Weds. morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, October 17. 2012

Commenter at Ace's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!: Crowley Admits Romney Was Right On Libya After All:

It was a spirited debate, but it was difficult to ignore the elephant in the room.

Tamny: Romney v. Obama Was a Nauseating Draw, and Both Deserve to Lose

Thanks, Candy Crowley. Now I Hate the Mainstream Media More than Ever.

...as Obama played his class warfare card, media types cheered – literally cheered – in the other room

Kurtz:

Common wisdom coming into today’s debate was that Obama needed a win to reverse Romney’s momentum, whereas a tie would have been sufficient for Romney to keep capitalizing on the new campaign dynamic. I think that was right. While I think Romney did a bit better than Obama tonight, neither side can point to an obvious, lopsided victory.

The core dynamic here is that Romney has proven himself to be a perfectly acceptable alternative to Obama. The silly portrayal of Romney in all those negative ads has been exploded. Obama’s inevitability is gone. The underlying state of the country, which is not at all good, has become the issue. All of that is bad for Obama and very good for Romney.

Political changer: Buzz Bissinger’s wake-up call continues apace, and in the usual fashion

A lot of hate out there

The major trouble with trying to talk about Joe Kennedy III as a candidate is… oh, heck, let the Sean Bielat campaign explain it

Gallup: Obama down among every demographic from 2008

77% likelihood Romney wins popular vote, according to famous U of Colorado study

Have Earwax? Leave It Alone

The world's strongest beer

Texas Tries to Make College Cheap

French President Makes Moves to Ban Homework

The Last Radicals - Homeschoolers occupy the curriculum

Energy fact of the day: US will produce 83% of energy consumed this year, up from 78% in 2008

Wastebook: 100 Examples Of Idiotic Programs

NOAA’s ’15 year statement’ from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office ‘insignificance’ claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years

OK, the models are wrong

John Bolton on dreams of global governance

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:24 | Comments (40) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

The comments below the NOAA article strike this reader as impressively adept, penetrating, and satisfyingly crunchy.

#1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-17 08:56 (Reply)

PS, the article and comments so well identify a familiar but not yet named malady, that when the comment on ''Blazing Saddles'' heaves into view, a 'natural' takes form: The Blazing Saddles Syndrome.

Presented, as Rod Serling used to say, 'for your review'.

#1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-17 09:09 (Reply)

I liked this comment: "The other alarmists are learning something that repeat offenders like Hansen and Paul Ehrlich learnt long ago — never predict that anything will occur before you’re safely retired and they can’t take the money away."

#1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2012-10-17 10:40 (Reply)

LOL --related, grizzled bear's

QUOTE:

Reminds me of the immortal Mel Brooks
See Blazing Saddles – We’ve gotta protect our phony baloney jobs gentlemen!

(with the imbedded)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M&feature=youtu.be

#1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-17 11:14 (Reply)

Bird Dog: NOAA’s ’15 year statement’ from 2008 puts a kibosh on the current Met Office ‘insignificance’ claims that global warming flatlined for 16 years

MET: The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period ... As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

#2 Zachriel on 2012-10-17 09:17 (Reply)

Crazy thing, Zach, is that you want this supposedly "bad" thing to be real. You insist on arguing for its reality. (In this case, the experts who depend on global warming scares for their livelihood said 15 years would discredit their models.)

Whereas I want it to be real because I think it would have good effects overall, but I very much doubt that it's happening. I think it's just one more excuse for a $ and power grab.

#2.1 Bird Dog on 2012-10-17 09:28 (Reply)

Bird Dog: Crazy thing, Zach, is that you want this supposedly "bad" thing to be real.

It would be very convenient if it wasn't true, but the evidence says otherwise.

Bird Dog: Whereas I want it to be real because I think it would have good effects overall

The evidence says otherwise.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-17 09:33 (Reply)

Really? What evidence?

#2.1.1.1 DrTorch on 2012-10-17 10:17 (Reply)

--if i may offer, the evidence created by statistical models of the future (models useful as all models are, that is, to the extent of the lack of empirical data) that necessarily include modeler-chosen estimates of values chosen as the 'right' fraction selected from nature's near-infinite variations on variables dependent on nature's near-infinite variations on variables dependent on nature's near-infinite variations on variables.

#2.1.1.1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-17 11:01 (Reply)

This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, radiosonde and ground-based instrumentation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

#2.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2012-10-17 11:34 (Reply)

Did you ever think, if former French president Nicolas Sarkozy had been named Noah, he would be Noah Sarkozy?

