Tuesday, December 10, 2013

A Different Shade of Green

The Federal Reserve: The Biggest Scam In HistoryThe Federal Reserve: The Biggest Scam In History (Photo credit: CityGypsy11)
English: Edited from original GulfofMaine.jpg ...English: Edited from original GulfofMaine.jpg Category:Gulf of Maine Category:Bay of Fundy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Gr...Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, receiving a Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: Janet Yellen being sworn in by Fed Ch...English: Janet Yellen being sworn in by Fed Chair Ben Bernanke (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...Ron Paul, member of the United States House of Representatives (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Gallery : The most colourful cities in the world

Checking for Sources

Filter Bubbles 

new blog  I'm Following Penny for Your Thoughts 

How your brain works

“‘Each thought and behavior is embedded within the circuitry of the neurons, and…neuronal activity accompanying or initiating an experience persists in the form of reverberating neuronal circuits, which become more strongly defined with repetition”
Richard Restak

A culture of distrust : How India’s ruling class feeds on paranoia

In this week’s installment, “The cult of distrust”, Mehta tackles the pervasive miasma of suspicion (actually, paranoia) that defines public discourse – which he argues is an effect of great societal change: “Basic mores and sensibilities are changing rapidly: new economies of desire are being unleashed in ways we barely fathom, a whole range of social roles, particularly gender roles, are being redefined.
Who or what has authority, who or what is valued is no longer clear.” Add to this the failures of governance and an uncertain economic future, and we have the makings of a full-blown crisis. More to the point, Mehta argues, we have a ruling class that is no longer certain of its position, or how to secure it against the winds of change — producing not self-reflection but “intellectual closure and emotional crudity.”
....: In a supply-driven market like India, the media crowd out nuance and considered judgement. Instead of creating shared meaning, it makes us even less confident that we know what other people really think. Public opinion has become* a construct, not a representation of reality.
* A snort of derision might be appropriate at any suggestion this is a change of affairs

Racism at the Federal Reserve
(From The Trenches) - The appointment of Janet Yellen as Federal Reserve Chairwoman highlights a pattern of anti-gentile racial discrimination in high level government appointments. Over the past two decades, more than 50% of Federal Reserve Presidents and 100% of the Chairmen have been non-gentile. Before non-gentile Chairman Benjamin Shalom Bernanke, there was non-gentile Chairman Alan Greenspan. In fact, there hasn’t been a gentile Federal Reserve Chairman/woman in over 25 years, even though gentiles comprise 98% of the population.

The 10 Corporations That Control Almost Everything You Buy


The ’90s Canadian Invasion

 

Nix It, Stop Trying to Fix It

OZY hasn’t gone all Ron Paul-ish on you, though Paul’s quip that foreign aid transfers money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries isn’t too far off the mark, actually. Mind you, it is not quite on the mark, either. Foreign aid also transfers taxpayer money to corporations, and it constitutes but the tiniest smidgen of rich-country budgets.

Here’s why we should eliminate foreign aid: It’s bad for poor countries. 
there are three main reasons we should eliminate foreign aid:

1. Most foreign aid is not intended to reduce poverty. 

United States food aid, moreover, is usually more helpful to American farmers and shippers than to the long-term food security of poor countries. That’s because our food aid programs require buying from US farmers and shipping on US ships, and they generally do not allow local purchases or supporting local farmers.

2. Foreign aid makes governments less accountable to their citizens. 

Governments that receive most of their revenues from abroad are relieved of the need to raise taxes at home, and so do not need to justify their activities to their own populations. …Good government requires a contract between the state and the people, and aid undermines such contracts.

3. Foreign aid is essentially undemocratic. 

In aid-dependent countries, foreigners often have a weighty say in policy matters mundane and monstrous, but no one elects them. Many development workers don’t even speak the local language. Most aid agencies have nothing like a complaints hotline. There is no requirement they hold town hall meetings to hear what people actually want or need. In Easterly’s description, few feedback loops exist between those who control aid and those who are supposed to benefit from it.

