Maggie's Farm

Not always 'only' campaign bundlers, was that rogues' gallery of bust-outs, but some of the deals had special provisos where the statutory bankruptcy claims order was (similar to the treatment of GM and Chryler bondholders) rewritten to void the commercial code.

Much as if Willie Sutton had been legally tried in an otherwise normal court proceeding, which had found him innocent of bank robbery on the grounds that since he had decided the criminal code did not apply to him, the court system should uphold his decision, more or less on the 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' principle (note the word 'principle' in this case would mean, 'CYA method for covering bribes, kickbacks, and influence-peddling).

Thereby, of course, tossing out one of the three branches of government in favor of seers and shamen who could divine 'what would willie do? --a new fact not lost on the legions of prospective debt and equity investors not interested in Obama's new enterprises.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/13/Danish-Wind-Turbine-Company-That-Received-Over-50-Million-In-Stimulus-Lays-Off-800-Workers

"Vestas" --new one for the list

Try search terms [ NOAA compromised ]

and or

[ noaa ideological ]

and or

[ noaa politicized science ]

For example, bing [ noaa politicized science ] --i just did, and copied the first page of results, these thumbnails:

Fisheries biologists ask NOAA to include hatchery fish, call ...
citizenreviewonline.org/mar_2003/fisheries.htmFisheries biologists ask NOAA to include hatchery fish, call hatchery vs. wild fish issue "politicized" science. 3/24/03. From WA State Farm Bureau

NOAA Chief Believes in Science as Social Contract
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/science/earth/24prof.html
Mar 23, 2009 · NOAA Chief Believes in Science as Social Contract ... Meanwhile, Dr. Lubchenco said, one of her goals at NOAA is to ...

C3: Big Green: Corrupting Science At NOAA To Achieve A …

www.c3headlines.com/2011/08/big-green-corrupting-science-at-noaa...Big Green: Corrupting Science At NOAA To Achieve A Political Agenda ... chose agency/cabinet heads who would bring the fringe Big Green's politicized science to ...

Politics Alter NOAA Science Data
www.klamathforestalliance.org/Newsarticles/newsarticle20050701.htmlSurvey: Politics Alter NOAA Science Data By Jeff Barnard, Associated Press ... "To say it is politicized is a cheap shot, really," he said. "These are complex ...

Step back a bit and take the longer view?

Okeedoke. If i step outside, i'm standing on the Edwards Plateau, the upthrust side of the Balcones Fault, which across central Texas pretty much follows I-35. Or better said, I-35 follows the fault line, since the highway is younger. The surface --the 'outcrop' of the Edwards (which is the southern boundary feature of the 'high plains' that reach up into Canada) is Cretaceous.

Though i'm at 1500' above sea level and 300 miles from the sea, there's marine fossils everywhere. Shellfish, big ones, small ones, dozens per acre just sitting there as rocks on the top of the ground.

So that's a short view and a long one too!

But if my topography is a hundred million years old, then where is the hundred million years of topography that ought to be on top of my backyard?

Here's wiki:


During the Cretaceous, the late-Paleozoic-to-early-Mesozoic supercontinent of Pangaea completed its tectonic breakup into present day continents, although their positions were substantially different at the time. As the Atlantic Ocean widened, the convergent-margin orogenies that had begun during the Jurassic continued in the North American Cordillera, as the Nevadan orogeny was followed by the Sevier and Laramide orogenies.


Geography of the Contiguous US in the late Cretaceous periodThough Gondwana was still intact in the beginning of the Cretaceous, it broke up as South America, Antarctica and Australia rifted away from Africa (though India and Madagascar remained attached to each other); thus, the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans were newly formed. Such active rifting lifted great undersea mountain chains along the welts, raising eustatic sea levels worldwide. To the north of Africa the Tethys Sea continued to narrow. Broad shallow seas advanced across central North America (the Western Interior Seaway) and Europe, then receded late in the period, leaving thick marine deposits sandwiched between coal beds. At the peak of the Cretaceous transgression, one-third of Earth's present land area was submerged.

Mean atmospheric O2 content over period duration ca. 30 Vol %[1]
(150 % of modern level)
Mean atmospheric CO2 content over period duration ca. 1700 ppm[2]
(6 times pre-industrial level)
Mean surface temperature over period duration ca. 18 °C[3]
(4 °C above modern level)


The Cretaceous ( /krɨˈteɪʃəs/, krə-TAY-shəs), derived from the Latin "creta" (chalk), usually abbreviated K for its German translation Kreide (chalk), is a geologic period and system from circa 145.5 ± 4 to 65.5 ± 0.3 million years (Ma) ago. In the geologic timescale, the Cretaceous follows the Jurassic period and is followed by the Paleogene period of the Cenozoic era. It is the last period of the Mesozoic Era, and, spanning 80 million years, the longest period of the Phanerozoic Eon.