And that saying his name aloud in a crowd might bring "If it twernt cozy, it was surely capacious!"?

#2.1.1.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-17 15:32 (Reply)

And as "we've" stressed before, we all understand that it makes a huge difference where you pick your starting and ending points when you're trying to establish a trend using very noisy and cyclical. What's not clear is why you think you're going to persuade people to cherry-pick a particular decadal set of endpoints and claim that they're superior to another random set of endpoints that are either shorter- or longer-term. Move out to the perspective of a few hundred or few thousand years, and your "decadal" pattern is completely meaningless.

#2.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2012-10-17 09:35 (Reply)

That's right. Of course, climate change science is based not on simple correlation, but physical mechanisms.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-17 12:28 (Reply)

Does "mechanisms" mean more than "theory we think is gonna work?" I very much get the idea that some smart, well-trained people think this is how climate, as a whole, will be affected. We have mild evidence that there is warming. What we do not have is solid evidence for same. And we emphatically do not have evidence that the anthropogenic bits are more than a marginal fraction, and none at all that this will be catastrophic.

#2.2.1.1 Assistant VIllage Idiot (Link) on 2012-10-17 18:51 (Reply)

Assistant VIllage Idiot: Does "mechanisms" mean more than "theory we think is gonna work?"

Basic physics indicates that increasing CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect. The question is how much this is amplified by increased water vapor in the upper atmosphere, called climate sensitivity.

Assistant VIllage Idiot: We have mild evidence that there is warming.

There is strong evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect.

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-17 19:11 (Reply)

Zach; I can't tell if you are trying to convince us that it is really just weather and not global warming OR that the steadily increasing CO2 level actually does not cause global warming. Which is it?

#2.3 GoneWithTheWind on 2012-10-17 11:57 (Reply)

Have no idea what you are questioning. Anthropogenic CO2 is causing the global to warm significantly.

#2.3.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-17 12:30 (Reply)

Uh, that's where the evidence is lacking.

Your charts even suggest looking for alternative theories.

#2.3.1.1 DrTorch on 2012-10-17 13:06 (Reply)

A warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere are the signature of greenhouse warming.

#2.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-17 13:11 (Reply)

It's a theory not a fact. The evidence doesn't support that theory and not suprisingly many experts who have staked their reputation on that theory are stubbornly fighting the facts. What has been a steady trickle of facts refuting the AGW/CO2 theory has over the last few years become a flood.

#2.3.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2012-10-18 01:06 (Reply)

"staked their reputation" as well as "steaked their careers".

(trying to come up with a 'sham pain' that goes well with steak that has mmm...'turned' a bit)

#2.3.1.2.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-18 02:56 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: It's a theory not a fact.

A scientific theory is not the antonym of a fact. A theory is a well-substantiated explanatory framework.

GoneWithTheWind: The evidence doesn't support that theory and not suprisingly many experts who have staked their reputation on that theory are stubbornly fighting the facts.

This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif

In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the signature of greenhouse warming.

#2.3.1.2.2 Zachriel on 2012-10-18 08:09 (Reply)

"A scientific theory is not the antonym of a fact."

It can be, if it's consistently contradicted by the facts. In that case, it's technically referred to a "disproven," and honest scientists change the theory instead of the facts.

#2.3.1.2.2.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2012-10-18 10:18 (Reply)

Texan99: It can be, if it's consistently contradicted by the facts. In that case, it's technically referred to a "disproven," and honest scientists change the theory instead of the facts.

Typically it's called falsification, but robust theories are often modified rather than discarded. In any case, we have repeatedly pointed to a specific line of evidence. What facts contradict that line of evidence.

#2.3.1.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-18 11:43 (Reply)

If they're robust, sometimes all they need to be is tweaked. If they're hack jobs, their proponents jimmy the data in a desperate attempt to maintain funding.

#2.3.1.2.2.1.1.1 Texan99 (Link) on 2012-10-18 16:12 (Reply)

A much more "well-substantiated explanatory framework" theory about our warming and cooling cycles is that they are caused by a number of naturally occuring events involving the sun and it's cycles and the earths position relative to the sun that either enhance or limit the amount of radiant energy hitting the planet. This has created 33 global warming cycles since the last ice age. This the 33rd naturally occurring cycle began around 1850 well before SUVs. It is not as warm a cycle as the previous one which happened around the 11th century which allowed the Vikings to raise cattle and sheep in Greenland. This cycle will end and the 33rd natural global cooling cycle will begin. Not good news because while global warming cycles are very beneficial to humans and most animals global cooling cycles are noted for failed crops, starvation, die offs and disease. We are unable to prevent global warming and we will be unable to prevent the global cooling cycle either.

