The winter campaign in Afghanistan is off to a great start.
Early reports are the US Marines are meeting little resistance in this week’s new operations.
Does any one think the Afghan resistance wants to be bombed from drones in a winter campaign. Seriously, only war profiteers want to go pick a fight in the winter.
ANd while the US wants in for 120,000 troops, the EU wants in for 7000 more.
So much for the importance of saving (the opium trade) Karzai.
While Bush was all hat and no cattle, Obama has become all talk and no change.
I listed it on the previous mid-week thread, but this is important enough to repeat.
The UK Meteorological Office has decided to completely recalculate the world’s temperatrure record for the past 160 years. Stating the process will take 3 years and be fully open, they admitted that confidence of the Climate predictions has been destroyed by Climategate.
We are no where finished with the fallout of Climategate, perhaps the most egregious and perhaps costly scientific fraud. those still in denial of the depth and breadth of Climategate.
The ACO2 portion of climate theories is thoroughly under review, finally. Maybe we will be able to see how much of the temp increase is due to ACO2. Maybe.
I say maybe as I have seen CO2 referenced to explain ?sudden? changes in temps in geologically-based articles in encyclopedias. I think sudden is an oxymoron in geological terms.
While Bush was all hat and no cattle, Obama has become all talk and no change.
Try telling that one to Saddam. No, wait you can’t since Bush invaded his country, ousted his government, forced him into a rathole and then caught him in the rathole, and hung him by the neck until dead.
While Bush was all hat and no cattle, Obama has become all talk and no change.
While Bush was all hat and no cattle, Obama has become all talk and no change.
Try telling that one to Saddam. No, wait you can’t since Bush invaded his country, ousted his government, forced him into a rathole and then caught him in the rathole, and hung him by the neck until dead.
West Virginia seceded from Virginia at the start of the US Civil War — thereby creating two extra US Senators post war when the rest of Virgina end its state of rebellion. According to a quick scan of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870) this was perfectly constitutional because the government of Virginia permitted West Virginia to do so — even though the government of Virgina at the time was only a reconstituted state government elected ALL OVER AGAIN in the prounion western part of the state.
This seems to open the way wide for big population states — grossly underrepresented in today’s US Senate — to break themselves up into smaller pieces AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH to send enough US senators to Washington to pass a pre-planned, pre-ordained constitutional amendment making Senate representation much more democratic than it has been since our nation’s little populated western expanse was carved out the US Senate’s too numerous “cheap seats.”
I would rebuild the US Senate — at least for the opening round; opening up democratic representation — with one senator for every two million population. California for example could break itself up into nine smaller states with a total US Senate representation of 18. This formula would add up to 160 US Senators in my calculations.
Not perfectly democratic but not very scary sounding either. As a matter of salesmanship fact if one big population state ever started the ball rolling the rest will surely follow their example at light speed so as not to have their federal representation left behind.
West Virginia seceded from Virginia at the start of the US Civil War — thereby creating two extra US Senators post war when the rest of Virgina end its state of rebellion. According to a quick scan of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870) this was perfectly constitutional because the government of Virginia permitted West Virginia to do so — even though the government of Virgina at the time was only a reconstituted state government elected ALL OVER AGAIN in the prounion western part of the state.
This seems to open the way wide for big population states — grossly underrepresented in today’s US Senate — to break themselves up into smaller pieces AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH to send enough US senators to Washington to pass a pre-planned, pre-ordained constitutional amendment making Senate representation much more democratic than it has been since our nation’s little populated western expanse was carved out the US Senate’s too numerous “cheap seats.”
I would rebuild the US Senate — at least for the opening round; opening up democratic representation — with one senator for every two million population. California for example could break itself up into nine smaller states with a total US Senate representation of 18. This formula would add up to 160 US Senators in my calculations.
Not perfectly democratic but not very scary sounding either. As a matter of salesmanship fact if one big population state ever started the ball rolling the rest will surely follow their example at light speed so as not to have their federal representation left behind.
West Virginia seceded from Virginia at the start of the US Civil War — thereby creating two extra US Senators post war when the rest of Virgina end its state of rebellion. According to a quick scan of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870) this was perfectly constitutional because the government of Virginia permitted West Virginia to do so — even though the government of Virgina at the time was only a reconstituted state government elected ALL OVER AGAIN in the prounion western part of the state.
This seems to open the way wide for big population states — grossly underrepresented in today’s US Senate — to break themselves up into smaller pieces AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH to send enough US senators to Washington to pass a pre-planned, pre-ordained constitutional amendment making Senate representation much more democratic than it has been since our nation’s little populated western expanse was carved out the US Senate’s too numerous “cheap seats.”
I would rebuild the US Senate — at least for the opening round; opening up democratic representation — with one senator for every two million population. California for example could break itself up into nine smaller states with a total US Senate representation of 18. This formula would add up to 160 US Senators in my calculations.