(end quote)

Do you get it, Zach, now that i've spelled it out for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Geologic_Clock_with_events_and_periods.svg&page=1

See the pie chart?

The illo is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

The pie converts Earth's 4.5 billion year age into a graphic easy to see as the face of a clock, an analog clockface of twelve hours.

Let's call the clockface Geo timescale "midnight-to-noon".

Lessee, 375,000,000 years/hour = 6,250,000 years per minute.

Homo Sapiens, "knowing man", that's us, tho we like to add another 'Sapiens' to create a vanity subset, appeared 200,000 years ago.

That's two seconds ago. If one is double-generous and allows that we have 50 years of enough climate info to establish at least the temperature, then you are extrapolating-to-prediction (predictions fraught with an irreversible political call-for-immediate-dramatic-policy-action) via coming-to-conclusions on the Earth/Human future synergy requirements, based on the last four-thousandth part of the last two seconds on that clockface pie chart.

What was that you said about 'cherry-picking?

PS, Here's an 'either-or' to 'yes-or-no' question:

You can either choose between freedom and bondage, or choose to ignore the premise of the choice.

The game is for keeps only if you opt for the former.

(Why on earth wouldn't you simply opt for the latter? Because you're crazy, or power-mad/evil, or are worried about the effect of those who ARE crazy or power-mad/evil)

So you opt for the former, and must choose either freedom or bondage.

Every innate clue to the good news in human nature suggests to choose freedom, yet --if you choose it, the environment may decide to kill your descendants sometime in the future.

So, considering you can still opt out of the game (even tho you want to stay in to help control the danger created by the game), the game allows you to ask, before you say yes or no to a bondage unlikely ever to spontaneously conclude,

"What is it that in the future will have made this our familiar life environment change into that new and unprecedented death environment?"

"The data," comes the answer, "...and the reason it hasn't killed you as-is, is because altho benign presently, it is guaranteed to become lethal."

"Why --how --do you know this and I don't?" you wonder.

"Because of some trend-lines that go WAY back to FIFTY years ago," comes the answer.

"But, aren't we measuring from "mankind now" and isn't a trend-line running from now backward to one four thousandth of two seconds ago, a wee bit lite upon which to decide to say ''yes'' to a future of permanent bondage?"

(that's as far as i've gotten so far --maybe Zach can generously offer me something for the next dialogue line)

(groan) yes --i did. The boy is immune to my paltry pantry.

That doesn't impact the scientific question of climate change, though

Zach, your entire raison d'etre is that mankind IS making choices that DO impact the scientific question of climate change.

Haven't you just (and due to the clarity of the declaration, rather permanently and irretrievably) collapsed your entire premise?

Haven't you just --in one fell swoop, with all attendant themes, supports, postures of command and entreaty, echoes, addendums, adumbrates, and misc et ceteras and so forthings --yanked the tentpole from underneath the blue painted sky?

Why, yes, yes indeedy, i do believe ye have, have done just that. Finally, at long last have ye cried Havoc! and let slip the possums of truth!


As sayeth the great Aeschylus: He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.


Thank you sir, and bless your pea-pickin' little dripped-upon heart --

So, anyway, wouldn't a wetter troposphere expand the food supply, while holding off the next ice age? What is the argument against extending the interstitial as long as possible, assuming you're right that we could, in order to prevent famine and mass extinctions?

And please, give us a real answer.

We could argue forever, but i'm trying new tangents. Here's one: you are very certain of your facts (next ice age begins in 1500 years --is that also a Sunday, or are you approximating?) --meaning the AGW movement must be equally so.

So why did the UN/IPCC waste all those resources, all those years, and blow so much credibility, and ruin so many of its member careers, rigging results, falsifying tests, faking experiments, miscounting tree rings, recording heat sink temps and using them against protocol, and conspiring --see email records --to reach similar conclusions across the spectrum of research, et cetera?

When you MUST have known, while perpetrating what became known, after its revelation to the world, as Climategate, that such a scam would the one and only way to convince the critical fraction of the world population that AGW is propaganda, and next question --whose? --would lead directly to the inescapable conclusion that all you guys are doing --whether or not you know it --is simply following, qui bono, Yuri Andropov's instruction to his successor Gorby, to arrange a 'fall' for the USSR while starting up Green Cross --in order to bring down the west (and stop its magnetism for world brains and capital) via environmental radicalism.