#2.3.1.2.2.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2012-10-18 11:00 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: A much more "well-substantiated explanatory framework" theory about our warming and cooling cycles is that they are caused by a number of naturally occuring events involving the sun and it's cycles and the earths position relative to the sun that either enhance or limit the amount of radiant energy hitting the planet.

Sorry, but no. While solar irradiance is important to explain climate cycles over long periods (e.g. Milankovitch cycles), it does not explain the line of evidence we cited. If solar irradiance was the culprit, then the stratosphere would be warming. Instead, the stratosphere is cooling, the signature of greenhouse warming.

#2.3.1.2.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-18 11:48 (Reply)

You are rationalizing. If the stratosphere excuse were not handy then it would be ocean warming/cooling or ice formation at the poles or lack of it or glacier retreat or advances or hurricane activity or lack of it or tornadoes or lack of tornadoes. You will grasp at any convenient straw.
Two simple questions: 1. What caused the medieval warming period in the 11th century and what caused the previous warming cycles?
2. What caused the mini ice age from about 1350 to 1850 and what caused the previous cooling cycles?

#2.3.1.2.2.2.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2012-10-19 11:18 (Reply)

Bryan Preston: Thanks, Candy Crowley. Now I Hate the Mainstream Media More than Ever.

Bryan Preston: Obama replied that gas prices were so low because the U.S. economy was about to go into collapse.

That is correct. They were just about the same price in June 2008, then plummeted dramatically.

Bryan Preston: The transcript of Obama’s remarks says otherwise... Obama called it an “attack”

Um, you left out that part about an "act of terror".

#3 Zachriel on 2012-10-17 09:24 (Reply)

The spring of 2008 --according to the FBI, and evidenced in part by lawsuits in court now (search lawsuit arcadia parnon) --created a pump-price increase whose rate of change was unprecedented.

Many folks who've studied the record believe that the scope and timing of oil futures manipulation in the Chicago pits was aimed at the November election, and was part of an international attack the individual elements of which are familiar, tho the connections among them are not.

The August invasion of Georgia by the Putin Kremlin put a hostile force a hop and skip away from the trans-Georgia Caspian-to-Europe pipeline.

Dovetailed to the comtemporaneous oil-futures market wreckage created by dark pools of FBI described international hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds, this would have succeeded in what Goldman/Sachs was already publicizing as a ''super spike'', had GWB not made his call to the Saudi royal family (''remember, we protect you from the Bear, in whose side you are a huge thorn"), who accepted the emergency and opened the KSA spigots wide --thus dropping the artificial prices hard and fast.

Arcadia and Parnon have very interesting histories, BTW, but Lord help me not to start typing them in, as i'll be still at it three hours, if not three years, from now.

#3.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-17 10:37 (Reply)

Texas Tries to Make College Cheap

A lot of the lowering in costs will come down to CAI [computer-aided instruction]- after doing away with administrative bloat. For STEM courses, CAI will be fairly feasible. For teaching writing and composition, CAI has a long way to go. I would trust an instructor's evaluation of student writing before I would trust some computer program.

TX has had some writing tests in its primary and secondary school testing. The critique of these standardized writing tests is that it leads to formulaic composition from students, who are taught to push all the right buttons to pass the writing test.

#4 Gringo on 2012-10-17 10:46 (Reply)

A lot of the lowering in costs will come down to CAI [computer-aided instruction]- after doing away with administrative bloat.

Agreed. But, there's a lot of bloat to trim. Also might mean getting rid of worthless gen ed requirements (aka indoctrination).

For STEM courses, CAI will be fairly feasible.

Won't work for everyone, but it will be a valuable tool.

For teaching writing and composition, CAI has a long way to go. I would trust an instructor's evaluation of student writing before I would trust some computer program.

Yes and no. Lots and lots of poor writing instructors, both profs and their TAs. And even the good ones rarely teach writing that's useful business and technology (aka being useful).

#4.1 DrTorch on 2012-10-17 13:09 (Reply)

Yes and no. Lots and lots of poor writing instructors, both profs and their TAs. And even the good ones rarely teach writing that's useful business and technology (aka being useful).