Canceling of Gulf of Maine shrimp season a heavy blow

Regulators said the warming ocean and the absence of the normal springtime surge of plankton, a critical link at the bottom of the ocean’s food chain, have hurt northern shrimp. Predation by other fish species and overfishing a few years ago also contributed to the collapse.
 
David Edwards at RAW STORY...
Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) on Thursday encouraged people to look on the bright side of global warming. At the 64th annual Maine Transportation Conference, the governor bucked the thinking of many Republicans and admitted that the planet was getting warmer, but he said that people were thinking about it the wrong way.
"Everybody looks at the negative effects of global warming, but with the ice melting, the Northern Passage has opened up," LePage explained, according to the Bangor Daily News. "So maybe, instead of being at the end of the pipeline, we're now at the beginning of a new pipeline."
LePage fails to note the dangers posed to Maine's maple syrup industry by climate change, not to mention the cancellation of the 2014 shrimping season in the Gulf of Maine "in response to the species' collapse." Last year's shrimp harvest was the smallest in decades and the report that led to cancellation of this year's season "attributed the collapse in part to warming ocean temperatures."
As Glen Brand, the director of the Sierra Club of Maine told the Bangor Daily News, "Maine is already suffering from numerous problems from climate change, including threats to the state's fisheries, forests, coasts and tourist industries."

. Brad Friedman said on 12/6/2013 @ 5:23 pm PT...


John Farnham said @ 4:
Collapse of shrimp has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. As recently as last year studies were showing highest toxicity to life at base of food chain from Corexit 9500. Would you rather flog dire warming predictions of the future ( want a deal on a crystal ball ? ) than have a look at the poisoning which has been plaguing the Gulf of Mexico ?
For one, we've covered the shrimp collapse in the Gulf of Mexico and the other effects of Corexit for some time, in a fair bit of detail in the Green News Report, etc.
That said, the collapse of the shrimp species in the Gulf of Maine is not based on "dire warming predictions of the future", but on the current collapse of the species there right now, died to warming waters, as discussed in the article I linked to in the article UPDATE above (which, in turn, links to the actual scientific report which cites it).
Unless you are suggesting that the species collapse in the Gulf of Maine is related to the Correxit sprayed in the Gulf of Mexico, or that there is some other reason for it, the unprecedented ocean warming and acidification is not a "crystal ball" issue, despite what seems to be an interest of yours in marginalizing the very real, very right now effects of global warming. If it's because of your political leanings, or something, I'm sorry. But that doesn't change the scientific facts as they exist.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
... John Farnham (@opit) said on 12/7/2013 @ 7:52 am PT...

" If it's because of your political leanings, or something" If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, hm ?
The stocks have collapsed before. That is significant. Partial attribution is made to AGW. Are you riding on that ? I merely note it's thin beer. Rather nobody is claiming to have a handle on the situation.
The collapse of plankton - starving shrimp - would be cause enough for decline. And looking at that reminded me of effects of corexit 'upstream' on the most minute life forms .
Is there any reason to think one guess any better than another - when that's all that they are ?
We will continue to disagree on AGW. I find it absolutely wild that people continue to clamour online while in the 'real world' you hear nothing...except derision should you bring up the topic. It does not help that even IPCC 'assessments' ( read up on the process of generating those synopses for some eye openers about dysfunctional protocols ) are exaggerated by environmental awareness branded 'reports' that are little more than yellow journalism. In any case there is little effort to appreciate how poorly models perform even when there is some reason to think the process of forming them is comprehensive and impartial rather than conforming to specified prior acceptable results.
On a water world with the brief timelines of observation and sparseness of measurements one real bugaboo should not be overlooked : not just water as clouds and snow and changing albedo but as a reservoir of incalculable amounts of heat and motion. Anyone who has lived by water knows what a radiator it is. In fact, lack of water in the air - desert - is a cause of susceptibility to wild temperature swings.
It was ignoring such simple facts that threw glaciation projections astray : direction and moisture content of winds aloft.
When I was a boy I read about The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Chicken Little. When I was older I heard about Malthus and about other vital concerns.
I still have many, but also still consider the source.
In the geopolitics of energy lies would be the least of offenses. The 'Axis if Evil' would be the first to agree.
 