--when it would have been SO much easier and SO much more conducive to the adoption of the political/economic revolution you prescribe as critical, to have simply told the truth?

i mean, talk about perverse, this is the mother of all perverseness!

IOW, if this issue is so critical, how DARE you play games with it --and having convicted yourself of having played such games with it, how DARE you now ignore the need for an explanation, before going right back to droning on and on and on, as before, as if Climategate had never even happened?

What's the deal, man? And no silly dialectical bullshit boilerplate, please, the propaganda interlude has done strutted its hour upon the stage and let us hear it no more.

PS, not asking for a history of the IPCC --asking for an example of a prosecution wherein the accused is known to be guilty on the strength of actual evidence, but the prosecution conspires to falsify evidence anyway.

Second thought, no, no need for research, i won't request even that much historical rigor --just simply tell me, off the top of your head,

1) what would be the general condition under which the prosecution would work very hard constructing false evidence and

2) thereby doing unnecessary work and creating a huge risk of career-ending exposure, in order to

3) convict an accused against whom the actual evidence is already sufficient to convict by the rules ?

4) IOW the question is, what condition would cause willful misconduct at great cost, without any incentive?

5) If no example comes to mind, then logic assumes a hidden agenda.

6) I say, that's where it stands.

science doesn't rise and fall based on the actions of a single scientists or even a single scientific enterprise.


Of course it doesn't --but that's not what happened at all, by any stretch of the imagination. UN/IPCC from 1988 through 2009 spent billions on hundreds of science research projects which --against all odds --all happened to err toward a single bias --that bias being --incredibly conveniently --toward creating a consensus of approval of IPCC's original 1988 position.

The word 'science' is what you use to make your case --but you are not even using the word properly.

'Science' is produced by scientific method, while 'consensus' is produced by arithmetic.

Proof by scientific method is absolute. There can be no proof 'by' consensus, because consensus is relative. There CAN be proof 'of' consensus --which is what your argument is about.

If it can't eliminate rationalization, it is not scientific method; if it is not derived by scientific method, it is not science in the way you --your propaganda techniques --use the word.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=scientific+method&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=scientific+method+&sc=0-19&sp=-1&sk=

By 1988, the Kremlin was already deep into the planning for the transmogrification of USSR into the current structure. Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John/Walesa/Havel/Solzhenitsyn's bankrupting of the old system was complete, and the USSR political/economic entity was merely vamping as it arranged its dissolution. The necessity, as seen by Kremlin, of the 'world island' eliminating the North American continent as the destination of the world's brains and capital, continued unabated however, and one goal of the new structure was to re-orient the target of the Red offensive from the western military (the targeting of which is what had caused the bankruptcy) to the western economy.

Part and parcel of that was the 1988 formation of the UN/IPCC --created to weaponize the re-aiming of the soviet challenge from the western military to the western economy.

The UN is a soviet structure, at base. Despite regular releases of counter factuals as meme weapons.

Alger Hiss, FDR aide, advisor at his elbow at the Big Three conferences where the postwar world was arranged mostly by Stalin, designed the UN at FDR's request. Hiss was USA's first ambassador to the new organization. Hiss was also a paid agent of Stalin throughout his association with FDR, as was proven when fellow red spy Whittaker Chambers turncoated back to USA and blew the whistle. Hiss was tried and convicted and sent to prison.

UN has remained soviet, in the sense of its methods, its member's general internal protocols, and its deep-basic one-world totalitarian ambition to join the global elites under a single roof to institutionalize the global support of each other's oligarchs in a new world order.

Nice try, but you know that reproducible test experiments producing the exact same results is 'proof' of 'theory'. Absent experiential verification, a theory must, according to scientific method, remain a theory.

Heavens, yes, new information can and will come to light; a theory that is proved makes no claim other than that a reproducible experiment devised to test the idea exists in the lit.

Re ad homs, find an example. The ad hom is you accusing me of ad homs. You're lapsing into something, Zach --i hope it's only disingenuousness.

Yes, a broad-based consensus is a valid accounting result. In this case, accounting for a poll of subscriptions to a theory.

Climategate exploded in November 2009 --the quote is from 2005, AFAIK. Witness

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/science/Scientific-consensus1/




I think that since Nov 2009 there has been a walkback on the 'A' of 'AGW' on the part of the national (government supported thus political) academies of (grant money dependent) science.