Not perfectly democratic but not very scary sounding either. As a matter of salesmanship fact if one big population state ever started the ball rolling the rest will surely follow their example at light speed so as not to have their federal representation left behind.
What Americans don’t get about their imperial wars is that we are there termporarily while our opponents are there permanently. If we “win” we leave and then our opponents simply reappear. The only way for us to be imperialists would be PERMANENT MASSIVE OCCUPATION of the nations we want to subdue and we don’t got the means to do that. So our efforts will always be long run futile. Most Americans haven’t been able to get their peabrains around that fact.
**The UK Meteorological Office has decided to completely recalculate the world’s temperatrure record for the past 160 years.***
I think one keeps a temperature record rather than calculating a temperature record. If the data has been “corrected” too aggressively or arbitrarily, it may not be possible to fix it. But a serious review of temperature data quality seems to be long overdue no matter what one thinks about global warming.
You might want to look into the quality of US surface termperature data. It is pretty clear that at least some of the measuring stations have been reconfigured in non-standards compliant ways over the years. And that — because of the nature of the problem — the result (if any) of non-compliance will be readings that are too high. Example: Some stations have light bulbs in the enclosure–which seems kind of inappropriate. See: http://www.surfacestations.org/
***I think sudden is an oxymoron in geological terms.***
Mostly. OTOH, some things like the end of Cretaceous bolide impact, the likely Holocene flooding of the Black Sea Basin, and the hypothesized late Miocene flooding of the Medditeranean Basin really are very sudden by any standards. It does seem reasonable that ocean current patterns might switch permanently in a very short time frame — IF they are basically unstable. Of course, we don’t have the slightest idea how stable they are. One of about a zillion things we don’t know about climate and Earth Science.
Anyway, “sudden” in geology typically means an interval to short to subdivide on the basis of geologic evidence — anywhere from days up to maybe a few hundred years in recent data — much more when one goes back in time.
***So much for the importance of saving (the opium trade) Karzai. ***
If we REALLY want to “win” that pointless war, our best bet would probably be to provide massive assistance to Afghan farmers in growing and marketing their Opium crops. That might give the rural Afghans (most of the population) a concrete reason to prefer the infidels (us) to the Taliban.
Seriously. The folks in Washington seemt o believe that the average Afghan wants to be just like us. As far as I can tell, the average Afghan is a illiterate farmer or craftsman who lives without electricity, radio, television, telephones, or broadband connections. He’s a devout moslem and has no desire whatsoever to be like us. He wants to be just like he is … but richer. Exactly what do we have on our cart that he wants to buy?
CoRev, Because 10% of the voters can send enough senators to prevent passage of any legislation — via the filibuster; 18% even without the filibuster. Meaning that the most barren states — least representative of our highly urban country — have a veto on all national legislation. Which is why it was hell for LBJ to get the 1964 Civil Rights Law through. Which is why we are behind Europe in every form of modern progressive social legislation — why we cannot get sensible (read Medicare for all) even on the agenda; lucky to get any health reform through at all.
To go back to a controversy during the recent Democratic presidential primaries (to digress somewhat; to go back to an old chapter of the endless disproportion problem): 10 Martin Luther Kings could not have gotten the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law through the Senate if JFK were still president. The Senate was a 10 times tougher nut to crack in those days — for desegregation legislation most especially — with the seniority system insuring that every relevant committee was chaired by a long sitting, southern segregationist.
JFK did not really want to get involved helping MLK — figured he’d gain 5% of votes but lose 10% — was only trapped into it when King was in jail for civil disobedience. Johnson had the fire in the belly — he told the Southern filibusterers that nothing else was going to happen in the Senate — ever — until the civil rights bill was passed. He waited 83 days; he would have waited 83 years. He also knew what every Senator wanted or was afraid of or both like he was their personal head shrinker. He had been the most powerful senate majority leader in history at a young age.
IOW, the lopsided representation of the two-to-a-state Senate gives the most regressive (if you ask me) voters in the country an absolute veto over anything the rest of us want to do. The founders would never have consciously intended such an undemocratic setup — it is time for a change. Subdividing bigger states is the one preapproved constitutional path to restoring true democracy to America — preapproved by the Supreme Court under much less legitimate looking circumstances (the Virgina government that allowed West Virgina to secede was really the government of West Virginia) — that 10% of voters cannot block.
How about ‘Wanted Dead or Alive’ followed a few months later. by ‘I truly am not concerned about him’ re Bin Ladin, you know the guy who DID attack us.
DD said: “The founders would never have consciously intended such an undemocratic setup — it is time for a change.” In this I do believe you are absolutely wrong. I believe they used a phrase similar to saving us from the tyrany of the many or something of that nature. Maybe someone else can help me here.
Entertaining and instructive, too, to read the comments on the news story about Amanda Knox’s conviction for murder in Italy. Most people outside the US think the verdict correct. Lots of Americans claim she is innocent. Her family too has the “Americans are above the law” attitude it would seem. “Hell yes” we will appeal they say. Lousy Italian justice say others. It’s a big big shock to see an American unable to wiggle out. I have little doubt there will be attempts made in Washington to turn it into a national political issue. You know. Americans should be exempt from the law outside the US because we are the rulers of the world. “They can’t do this to us.” etc., etc.