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
... Brad Friedman said on 12/9/2013 @ 1:20 pm PT...

John Farnam said @ 8:
The collapse of plankton - starving shrimp - would be cause enough for decline. And looking at that reminded me of effects of corexit 'upstream' on the most minute life forms .
Is there any reason to think one guess any better than another - when that's all that they are ?
And the "collapse of plankton" is attributed to warming and ocean acidification, so maybe I miss your point? But its interesting that you're certain Corexit is responsible for shrimp collapse in the Gulf of Mexico (because scientists told you as much), but AGW isn't responsible for shrimp collapse in the Gulf of Maine (even though scientists told you as much.)
Confirmation bias sure does lead to some swell cherry picking for you deniers, eh?
even IPCC 'assessments' ( read up on the process of generating those synopses for some eye openers about dysfunctional protocols ) are exaggerated by environmental awareness branded 'reports' that are little more than yellow journalism.
Barring any actual evidence to support that assertion, you just made a yellow "comment". For the record, if anything, the IPCC report(s) are extremely conservative*. So not sure what this "exaggerat[ion] by environmental awareness branding 'reports'" nonsense is even supposed to mean.
In any case there is little effort to appreciate how poorly models perform even when there is some reason to think the process of forming them is comprehensive and impartial rather than conforming to specified prior acceptable results.
Also, a whole bunch of BS in row (shy of any evidence to support your silly claim.)
The rest of your comment is little less than many words that, actually, don't appear to say anything at all, so I won't bother responding. Good luck though! Seems you're rather adapt of convincing yourself of anything. The Fossil Fuel companies playing you for a stooge are much obliged!

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
... John Farnham (@opit) said on 12/10/2013 @ 8:16 am PT...

" the IPCC report(s) are extremely conservative"
Certainly they can be represented as such : and have been. Did you miss out on the part where none of this forecasting can be validated except by claiming success at 'hindcasting' ? And that by using fudge factors of magnified specified effect on water energy transmissions to achieve the desired results.
Where did you see that shrimp die off was attributed to climate change ? It was listed as a likely contributory factor. In any case, I have no issue with climate change. It's been doing that forever.
What I do question heartily is the proposition we can ignore unknowns in our rush to conclusions.
Certainly it is an odd consensus of scientists that ignores uncertainty. Such is the foundation of arriving at reasonable conclusions. You do not get to shortcut the process by claiming the elect wise people by themselves fulfill the requirements for questioning suppositions.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
... John Farnham (@opit) said on 12/10/2013 @ 9:21 am PT...
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Do you mind if I open up the context of discussion away from provincial and limited analyses based on the idea that nobody else has anything to contribute?
Why should anyone doubt for a minute obvious and responsible warnings ?
http://www.indiavision.c...s-feeds-paranoia/466913/
A climate of alarm
http://sci.tech-archive....cs/2007-02/msg00275.html
http://theendofthemyster...riminal-authorities.html
United Nations Wants Global Taxes to Fund Itself
http://www.appinsys.com/...Warming/UN_GlobalTax.htm
Geopolitics and Cognition
http://pennyforyourthoug...-on-geopolitics-and.html
The fixers
http://lifeboat.com/ex/main
The relevance of this is more obscure. I suggest variation in incidence of storms - because of oil on the surface ? - might even have an effect exported elsewhere.
http://kingfish.coastal.edu/gulfstream/p2.htm
Also - effects of ocean circulation
http://www.climate.gov/n...co-and-ocean-circulation
Hammering misrepresentation of what discussion is about
http://www.redstate.com/...ot-being-polite-anymore/
The new religion of climate alarm 
( Anyone daring to question it is an ignoramus getting misinformation from Rush Limbaugh, who gleans it from organizations that are paid shills of the fossil fuel industry)
http://climateofsophistr...i-mind-of-climate-alarm/
Beware the church of climate alarm
http://www.smh.com.au/ne...11/26/1227491635989.html
Swedish historian: "climate alarms of the early 21st century resemble pre-modern ideas about divine punishment"
http://newnostradamusoft...n-climate-alarms-of.html
.................................
You might note this is public dialogue - not my personal eccentricity.
 