Without the 'A' to justify the UN/IPCC/member states professional govt scientists' globalist unitary NWO totalist drive --the sort of agenda invariably preceded by govt-authenticated research publicity, which itself is invariably preceded by some staging in whole or in part, of crisis situations --'AGW' minus 'A' equals 'weather' as it has been recorded and/or postulated.

Not much emergency need for coercion there, not much suction available to the moneypowercontrol set from the Hades portal on Turtle Bay.

...and Zach, either you are part of it, or you have your head buried in the sand on the reality of the amount of corruption invested in the AGW "issue".

Either an ostrich or a crook, old boy, either a useful idiot or an incipient slavemaster, sad to say, but there you have it, as you like it.

However, everyone deserves a second chance, so should you decide to redeem yourself, here's a couple of decent link-rich places to start (there's so many, but these just happened up just now as i was trying to locate a copy/pastable URL showing the date of the statement --the date you left off of the text you quoted):

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/11/m-ridley-i-cannot-find-one-piece-of.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-cheating-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

===

And for the discerning lovers of deadpan inadvertent comedy, here's some sweet iron fist/velvet glove 'greenhouse gases' rhetoric, demonstrating the principle of proceeding from an asserted premise as if it is scientific fact (the pointed mis-use of the word 'consensus' as a synonym for 'scientific method-derived truth'):

http://geospatial.blogs.com/geospatial/2012/05/national-science-academies-ask-for-greater-science-involvement-in-addressing-worlds-climate-challeng.html

Note the 2012 date, and the vastly-shrunken scope of the bulletpointed agenda.

This is as if, you are standing on a railroad track and a high speed freight train is 20 feet away bearing down at 80 mph, and Big Green steps up to advise you that your health is at stake, and you should consider a One-A-Day multi-vitamin.

Common sense meanwhile is screaming "JUMP OFF THE TRACK!"

===

(if Big Green is trying to slow you down to make you a better target for the incoming NWO housecleaning fantasy offensive, then the least you can do for God, family, country, and self is, for cryinoutloud, quit cooperating --don't get on the train, don't get hit by the train, don't let anybody wander uninformed onto the tracks)

I said 'i think' --because i don't keep up with the AGW movement. However, you can do any number of objective key word tests and see if the 'A' was more prominent prior to November 2009. Let me know how that comes out, wouldja?

I'm not surprised that you mention Delingpole's data-centric approach, nor that you mock it without any reason given for the mockery.

Data is scarce and incomplete, so using it is funny, ok, but your climatologists get around the spotty data via modeling (which you brag on above, inexplicably, as it points out your scientifical-ish paucity of facts).

Modeling has to accept residual and statistical error both, as to model a system using missing data in order to create unobservable results requires faith in the spirit of the model's disciples, as well as a highly developed aesthetic appreciation of art, and all these requirements of the faithful's devotion must start with the enlightened leader's confession and testament.

Folks like Delingpole are too sour and mean-spirited to want to join the congregation, so they are forced to use the data, such as the ten year MA that so struck your funnybone. Party poopers!

Zach, nobody is disputing 'climate change'. Nobody has ever disputed climate change.

Nobody needed the Hockey $htick to savvy that one can extrapolate atmospheric changes from midnight to noon, to truthfully warn that the data is conclusive that somewhere between noon and midnight mankind will become ex-stinked.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/154220/

We get it! So do all the nations abandoning Kyoto, but i won't cruelly dwell on that.

Your movement has successfully established certain facts about the rate of increase of mankind's addition to atmospheric CO2; congrats!

However, mankind's fraction is so minuscule volumetrically that its rate of increase (BTW a value derived by admittedly statistical and residual error saturated modeling) is next to meaningless.

So meaningless that only the academies of the wealthy anglosphere (and a European academy or two) have the fat to burn off on this call for unsustainable sacrifice.

A few govt-dependent academics ensconced within first-of-the-First World organizations HQ'd in a little (media powerhouse) sprinkle along the fabulously wealthy rims of NW Europe and the NW & NE rims of the upper half of the western hemisphere, is about it for the place called World.

EurAsia, Central Asia, East Asia, Africa, Middle East, Indian subcontinent, Pacific Island Archipelago, South America, Central America, the Caribbean --?

"Bah! Go Away, willya? We are trying our damnedest to do what you have always said you wanted us to do, that is, create a middle class!"

Yet you persist in your poker game against an empty table. You've placed your bet, and are now watching the paint dry on the cobwebs.

Your bet is UN Agenda 21,

http://www.bing.com/search?q=un+agenda+21+aims+and+objectives&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox

...and you're hoping to call your own bet with a beautifully-framed painting of a picture of a facsimile of a Hockey Stick, complete with affidavit of provenance, which you wrote, then agreed with, then signed.

