy it. Oil that would have been used in 10 years just winds up getting used in 20 years. Ultimately so what?

                      Third, the consumer is who will wind up eating the difference.

                      Fourth, the oil industry and its lobby are far more likely to be working on getting carbon credits assigned than killing AGW. Because carbon credits are the ultimate safety mechanism: if AGW related legislation passes, the credits are free money. If the legislation doesn't, then the credits cost little more than the lobbying money.

                      3) Peak Cheap Oil: with Peak Cheap Oil, the CO2 contribution due to oil is certainly going to go down - if for no other reason than supply/cost of supply issues. Thus the oil component of carbon emissions is almost certain to drop no matter what.

                      4) While Bush/Cheney may have been oil industry focused, it is again a misnomer to say that they were anti-AGW. You should note that the federal spending previously mentioned did not abate in any way during the 8 years of Bush II - the curve is very consistent from 1990 all the way through to today.

                      Make no mistake, there is a gold rush going on right now over potential CO2 emissions restrictions. If the presence of Goldman Sachs and JPM isn't enough, you also have Soros and any number of other supranational USIPs.

                      Al Gore in this respect is just a piker - albeit one wise enough to ensure some of the lucre sticks.

                      But again this is all irrelevant. The point is: is there truly a problem? And will the proposed solution fix the problem at a reasonable tradeoff?

                      If the goal is reducing/preserving fossil fuels - there are many better ways of doing so. Switching the US transport system off of gasoline and onto electrical or hybrid would be one way - but a CO2 tax won't accomplish this. For one thing, massive upgrades to the national, state, local, and residential grids must be made - there has been no sign so far of this.

                      Secondly there must be massive changes to the entire supply chain: from refineries to gasoline stations to trucking transport.

                      If the goal is avoiding a climate catastrophe, then again CO2 emissions control via taxation is not the obviously best way.

                      For one thing, it will require decades to just even out ongoing growth.

                      For another thing, the supposed decade or century long effects of man-made CO2 make any action now of minimal consequence in the next decade or century.

                      For a third thing, the entire question of equitability is still unsettled. The 1st world has emitted vast amounts of CO2 in building its wealth and infrastructure. As I've noted in another post - just building an average house slab emits at least 74 tons of CO2.

                      To build larger infrastructure - say Hoover dam - the CO2 emitted is tremendous.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam

                      Concrete: 4,360,000 cu yd (3,330,000 m3)
                      at 150 pounds per cubic foot and 0.786 pounds of CO2 generated per pound of concrete - the building of Hoover Dam alone generated nearly 7M tons of CO2.

                      Throw in all of the roads, dams, bridges, houses in the US and you get a truly impressive number. If you ignore construction derived CO2 - you are ignoring a major source which conflicts with the concept that CO2 matters. If you restrict all major CO2 emissions in which construction absolutely falls, then you're saying the 2nd and 3rd world can't upgrade their infrastructure.

                      Certainly at least some of these issues could be settled, but it would be nice if the scientific argument for even bringing them up were not so tenuous.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

                        Originally posted by Prazak View Post
                        I agree instinctively with that, and one only has to look at the K-12 public education system, the food industry, the medical sciences, the security-industrial complex, and the FIRE oligarchy as ready examples.
                        Good list. Thanks.

                        Originally posted by Prazak View Post
                        Who has the incentive to finance studies across dozens of academic institutions, international organizations, and national governments around the world slanting the science in favor of AGW?
                        I believe that c1ue has answered that question in his detailed analysis of AGW. The global cap and trade carbon credit trade looks to be worth trillions. It seems that the pro-AGW side is funded an order of magnitude more, not less, than the anti-AGW side.

                        Here's an article I just found describing this funding in a more polished form, in pdf format at Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade , or in HTML format at The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade.
                        The synopsis of this article at capitalresearch.org is:
                        Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade.

                        The Money and Connections Behind It

                        By Deborah Corey Barnes | Aug 2007

                        Former Vice President Al Gore’s crusade against carbon dioxide emissions could make him millions of dollars. With help from friends at Goldman Sachs, Gore has established a network of organizations to promote the “climate crisis”—and keep himself in the spotlight. Gore’s crusade already has had an enormous impact on corporate decision-making and government policies. But how will it affect his personal and political fortunes?......CLARIFICATION: The article indicated that Henry (Hank) Paulson, the Goldman Sachs CEO who later became U.S. Treasury Secretary, was “co-founder” of Generation Investment Management (GIM). Paulson played a role in the creation of GIM, but the firm does not identify him as a co-founder.

                        View the full version in PDF Format
                        Also it seems that those who aspire to global governance and regulation are quite supportive of the pro-AGW case. This includes a large body of well placed beauracrats and politicians in national and international governing bodies.

                        For a more recent, less formal, rant on AGW funding, see THE FAT LADY SINGS THE A.G.W. BLUES.

                        Or better yet, look back through c1ue's postings (if my memory serves.)

                        P.S. -- Looks like c1ue has already responded - Thanks!
                        Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

                          jpatter666,

                          Don't read this ECO-fascist propaganda! The global network of ECO-fascists knows you don't study human history and they know you've witnessed corporations, when given the choice between profits and the environment, always chose the environment.

                          The global network of ECO-fascists have been building their power for many years now. But there's hope. We chosen few can uncover this global conspiracy. We are the Davids to their Goliaths. Our numbers might be small but our tenacity and reckless disregard for critical thinking and human history will prevail.

                          Don't be discouraged by the consistent manner in which our SMOKING GUNS have been rebutted. Don't you fret. One day our SMOKING GUN will turn out to be so fantastic and ridiculous that the ECO-fascists will laugh themselves to death and then... THEN we will see who has the last laugh!

                          Are you with me?
                          Last edited by zilbo79; 12-11-09, 02:36 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

                            Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                            Good list. Thanks.


                            I believe that c1ue has answered that question in his detailed analysis of AGW. The global cap and trade carbon credit trade looks to be worth trillions. It seems that the pro-AGW side is funded an order of magnitude more, not less, than the anti-AGW side.

                            Here's an article I just found describing this funding in a more polished form, in pdf format at Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade , or in HTML format at The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade.
                            The synopsis of this article at capitalresearch.org is:
                            Also it seems that those who aspire to global governance and regulation are quite supportive of the pro-AGW case. This includes a large body of well placed beauracrats and politicians in national and international governing bodies.

                            For a more recent, less formal, rant on AGW funding, see THE FAT LADY SINGS THE A.G.W. BLUES.

                            Or better yet, look back through c1ue's postings (if my memory serves.)

                            P.S. -- Looks like c1ue has already responded - Thanks!
                            Thanks to you both, c1ue and Cow. Much food for thought.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Liars: NASA, NOAA, JMA, AMS, and the Navy

                              Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                              Good list. Thanks.
                              Actually, I really like EJ's formulation in his most recent post:

                              "[T]he U.S. economy is a madhouse of tax, regulatory, and monetary policies geared to special interests. To the Military Industrial Complex add the Banking Industrial Complex, Health Care Industrial Complex, Education Industrial Complex, Real Estate Industrial Complex, and on and on."

                              And this makes a lot more sense as energy policy than the convulated carbon credits process now under discussion (which manifestly failed to work in Europe post-Kyoto):

                              "But who cares about data? Stocks and houses are what Wall is selling. Soon they’ll be selling carbon credits, as the economy chokes on new taxes and fees on energy use when all we needed to do was tax oil imports and use the revenue to finance projects to reduce transportation inefficiency. But investment banks can’t earn fees on direct taxes by government, so we get a byzantine new tax and fee system instead."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X