The 32-Step Lifecycle Of Climate Alarms

*11. Suddenly, the news get populated of fear-inducing “evidence” that confirm the original claim was way too tame, and “things are worse than we thought”. Articles are accompanied by pictures of polar bears

23 For some reason, the now-established fact that the original claims have been shown incorrect and/or premature does not appear in the news media and alarmist blogs 

Calvin and Hobbes explain why Climate Change alarmists are almost invariably rabid about it
November-14-13 4:47 PM
From the strip first published on 7/7/1995: From a Calvin and Hobbes search engine: Script I’m writing a fund-raising letter. The secret to getting donations is to depict everyone who disagrees with you as the enemy. Then you explain how …

When Dilbert channeled a hairy Mann

 

Climategate

Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's biggest scam. Home. About. Climate De-Bait and Switch. Lame, Desperate Climate Alarm Logic. Extrapolating From A Single Data Point: Climate and Sandy. A Great Example of How The Climate Debate is Broken.
climategate.com

The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria - Forbes

That's the threat that presents really serious reasons for alarm!' 95% of climate researchers support the consensus of AGW? Are you out of your mind? rock and ocean sediment samples to study historic climate conditions throughout history, oceanographers who study the dynamics of sea and climate...
forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming...  
 
World Climate Report

The Web’s Longest-Running Climate Change Blog

“A closer look at the Atlantic Ocean’s currents has confirmed what many oceanographers suspected all along: There’s no sign that the ocean’s heat-laden ‘conveyor’ is slowing.”
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/atom.xml

 TBR.cc
Investigate magazine's breaking news forum
Vitamin D deficiency provides ‘reasonable doubt’ in child abuse case
September-19-13 3:40 PM.
New climate change report trashes exaggeration of global warming
September-18-13 10:53 PM
Email scam hits NZ: We are all Nigerians now
September-15-13 5:19 PM
Breaking news: leaked IPCC climate report admits ‘we got it wrong’
September-15-13 6:22 AM
World’s top atheist Richard Dawkins defends ‘mild pedophilia’
September-12-13 8:57 PM
Auckland – The Super (Expensive) City
September-12-13 5:33 PM
Edgy new ‘Murder a Drink’ promo pitches wine as health food to young people
August-13-13 7:25 PM
NZ Govt sitting on secret list of risky Wellington buildings
July-21-13 7:39 PM
TradeMe lifts two year ban on sales of controversial Kahui book
July-12-13 12:51 AM
Antarctic ice melting scare cancelled – climate science study
May-19-13 8:49 PM
Climate change consensus study backfires on researchers
May-17-13 9:24 PM
Panicking NZ climate scientists go for the doctor – predict nearly half-metre sea level rise PER DECADE!
May-03-13 11:15 PM
New climate change study shows Antarctic melt is ‘normal’, may not be human-caused
April-17-13 5:40 PM
 

Another fisk of Ken Perrott – the climate denier gift that keeps on giving
April-03-13 6:54 PM

Related Posts:


Climate change expert quits NASA, pushes nuclear energy as solution
April-03-13 4:02 AM

It is pretty clear that the scientific debate is over, and that the people behind this scam are no longer making any attempt to be honest. I’m not used to dealing with criminals, and am somewhat at a loss for where the conversation must go next.