Worst of all, you're backed by American taxpayers --a fact not lost on a third-world farmer with a 45 year life-expectancy and thus little time to earn his life ambition, a tractor for his descendants, because the old ox has always kept the family hand-to-mouth on the edge of disaster.

PS, BTW, the remark concerning UN/IPCC's activities, exposed as "Climategate", is not an ad hom. Check the historical record, Zach.

Because of the existence of 'time', there is nothing in the universe that is not forever changing.

While a horsehide atom is only a very small percentage of a baseball, it represents a significant percentage of a horsehide molecule.

Re definitions, that an ad hom ('at the man') attacks the message by attacking the messenger will do. I could suggest that you check the definition of 'smug'. My attack --see above --was on the UN/IPCC work product; i mentioned no names. The inference to the virtue of the scientists is yours, and by mis-calling my comment ad hom, you yourself come close to making my committee crit ad hom.

Not to mention the ad hom attack on me, in the false accusation of my having made an ad hom.

I DO understand the needs of the narrative, that flat-earthers always make ad hom attacks, but it would do you no favor to ignore the lack of rigor in your present application.

Notably, you didn't address the complaints against your UN/IPCC sin-eater, NOAA, that i cited.

'Distraction' is not a 'fallacy' so much as a tactic. A fallacy is internal, within the idea. A distraction is external, an application of methodology.

I'm not trained to ferret out the stochastic this and heuristic that of the yabba dabba dooz of the fine points of stat vs resident modeling studented by tailored regression analysis, the ferreting-out which by your evident liturgical tradition is apparently the only way my reporting on and of the avalanche of world-wide opprobrium heaped upon UN/IPCC post-the-revelations now known as ''Climategate'' --could ever be anything but an ad hom against the UN/IPCC.

Hence, it follows that nothing but an ad hom could it be, my noting that the scientific work of the committee was also utterly rejected by the official bodies of world science via the ignominious humiliation of the complete collapse of the world AGW conference at Copenhagen the following year post-Climategate.

Since the reporting of these events is, by your lights, an ad hom, it is difficult to imagine how the word of these events could ever be morally or ethically brought up as a subject for any sort of mention, let alone discussion, at all.

Even though these events are, like my comments above that raised your ad hom gavel and banged it down on my testimony, a matter of record, and as far from arcane and obscurant as the world itself.

A very very strange and problematic protocol indeed, for any post-Copernican scientific inquiry.

Only you, Zach, could appeal to authority in sentence #1 and then in sentence #2 dismiss appeals to authority.

Dismiss, in favor of evidence, generated by the authority you've decided, at least for the purposes of your current comment, to not appeal to.

Everybody understands your signature 'signature' line. It's intuitive --the solid mass absorbing solar energy and radiating heat is radiating that heat into the lower atmosphere in contact with which it is.

The upper atmosphere? Your models are saying what, exactly? i think that due to orbit, tilt, rotation, gas expansion/contraction by pressure as well as temp, the effect of the fluid behavior of the sea, and a dozen other major difficulties, nobody --not even the AGW solution salesmen --would bet two cents on their ability to predict anything of consequence twice. Once, yes --throw enough spaghetti against the wall, and so forth --but where's the formula for the repeat?

The truth is, man's carbon add is a fraction of a percent of earth atmosphere carbon, and total atmosphere (carbon and everything else) in composition and effect is totally dependent on solar energy flux and pulse --which weather variations occur on the sun and alone keep Earth happily warm and brimful of life instead of a deep-frozen lifeless pebble suspended in infinity.

But you know all that. Carbon may be ubiquitous and virtually beyond any human control, but because industry is wealth and wealth is liberty, and because freedom needs fuel and fuel makes carbon, it happens that carbon propaganda is the low-risk/high-reward line of attack.

What you're doing is politicizing that supra nation-state system, the weather, in order to achieve that one-world totalitarian utopia, where you (and the other agents of the NWO who are able to memorize some jargon) get a nice stipend from Big Bro for the service of shepherding and campusing us ignorant and doomed Paleolithic freemen.

Crazy talk? Of course, but not really.

You guys are asking for control of the world means of production (soon to be mass population engineering per UN Agenda 21 and a dusted-off and omni-directional Generalplan Ost ) as compensation for what amounts to a decades-long Nuremberg Rally-ish staging of a weather-report futures lottery.

God help us if such a long-con ever regains 1930s levels of control over civilization. You guys almost took over then, juuust missed, and by a whisker --and now you've got better tools, and the lessons learned.