Agreed that not all writing instructors are competent. Your point about real-world writing is well-taken. Due to bad experiences in high school English and History courses, in college I avoided courses that required writing.

I discovered that in the real world, good writing skills are necessary for all professionals: brief, simple, concise, and to the point. Unfortunately, much academic writing is anything but brief, simple, concise, and to the point. Which is one reason why there are many poor writing instructors. It is problematic for instructors to direct their students to write in a style which instructors do not use in their professional life.

#4.1.1 Gringo on 2012-10-17 15:00 (Reply)

DT, is a poor writing instructor a poor instructor of writing, or an instructor of poor writing?

Since you posed the question, you could hardly be the former, tho you could be the former Hardly, if Hardly was your formal name formerly.

#4.1.2 buddy larsen on 2012-10-17 15:13 (Reply)

Buddy, you're nuts... in a very good way of course!

#4.1.2.1 XRay on 2012-10-17 18:23 (Reply)

Ol' Buddy once fell into a mud pit and stayed down so long his brain got deprived of oxygen. Got himself some bentonite-stuffed arteries in the process, resulting in long-term deprivation of oxygen to the brain.

But we love him.

#4.1.2.2 Gringo on 2012-10-17 22:53 (Reply)

Yes, we do, the two us anyways. I hope I didn't imply otherwise.

#4.1.2.2.1 XRay on 2012-10-17 23:51 (Reply)

--appreciate the feedback fellers --now i know, as long as you two are around, no lame joke can ever be too lame.

Anyhoo, inspired now to write my life story, i called around for some anonymous professional writing help. Soon enough, two ambitious young preppy-types, incognito, collars turned up and wearing dark glasses, showed up at the out-of-the-way bar & grill we'd specified as a place no one would recognize us. They agreed to anonymously write my story. One wanted a fee up front, the other wanted a percentage of sales. I signed the contract, then climbed up on the table and, leaping for the chandelier, sang out,

"A yuppie I pay,
a yuppie I owe;
ghostwriters in disguise!"

===

ok ok, i stole it --from the annual bad-writing contest instapundit linked some week or two back. Dunno how BD missed it --it's right up maggie's ally --some of the entries are hilarious. Here 'tis:

http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/2012win.html

===

There's a guy, a retired architect from Philadelphia name of Walter Erickson, who writes instant verse on whatever topic might come up, over at Belmont. I guess he's in a quiet period lately as he don't do it so much as before. Anyway i went over to his site to see what he's doing, and he's still doing a daily verse on the daily news --i can see why he'd tire of posting new verse in the blog comments after awhile, because he is so damn superlatively good at his hobby, that he literally dumbfounds the commenters' abilities to come up with new and apropriate laudatory comments. IOW, he leaves a body speechless. Anyhoo, enough of me, here's Walt, for them as is of a mind to be wow'd:

http://verse-afire.com/blog/

#4.1.2.2.1.1 buddy larsen on 2012-10-18 01:30 (Reply)

I am willing to be convinced tha homework is useless, but the link-within-link article doesn't provide any evidence. It's all theoretical ideas of why homework could be a bad idea, should be a bad idea, probably is a bad idea, according to certain ways of looking at education. That's blue-sky stuff. When advocates won't even put up bad numbers in support of their ideas, I conclude they don't want to actually know the answers, they want to play table games with words.

#5 Assistant VIllage Idiot (Link) on 2012-10-17 19:07 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: If the stratosphere excuse were not handy then it would be ocean warming/cooling or ice formation at the poles or lack of it or glacier retreat or advances or hurricane activity or lack of it or tornadoes or lack of tornadoes.

Not an argument.

Warming of the atmosphere and cooling of the stratosphere is part of the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and was predicted over a century ago. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.

GoneWithTheWind: Two simple questions: 1. What caused the medieval warming period in the 11th century and what caused the previous warming cycles?

The Medieval Warming Period may have been primarily a regional phenomena caused by changes the distribution of heat in the oceans, perhaps initiated by changes in solar radiation. The Little Ice Age is thought to have been due to increased volcanism. However, the Earth has experienced many periods of globally warmer and cooler climate due to a variety of causes, including solar irradiance, orbital variations, atmospheric content, continental drift, volcanism, albedo, and the occasional object slamming into the Earth.

#5.1 Zachriel on 2012-10-20 08:02 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, October 17. 2012

Weds. morning links