A very good reporter for a US network (amazingly) who knows Afghanistan well said on TV that the Afghans don’t mind the Taliban. What they do mind is US troops trampling over their territory. In short they don’t want us there just as the Vietnamese (north and south) didn’t want us there except for those who were in our pay. Since we can’t afford to buy everybody in Afghanistan and keep buying them forever, our effort is hopeless. Our political class, with a few exceptions, is too dumb to understand this. Once your brain clicks into the imperial mindset it almost never can be reversed.
***I believe they used a phrase similar to saving us from the tyrany of the many or something of that nature.***
“Tyranny of the Majority” (Modern Term) or “Tyranny of the Majority Faction” in the time when the Constitution was the issue of the day. See the discussion of Federalist Paper Number 10 in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10.
Before supporting Democracy Gone Wild, it might be a good idea to examine the history of the past half century in California. Better yet, wait a decade or two. as California’s initative driven approach to direct governance appears to be unsustainable and doomed to spectacular failure. It’s hard to see how a compliant, population based Senate could do anything other than make things worse there. Seems to me like the Federalists may well have been right and a bicameral legislature with a deliberately slow to change branch might be an absolutely terrific idea for a large republic.
Bottom line. The Italian justice system leaves a lot to be desired, but it also does not work exactly like the American system. In practical terms, the trial is only half over because in Italy Appeals Courts review findings of fact as well as issues of law. Apparently, it is entirely possible that the Appeals Court might rule that the facts in the Knox case don’t support the verdict.
ON the senate, read about the small state large state controversy at the convention. The small states (De, RI,NH among others) were greatly concerned about being dominated by the large states. The large states wanted a system where population determined votes. The compromise was 1 house on population, 1 house on a state basis, election of presidents by the electroal college, and if no one wins a majority election of the president by state vote. Note that W Va got into the union because the congress admitted it. If you think the senate is filibustered now, count the small states and you get over 40 votes in the senate. Propose splitting the states and hello filibuster!! (This is why DC will never get statehood).
According to Bruce Catton’s book, during the Civil War both sides went from extra legal modus to extra legal modus: including the West Virgina government speaking for all of Virginia — the rest of being in the state of rebellion — including the so called Virgina government popping up from nowhere after a rump convention that popped up from nowhere — Congress accepting same was just icing on the CONSENSUS baked cake of the day; there is no provision in the Constitution for Congress to accept states created by subdivision. 🙂 After the war the Supreme Court approved the hatching of a new state on the basis that the (pop-up) state government of Virgina had allowed West Virgina (itself) to secede. Must have been based on the original division of sovereignty principle leaving the state to mind the state. Mostly it was based on the judiciary having the last word — another non-democratic practice of our system.
What I would really like to see here is the British style parliamentary system. The Brits always have top quality chief execs because their leaders are picked by fellow pros who would never allow themselves to be led by dunces like Reagan or Bush II — nor maybe not even by the self-servingly brilliant like Bill Clinton; not for long when he could not get along with his fellow pols. Right now the presidency can be won by anyone who comes from nowhere and puts on a good show for a few months. This has been the big problem since the primary system took over the whole presidential nomination show. In 1960 the primary system essentially just showed the state political bosses who could win nationally. Putting presidential candidate picking completely in the hands of the people is one thing that may not have turned out so well.
Under the parliamentary system judges lose their power to vacate laws by finding them unconstitutional too.
***What I would really like to see here is the British style parliamentary system.***
Tell you what — instead of weakening the senate, how about we switch to parlimentary selection of the chief executive? After maybe a century we can discuss whether a parlimentary system really needs two functioning legislative bodies.
But do remember that it was parlimentary systems in times of great turmoil that put Neville Chamberlin and Adolph Hitler in power. I personally want no part of any system that might somehow put Al Sharpton or Sarah Palin in charge of my country. The overly long reign of George the Clueless was more than sufficient grief.
A quote from it: “If you only get one thing from this post, please get this. I am only making a statement about the research methods of the CRU and trying to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. And, until the CRU’s research results can be verified by a 3rd party, they cannot be trusted.”
And that is the issue to which most Skeptics have taken issue. Transparency is a/the cornerstone of the scientific method, and it has been blatantly missing in the climate sciences. Until it returns and the results can be verified and thereby trusted, more Climate Change cynics will be created.
There are huge questions raised when the S/W codes are reviewed that can not be answered. Even though the codes allow for some really questionable data practices, their use, when and how remain questions.
For these reasons I look forward to the Open and public recalculation of the world’s temp data by the UK Met Office.
After some rather interesting math, he concludes with this: “ Conclusion: Is global warming from CO2 real? – Hell yes! Is it measurably warmer due to CO2 — not sure. Are claims of ice melt, fish shrinking, model projections, temperature measurements, paleo science, drought, increased storms and FLOODING!! exaggerated? – Yup! Is it being done with intent. OH HELL YES. P.S. We cannot choose physics, but we can choose reason.”
If you read this article you will get a better feel how the skeptics think about the AGW. Few knowledgable skeptics deny warming, as is often misunderstood here and elsewhere, but they do deny the exagerations and suspected the manipulations needed to make those exagerations appear scientific. It is those suspicions that have been confirmed by the emails and the S/W codes. “
In California you have a propostion that froze taxes while other propositions increased spending — but no faster than inflation, economic growth and population. The supposedly insurmountable deficit which the artificially frozen tax setup cannot close is “only” 36 billion dollars a year. “Only?” That amounts to $1,000 a year for each of its 36 million citizens. Should that be a problem in such a propersous state — to suck up their well paid guts and pay another 5% or so of their peronal incomes? You would not think so — ESPECIALLY for the more affluent — not since REPUBLICAN governor Alrnold seems determined that the very poorest and most destitute can afford to lose $1000 a year in food and rent welfare benefits to do their share: an exactly equal share Where is everybody else? See my letter on the latter to the Cal leg below:
Should our state’s neediest shoulder an equal-equal deficit burden?Cutting $1.3 billion from the personal budgets of California’s 1.3 million neediest ($1000 apiece!) to cover a $41 billion hole in the state budget burdens our poorest citizens with an even-Steven share of deficit repair (perfectly even share: $1130 X 36 million Californians). Does anybody think that SSI/SSP, etc., ever covered more than bare minimum needs to begin with?If the governor sees fit to plunk an almost average red ink load onto the shoulders of our very poorest, he can also see how the rest of us could more easily shoulder a teeny bit more than an even up share to close our state’s budget gap — with a clean conscience to boot.[http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=11085:”Together the cuts would eliminate $1.324 billion in grant payments to more than 1.3 million Californians between May2009 and June 2010.”]
Good Article. Not surprisingly, I have a few quibbles. I think 33C worth of greenhouse warming may be a couple of degrees high. The behavior of water vapor vs atmospheric water droplets in the atmosphere is inconvenient and not easily understood. The solar constant it would better be described as the solar almost constant. It quite likely varies enough on a long tem basis to cause significant climate changes, and we don’t really know its behavior or what its current trend is. But on the whole, I think the article is a pretty fair summary of the views those who think that “climate science” is in its infancy and that it is more a political issue than a scientific one.
My bottom line. I simply don’t believe that people who can’t predict the weather accurately five days in advance despite being buried in high quality data data can predict the climate a century from now with any confidence using dubious data and unverified models.
Codger, Jeff Id simplified the whole argument for clarity. But, on the whole +/- 5 to 10% is pretty close to what a global average should be. I also believe that the oceans are a big moderator of the temps, which further clouds the mathematical solution from reality.
Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Knox’s home state of Washington, said she was “saddened” by the verdict. “I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial.” Other US experts who followed the case have warned that attacking Italy’s system of justice might prove counterproductive. “I’m not sure I would have tried to indict the criminal justice system in defending her,” said Clint Van Zandt, a former FBI profiler. “That may come back to haunt them.” Peggy Ganong, an Italian-speaking Seattle blogger who followed the case closely, said: “The implication was that Italian forensics are inferior to American forensics, and I think that’s just not true. The forensic evidence was a lot stronger than her supporters said.” Online reaction was divided, with some commentators outraged by what they saw as politically motivated Italian chicanery, and others reluctant to believe an Italian jury would act any differently from an American one. One online comment noted wryly: “If she wanted an American trial, she should have murdered in America.”
The winter campaign in Afghanistan is off to a great start.
Early reports are the US Marines are meeting little resistance in this week’s new operations.
Does any one think the Afghan resistance wants to be bombed from drones in a winter campaign. Seriously, only war profiteers want to go pick a fight in the winter.
ANd while the US wants in for 120,000 troops, the EU wants in for 7000 more.
So much for the importance of saving (the opium trade) Karzai.
While Bush was all hat and no cattle, Obama has become all talk and no change.
I listed it on the previous mid-week thread, but this is important enough to repeat.
The UK Meteorological Office has decided to completely recalculate the world’s temperatrure record for the past 160 years. Stating the process will take 3 years and be fully open, they admitted that confidence of the Climate predictions has been destroyed by Climategate.
We are no where finished with the fallout of Climategate, perhaps the most egregious and perhaps costly scientific fraud. those still in denial of the depth and breadth of Climategate.
The ACO2 portion of climate theories is thoroughly under review, finally. Maybe we will be able to see how much of the temp increase is due to ACO2. Maybe.
I say maybe as I have seen CO2 referenced to explain ?sudden? changes in temps in geologically-based articles in encyclopedias. I think sudden is an oxymoron in geological terms.
Your thoughts re Climategate?
ilsm,
While Bush was all hat and no cattle, Obama has become all talk and no change.
Try telling that one to Saddam. No, wait you can’t since Bush invaded his country, ousted his government, forced him into a rathole and then caught him in the rathole, and hung him by the neck until dead.
While Bush was all hat and no cattle, Obama has become all talk and no change.
ilsm,
While Bush was all hat and no cattle, Obama has become all talk and no change.
Try telling that one to Saddam. No, wait you can’t since Bush invaded his country, ousted his government, forced him into a rathole and then caught him in the rathole, and hung him by the neck until dead.
Obama has become all talk and no change.
Obama is incoherent, that’s change.
Why are comments so screwed up? JsKit??????? We’re waiting for an answer.
BTW, this was a test.
ATTENTION: MY LATEST NUTTY IDEA:
End “cheap seats” in US Senate:
West Virginia seceded from Virginia at the start of the US Civil War — thereby creating two extra US Senators post war when the rest of Virgina end its state of rebellion. According to a quick scan of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870) this was perfectly constitutional because the government of Virginia permitted West Virginia to do so — even though the government of Virgina at the time was only a reconstituted state government elected ALL OVER AGAIN in the prounion western part of the state.
This seems to open the way wide for big population states — grossly underrepresented in today’s US Senate — to break themselves up into smaller pieces AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH to send enough US senators to Washington to pass a pre-planned, pre-ordained constitutional amendment making Senate representation much more democratic than it has been since our nation’s little populated western expanse was carved out the US Senate’s too numerous “cheap seats.”
I would rebuild the US Senate — at least for the opening round; opening up democratic representation — with one senator for every two million population. California for example could break itself up into nine smaller states with a total US Senate representation of 18. This formula would add up to 160 US Senators in my calculations.
Not perfectly democratic but not very scary sounding either. As a matter of salesmanship fact if one big population state ever started the ball rolling the rest will surely follow their example at light speed so as not to have their federal representation left behind.
ATTENTION; MY LATTEST NUTTY IDEA
End “cheap seats” in US Senate:
West Virginia seceded from Virginia at the start of the US Civil War — thereby creating two extra US Senators post war when the rest of Virgina end its state of rebellion. According to a quick scan of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870) this was perfectly constitutional because the government of Virginia permitted West Virginia to do so — even though the government of Virgina at the time was only a reconstituted state government elected ALL OVER AGAIN in the prounion western part of the state.
This seems to open the way wide for big population states — grossly underrepresented in today’s US Senate — to break themselves up into smaller pieces AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH to send enough US senators to Washington to pass a pre-planned, pre-ordained constitutional amendment making Senate representation much more democratic than it has been since our nation’s little populated western expanse was carved out the US Senate’s too numerous “cheap seats.”
I would rebuild the US Senate — at least for the opening round; opening up democratic representation — with one senator for every two million population. California for example could break itself up into nine smaller states with a total US Senate representation of 18. This formula would add up to 160 US Senators in my calculations.
Not perfectly democratic but not very scary sounding either. As a matter of salesmanship fact if one big population state ever started the ball rolling the rest will surely follow their example at light speed so as not to have their federal representation left behind.
ATTENTION: MY LATEST NUTTY IDEA!
End “cheap seats” in US Senate:
West Virginia seceded from Virginia at the start of the US Civil War — thereby creating two extra US Senators post war when the rest of Virgina end its state of rebellion. According to a quick scan of Virginia v. West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870) this was perfectly constitutional because the government of Virginia permitted West Virginia to do so — even though the government of Virgina at the time was only a reconstituted state government elected ALL OVER AGAIN in the prounion western part of the state.
This seems to open the way wide for big population states — grossly underrepresented in today’s US Senate — to break themselves up into smaller pieces AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH to send enough US senators to Washington to pass a pre-planned, pre-ordained constitutional amendment making Senate representation much more democratic than it has been since our nation’s little populated western expanse was carved out the US Senate’s too numerous “cheap seats.”
I would rebuild the US Senate — at least for the opening round; opening up democratic representation — with one senator for every two million population. California for example could break itself up into nine smaller states with a total US Senate representation of 18. This formula would add up to 160 US Senators in my calculations.
Not perfectly democratic but not very scary sounding either. As a matter of salesmanship fact if one big population state ever started the ball rolling the rest will surely follow their example at light speed so as not to have their federal representation left behind.
DD, why remake the Senate into the House of Representatives? BTW, aren’t you Canadian?
What Americans don’t get about their imperial wars is that we are there termporarily while our opponents are there permanently. If we “win” we leave and then our opponents simply reappear. The only way for us to be imperialists would be PERMANENT MASSIVE OCCUPATION of the nations we want to subdue and we don’t got the means to do that. So our efforts will always be long run futile. Most Americans haven’t been able to get their peabrains around that fact.
What has Saddam got to do with it?
What value having the tin horn US puppets hang the poor SOB?
I know the costs: 2500 dead US soldiers, a few trillion in added debt and untold casualties with long term costs.
Do those costs equate to any value from hanging that poor SOB?
Bush that cokes snorting drunk frat boy……………
**The UK Meteorological Office has decided to completely recalculate the world’s temperatrure record for the past 160 years.***
I think one keeps a temperature record rather than calculating a temperature record. If the data has been “corrected” too aggressively or arbitrarily, it may not be possible to fix it. But a serious review of temperature data quality seems to be long overdue no matter what one thinks about global warming.
You might want to look into the quality of US surface termperature data. It is pretty clear that at least some of the measuring stations have been reconfigured in non-standards compliant ways over the years. And that — because of the nature of the problem — the result (if any) of non-compliance will be readings that are too high. Example: Some stations have light bulbs in the enclosure–which seems kind of inappropriate. See: http://www.surfacestations.org/
***I think sudden is an oxymoron in geological terms.***
Mostly. OTOH, some things like the end of Cretaceous bolide impact, the likely Holocene flooding of the Black Sea Basin, and the hypothesized late Miocene flooding of the Medditeranean Basin really are very sudden by any standards. It does seem reasonable that ocean current patterns might switch permanently in a very short time frame — IF they are basically unstable. Of course, we don’t have the slightest idea how stable they are. One of about a zillion things we don’t know about climate and Earth Science.
Anyway, “sudden” in geology typically means an interval to short to subdivide on the basis of geologic evidence — anywhere from days up to maybe a few hundred years in recent data — much more when one goes back in time.
***So much for the importance of saving (the opium trade) Karzai. ***
If we REALLY want to “win” that pointless war, our best bet would probably be to provide massive assistance to Afghan farmers in growing and marketing their Opium crops. That might give the rural Afghans (most of the population) a concrete reason to prefer the infidels (us) to the Taliban.
Seriously. The folks in Washington seemt o believe that the average Afghan wants to be just like us. As far as I can tell, the average Afghan is a illiterate farmer or craftsman who lives without electricity, radio, television, telephones, or broadband connections. He’s a devout moslem and has no desire whatsoever to be like us. He wants to be just like he is … but richer. Exactly what do we have on our cart that he wants to buy?
CoRev,
Because 10% of the voters can send enough senators to prevent passage of any legislation — via the filibuster; 18% even without the filibuster. Meaning that the most barren states — least representative of our highly urban country — have a veto on all national legislation. Which is why it was hell for LBJ to get the 1964 Civil Rights Law through. Which is why we are behind Europe in every form of modern progressive social legislation — why we cannot get sensible (read Medicare for all) even on the agenda; lucky to get any health reform through at all.
To go back to a controversy during the recent Democratic presidential primaries (to digress somewhat; to go back to an old chapter of the endless disproportion problem): 10 Martin Luther Kings could not have gotten the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law through the Senate if JFK were still president. The Senate was a 10 times tougher nut to crack in those days — for desegregation legislation most especially — with the seniority system insuring that every relevant committee was chaired by a long sitting, southern segregationist.
JFK did not really want to get involved helping MLK — figured he’d gain 5% of votes but lose 10% — was only trapped into it when King was in jail for civil disobedience. Johnson had the fire in the belly — he told the Southern filibusterers that nothing else was going to happen in the Senate — ever — until the civil rights bill was passed. He waited 83 days; he would have waited 83 years. He also knew what every Senator wanted or was afraid of or both like he was their personal head shrinker. He had been the most powerful senate majority leader in history at a young age.
IOW, the lopsided representation of the two-to-a-state Senate gives the most regressive (if you ask me) voters in the country an absolute veto over anything the rest of us want to do. The founders would never have consciously intended such an undemocratic setup — it is time for a change. Subdividing bigger states is the one preapproved constitutional path to restoring true democracy to America — preapproved by the Supreme Court under much less legitimate looking circumstances (the Virgina government that allowed West Virgina to secede was really the government of West Virginia) — that 10% of voters cannot block.
VTCodger,
Nada.
You have the idea, the US is unlikely to shape the new Afghan citizen into the Concord, Mass mold.
Certainly marines looking for trouble in Helmand in the winter won’t make an Afghan farmer want to think like Emerson’s gardener.
Oh wait that guy went to jail for not paying taxes in protest against US manifest destiny.
What do we want from the illiterate Afghan farmer?
And how do we think the marines can deliver it?
Ilsm,
You said that was was all hat and no cattle, you don’t get to make that claim.
How about ‘Wanted Dead or Alive’ followed a few months later. by ‘I truly am not concerned about him’ re Bin Ladin, you know the guy who DID attack us.
I guess that is all belt buckle and no cattle.
DD said: “The founders would never have consciously intended such an undemocratic setup — it is time for a change.” In this I do believe you are absolutely wrong. I believe they used a phrase similar to saving us from the tyrany of the many or something of that nature. Maybe someone else can help me here.
Entertaining and instructive, too, to read the comments on the news story about Amanda Knox’s conviction for murder in Italy. Most people outside the US think the verdict correct. Lots of Americans claim she is innocent. Her family too has the “Americans are above the law” attitude it would seem. “Hell yes” we will appeal they say. Lousy Italian justice say others. It’s a big big shock to see an American unable to wiggle out. I have little doubt there will be attempts made in Washington to turn it into a national political issue. You know. Americans should be exempt from the law outside the US because we are the rulers of the world. “They can’t do this to us.” etc., etc.
A very good reporter for a US network (amazingly) who knows Afghanistan well said on TV that the Afghans don’t mind the Taliban. What they do mind is US troops trampling over their territory. In short they don’t want us there just as the Vietnamese (north and south) didn’t want us there except for those who were in our pay. Since we can’t afford to buy everybody in Afghanistan and keep buying them forever, our effort is hopeless. Our political class, with a few exceptions, is too dumb to understand this. Once your brain clicks into the imperial mindset it almost never can be reversed.
***I believe they used a phrase similar to saving us from the tyrany of the many or something of that nature.***
“Tyranny of the Majority” (Modern Term) or “Tyranny of the Majority Faction” in the time when the Constitution was the issue of the day. See the discussion of Federalist Paper Number 10 in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10.
Before supporting Democracy Gone Wild, it might be a good idea to examine the history of the past half century in California. Better yet, wait a decade or two. as California’s initative driven approach to direct governance appears to be unsustainable and doomed to spectacular failure. It’s hard to see how a compliant, population based Senate could do anything other than make things worse there. Seems to me like the Federalists may well have been right and a bicameral legislature with a deliberately slow to change branch might be an absolutely terrific idea for a large republic.
The New York Times has a good article on the case. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/an-american-in-the-italian-wheels-of-justice/?hp
Bottom line. The Italian justice system leaves a lot to be desired, but it also does not work exactly like the American system. In practical terms, the trial is only half over because in Italy Appeals Courts review findings of fact as well as issues of law. Apparently, it is entirely possible that the Appeals Court might rule that the facts in the Knox case don’t support the verdict.
ON the senate, read about the small state large state controversy at the convention. The small states (De, RI,NH among others) were greatly concerned about being dominated by the large states. The large states wanted a system where population determined votes. The compromise was 1 house on population, 1 house on a state basis, election of presidents by the electroal college, and if no one wins a majority election of the president by state vote.
Note that W Va got into the union because the congress admitted it. If you think the senate is filibustered now, count the small states and you get over 40 votes in the senate. Propose splitting the states and hello filibuster!! (This is why DC will never get statehood).
According to Bruce Catton’s book, during the Civil War both sides went from extra legal modus to extra legal modus: including the West Virgina government speaking for all of Virginia — the rest of being in the state of rebellion — including the so called Virgina government popping up from nowhere after a rump convention that popped up from nowhere — Congress accepting same was just icing on the CONSENSUS baked cake of the day; there is no provision in the Constitution for Congress to accept states created by subdivision. 🙂 After the war the Supreme Court approved the hatching of a new state on the basis that the (pop-up) state government of Virgina had allowed West Virgina (itself) to secede. Must have been based on the original division of sovereignty principle leaving the state to mind the state. Mostly it was based on the judiciary having the last word — another non-democratic practice of our system.
What I would really like to see here is the British style parliamentary system. The Brits always have top quality chief execs because their leaders are picked by fellow pros who would never allow themselves to be led by dunces like Reagan or Bush II — nor maybe not even by the self-servingly brilliant like Bill Clinton; not for long when he could not get along with his fellow pols. Right now the presidency can be won by anyone who comes from nowhere and puts on a good show for a few months. This has been the big problem since the primary system took over the whole presidential nomination show. In 1960 the primary system essentially just showed the state political bosses who could win nationally. Putting presidential candidate picking completely in the hands of the people is one thing that may not have turned out so well.
Under the parliamentary system judges lose their power to vacate laws by finding them unconstitutional too.
***What I would really like to see here is the British style parliamentary system.***
Tell you what — instead of weakening the senate, how about we switch to parlimentary selection of the chief executive? After maybe a century we can discuss whether a parlimentary system really needs two functioning legislative bodies.
But do remember that it was parlimentary systems in times of great turmoil that put Neville Chamberlin and Adolph Hitler in power. I personally want no part of any system that might somehow put Al Sharpton or Sarah Palin in charge of my country. The overly long reign of George the Clueless was more than sufficient grief.
The smoking code part 2 here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/
A quote from it: “If you only get one thing from this post, please get this. I am only making a statement about the research methods of the CRU and trying to show proof that they had the means and intent to falsify data. And, until the CRU’s research results can be verified by a 3rd party, they cannot be trusted.”
And that is the issue to which most Skeptics have taken issue. Transparency is a/the cornerstone of the scientific method, and it has been blatantly missing in the climate sciences. Until it returns and the results can be verified and thereby trusted, more Climate Change cynics will be created.
There are huge questions raised when the S/W codes are reviewed that can not be answered. Even though the codes allow for some really questionable data practices, their use, when and how remain questions.
For these reasons I look forward to the Open and public recalculation of the world’s temp data by the UK Met Office.
Here’s even another good summary of SOME of the physics associated with AGW. It is at Jeff Id’s Blog. Most don’t know this, but it was at his blog where the email files first were highlighted (or at the very least where they met the skeptics) on the intrernet. The article is here: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/05/it-is-what-it-is-and-the-god-of-physics-will-have-it-no-other-way/
After some rather interesting math, he concludes with this: “
Conclusion:
Is global warming from CO2 real? – Hell yes!
Is it measurably warmer due to CO2 — not sure.
Are claims of ice melt, fish shrinking, model projections, temperature measurements, paleo science, drought, increased storms and FLOODING!! exaggerated? – Yup!
Is it being done with intent. OH HELL YES.
P.S.
We cannot choose physics, but we can choose reason.”
If you read this article you will get a better feel how the skeptics think about the AGW. Few knowledgable skeptics deny warming, as is often misunderstood here and elsewhere, but they do deny the exagerations and suspected the manipulations needed to make those exagerations appear scientific. It is those suspicions that have been confirmed by the emails and the S/W codes.
“
In California you have a propostion that froze taxes while other propositions increased spending — but no faster than inflation, economic growth and population. The supposedly insurmountable deficit which the artificially frozen tax setup cannot close is “only” 36 billion dollars a year. “Only?” That amounts to $1,000 a year for each of its 36 million citizens. Should that be a problem in such a propersous state — to suck up their well paid guts and pay another 5% or so of their peronal incomes? You would not think so — ESPECIALLY for the more affluent — not since REPUBLICAN governor Alrnold seems determined that the very poorest and most destitute can afford to lose $1000 a year in food and rent welfare benefits to do their share: an exactly equal share Where is everybody else? See my letter on the latter to the Cal leg below:
Should our state’s neediest shoulder an equal-equal deficit burden? Cutting $1.3 billion from the personal budgets of California’s 1.3 million neediest ($1000 apiece!) to cover a $41 billion hole in the state budget burdens our poorest citizens with an even-Steven share of deficit repair (perfectly even share: $1130 X 36 million Californians). Does anybody think that SSI/SSP, etc., ever covered more than bare minimum needs to begin with? If the governor sees fit to plunk an almost average red ink load onto the shoulders of our very poorest, he can also see how the rest of us could more easily shoulder a teeny bit more than an even up share to close our state’s budget gap — with a clean conscience to boot. [http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=11085:”Together the cuts would eliminate $1.324 billion in grant payments to more than 1.3 million Californians between May2009 and June 2010.”]
Good Article. Not surprisingly, I have a few quibbles. I think 33C worth of greenhouse warming may be a couple of degrees high. The behavior of water vapor vs atmospheric water droplets in the atmosphere is inconvenient and not easily understood. The solar constant it would better be described as the solar almost constant. It quite likely varies enough on a long tem basis to cause significant climate changes, and we don’t really know its behavior or what its current trend is. But on the whole, I think the article is a pretty fair summary of the views those who think that “climate science” is in its infancy and that it is more a political issue than a scientific one.
My bottom line. I simply don’t believe that people who can’t predict the weather accurately five days in advance despite being buried in high quality data data can predict the climate a century from now with any confidence using dubious data and unverified models.
Codger, Jeff Id simplified the whole argument for clarity. But, on the whole +/- 5 to 10% is pretty close to what a global average should be. I also believe that the oceans are a big moderator of the temps, which further clouds the mathematical solution from reality.
OK, here’s one of the best articles on what Phil Jones and the “Team” did to the data to at least appear to be fraud.
American Thinker: Understanding Climategate’s Hidden Decline
Get your popcorn and read for 5 minutes. Learn how we have all been
Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Knox’s home state of Washington, said she was “saddened” by the verdict. “I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial.”
Other US experts who followed the case have warned that attacking Italy’s system of justice might prove counterproductive. “I’m not sure I would have tried to indict the criminal justice system in defending her,” said Clint Van Zandt, a former FBI profiler. “That may come back to haunt them.”
Peggy Ganong, an Italian-speaking Seattle blogger who followed the case closely, said: “The implication was that Italian forensics are inferior to American forensics, and I think that’s just not true. The forensic evidence was a lot stronger than her supporters said.”
Online reaction was divided, with some commentators outraged by what they saw as politically motivated Italian chicanery, and others reluctant to believe an Italian jury would act any differently from an American one.
One online comment noted wryly: “If she wanted an American trial, she should have murdered in America.”
It should be easy to reduce CO2 emissions given how wasteful the elitists are….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Just like taxes, it should be the rich that have to reduce their carbon foot print more than the poor. It’s only “fair” that way.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1233675/Cori-Rist-named-mistress-Tiger-Woods.html
Dear heavens, Tiger sinks deeper and deeper into the doo-doo.