Ivan says:

When has there been a “scientific debate”?
I must have slept during that bit.
gator69 says:
There have been a few, and they always end like this…
“Science 135, global warming scare 110…
For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.
Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.
Serious observers are interpreting this shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by “global warming” scare stories, if they ever were.”
This is why they refuse to debate.
Kent Clizbe says:
If you’re not used to dealing with criminal conspiracies a couple tips:
1. Nearly the only way that an organized criminal conspiracy is broken up is by the use of whistleblowers–insiders who spill the beans. Motivation for whistleblowers to cooperate, in this case, is the very likely award of a large portion of the federal grant funds clawed back via a False Claims Act action. What you, and all other concerned parties, can do is to encourage whistleblowers to come forward. A grad student at PSU, or UVa, or any other institution that received federal grant money for “climate research” very likely has information that could blow the entire enterprise out of the water.
2. Be prepared for the continuing reprisals, counter-accusations, and worse that will emanate from the bowels of the conspirators. Their modus operandi is clear. When confronted with reality: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter-accusations.
You do what I have been doing for the last 3 years, ever since I definitively disproved the “greenhouse effect” with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (the scientific debate has been over ever since): You identify the Insane Left (and the subornation of all of our authoritative institutions by it) as the immediate problem–substituting as it does a political ideology, and outright tyranny, for science–and the underlying problem, that of a general incompetence among scientists, for letting climate science go so far wrong as to forget the Standard Atmosphere and the stable vertical temperature lapse rate structure of the troposphere. Beyond that, I can only recommend mass civil disobedience of any and all laws passed during the Obama years, particularly Obamacare and the anti-scientific EPA regulations (like officially denoting CO2 an “air pollutant”, and thus subject to strict regulation under the Clean Air Act).
And you should prepare yourself mentally for increasing forays into governmental tyranny over individuals’ rights–as more and more citizens fail financially–and for actual war (although that is most likely to occur when most of the Baby Boomers are dead).
When my greater discoveries are finally confronted and generally accepted, then our divisions will recede, people will start to really work together in a newly vibrant society, and real progress can be made, in science, religion and modern societies. For now, reason is taking a back seat to tribalism and past historical injustices, both real and imagined, and the world is pushing for war thereby.
Very likely the actual climate will continue not acting on cue to fulfill AGW’ers predictions. But if we want to steer this along a bit quicker towards its demise, it might help if the perception that skeptic scientists are industry crooks was DESTROYED every time it pops up, rather than simply viewing as some kind of nuisance. When the larger public comprehends how much effort was put into smearing skeptics rather than conclusively defending the core AGW ‘science’, that would be blood in the water. There’d be no defense of that, and the fickle journalists would turn on each other to save their own skins.
“Flip Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Against Far-Left Activists: A Global Warming Case Study for Not being Polite Anymore” http://www.redstate.com/russellc/2013/10/29/flip-alinskys-rules-for-radicals-against-far-left-activists-a-global-warming-case-study-for-not-being-polite-anymore/
Jason Calley says:
Debate? Never debate facts with liars. The only way I have found that has any effect is to relentlessly hammer home the ethics of the matter.
“Your support of unproven CAGW means that REAL environmental problems are ignored. Your actions mean that destructive land use, burning of tropical forests for use in biofuel production, overfishing, groundwater pollution — all these get worse and people die because you are pretending that CAGW is real.”
“Your giant wind farms kill thousands of endangered birds and bats. You pretend to save the environment while you wipe out whole species!”
Hyperbolic? Over the top? Maybe…But these are people who have already thrown out reasonable standards and logic. Punch them (metaphorically) in their ethical gut — if they still have one.
Dan s says:
Preposterous. The only people that are making no attempt to be honest are the global warming deniers. The evidence for AGW is overwhelming. All you have to point to is dubious statistics regarding record temps, but you provide no details about how these statistics were generated.
You deniers are delusinal.
gator69 says:
You forgot the ‘sarc’ tag. ;)
And from the dept. of no sense of ha-ha
Hew Manatee says:
The evidence for AGW is overwhelming.
Perhaps you could share some of this “overwhelming evidence” with the rest of us.
While your little tantrum is amusing, unfortunately it completely misses the point.
The onus is not on the “deniers” to provide statistics, or any other proof for that matter, but rather on the bed-wetters to provide the evidence that establishes their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Surely that is not too much to ask, after 20+ years and billions of taxpayer dollars on so-called “scientific research.”

 If You Have Nothing To Hide...

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments: