This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Jeremy Grantham Urges "Easily Manipulated" Americans To "Become More Realistic" About World's Demise
Authored by Jeremy Grantham via GMO,
Give Me Only Good News!
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
(Attributed to Mark Twain)
It takes little experience in the investment business to realize that investors prefer good news. As a bear in the bull market of 1999 I was banned from an institution’s building as being “dangerously persuasive and totally wrong!” The investment industry also has a great incentive to encourage this optimistic bias, for little money would be made if the market ticked slowly upwards. Five steps forward and two back are far more profitable.
Similarly, we environmentalists were shocked to realize how profoundly the general public preferred to believe good news on our climate, even if it meant disregarding the National Academies of the world. The fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, encouraged this positive attitude. They had billions of dollars to protect. If the realistic information were to be widely believed, most of their assets would be stranded.
When dealing with realistic limits to growth it is also obvious how reluctant everyone is to accept the natural mathematical limits: There simply cannot be compound growth in a finite world. A modest 1% growth compounded for the 3,000 years of Ancient Egypt’s population would have multiplied its economic output by nine trillion times!1 Yet, the improbability of feeding ten billion or so global inhabitants in 50 years is shrugged off with ease. And the entire economic and political system appears eager to encourage optimism on resources for it is completely wedded to the virtues of quantitative growth forever.
Hard realities in these three fields are inconvenient for vested interests and because the day of reckoning can always be seen as “later,” politicians can always find a way to postpone necessary actions, as can we all: “Because markets are efficient, these high prices must be reflecting the remarkable potential of the internet”; “the U.S. housing market largely reflects a strong U.S. economy”; “the climate has always changed”; “how could mere mortals change something as immense as the weather”; “we have nearly infinite resources, it is only a question of price”; “the infinite capacity of the human brain will always solve our problems.”
Having realized the seriousness of this bias over the last few decades, I have noticed how hard it is to effectively pass on a warning for the same reason: No one wants to hear this bad news. So a while ago I came up with a list of propositions that are widely accepted by an educated business audience. They are widely accepted but totally wrong. It is my attempt to bring home how extreme is our preference for good news over accurate news. When you have run through this list you may be a little more aware of how dangerous our wishful thinking can be in investing and in the much more important fields of resource (especially food) limitations and the potentially life-threatening risks of climate damage. Wishful thinking and denial of unpleasant facts are simply not survival characteristics.
Let me start with one of my favorites. For the 50 years I have been in America, Business Week and The Wall Street Journal have been telling us how incompetent at business the French are and how persistently we have been kicking their bottoms. If only they could get over their state socialism and their acute Eurosclerosis. And as far as I can tell we have generally accepted this thesis. Yet Exhibit 1 shows what has actually happened to France’s median hourly wage. It has gone from 100 to 280. Up 180% in 45 years! Japan is up 140% and even the often sluggish Brits are up 60%. But the killer is the U.S. median wage. Dead flat for 45 years! These are the uncontestable facts. So, all I can say is that it is just as well the French have not been kicking our bottoms. But how is it that we can believe so firmly in something that just ain’t so, and by such a convincing amount?
Exhibit 2 examines the proposition that although our wages may have done poorly, we are still the place that creates jobs. The left-hand panel certainly seems to confirm that with our modest official unemployment rate for 25- to 54-year-olds of below 5% compared to 9% for the E.U. The righthand panel, though, shows the true picture. It looks at the unemployment rate adjusted for the nonparticipation rate, the percentage of all 25- to 54-year-olds who are not actually working (i.e., it includes those discouraged, uninterested, or even sitting in jail). There are now 21% not employed in the U.S. compared to 20.5% for the E.U., and our long-suggested job creating skills are looking a little thin.
The problem lies in the so-called participation rate, as shown in Exhibit 3. The U.S. was one of the leaders in the percentage of women working, and from 1972 to a peak in 1997 the U.S. participation rate rose from 70% to 80%. From 1984 on, the U.S. spent 20 years ahead of most other countries in participation rates, but after 1997 something appears to have gone wrong: While other developed countries continued to increase their participation rate, that of the U.S. declined from first to last in fairly rapid order.
What a far cry this reality is from the view generally accepted by our business world.
Exhibit 4 examines our belief that we have the best health care system in the world. And why shouldn’t we, given the money we put in (left-hand bar chart), over twice the average cost paid by the E.U. But the right-hand bar chart shows what we get back. Two years less life than the median. And watch out for when the Turks, Poles, and Czechs cut back on smoking, for then we may find our way to the bottom of the list.
But if you really want to be worried about our comparative health you should take a look at Exhibit 5, which comes hot off the press from the guy who was just awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics (wait a minute, must be some mistake, this work seems perfectly useful). The data shows the death rate for U.S. whites between the ages of 45 and 54, which happily these days is when very few people drop off. Since 1990 there has been a quite remarkable decline for other developed countries, about a one-third reduction, as you can see, including for U.S. Hispanics. But for U.S. whites there is a slight increase! Further analysis for that group reveals that the general increase is caused by quite severe increases in deaths related to alcoholism, drug use, and suicides. Had the rate for U.S. whites declined in line with the others there would have been about 50,000 fewer deaths a year! (For scale, this is nearly twice the yearly number of traffic deaths in the U.S.)
You have to be careful these days when you suggest connections. For example, people have been told off for proposing that dramatic increases in population can help destabilize societies. Syria had two and a half million people when I was born and has 29 million people now. You can guess how much worse the situation is because of this but you should not talk about it. Similarly, Prince Charles has been extensively criticized by professors in The Guardian for suggesting that a several-year drought in Syria exacerbated social tensions by ruining many farmers. As if! (You cannot prove precisely what effect climate damage had, but you certainly cannot prove that it did not have a large effect. It certainly had a contributory effect.)
With that caveat, let me seriously suggest a connection between Exhibit 1, which shows no increase in the U.S. median wage for over 40 years following a wonderful prior 30 years of a rise of over 3% a year, and Exhibit 5, which shows the uptick in unnecessary deaths among U.S. non-Hispanic whites aged 45 to 54. This is precisely the age group that was led to expect better for themselves and much better for their children. But those aspirations have not been generously fulfilled. The U.S. Hispanics, in contrast, mostly arrived later and had different expectations. All in all, this data is quite bleak. The point here is that it bears absolutely no similarity to the more optimistic belief set that is generally accepted.
The data presented in Exhibit 6 examines the proposition that “more and more goes to the government and soon they will have everything.” You have heard that many times recently in the political debate. Sorry, “bull sessions.” You can see that the U.S. share going to the government in taxes is about the least in the developed world and that it has barely twitched for 50 years. Yet, apparently we have been steadily going to hell. How is it possible that such a view is given such credence in the face of the data, which is, after all, official and simple, not ingeniously manipulated by some perfidious Brit. (Yes, I admit it, I consider myself American or British depending on whether the context is favorable or not.)
“At least we live in a fair society” is the proposition examined in Exhibit 7. The Gini Ratio is a measure of income inequality. Low is good. Only Turkey and Mexico outflank the U.S. as more unequal amongst the richer countries. I was a bit surprised to see how high the U.S. already was in 1980 (I had been drinking from the same culture dissemination trough after all), but it was at least importantly lower.
“We have a democracy where people really count” is an idea that is built into the background cultural noise. Exhibit 8 (also covered last quarter) on the left shows how the probability of a bill passing through Congress is affected by the general public’s enthusiasm or horror. In a nutshell, not at all! The financial elite, on the other hand, can double the chance of a bill passing or, much more disturbingly, can completely block passage. Clearly these facts are totally incompatible with the concept of participatory democracy and equally entirely at odds with the much more favorable and optimistic beliefs we share about our democracy. We really, really want to believe good news and to believe that we have a superior system that only needs fine-tuning. But, it ain’t necessarily so.
“We have the best education system in the world” is a proposition that goes without saying in Boston, with Harvard, MIT, and literally dozens of other universities. But Exhibit 9 shows the more downto-earth fact: mediocrity.
Less than mediocre, though, is the data in Exhibit 10, which shows the percentage of 3- to 4-year-olds enrolled in school. This is an area of emphasis where the returns on investment are said to be particularly high – six for one – although I would not like to guarantee such returns myself. However, our relatively low ranking at the start of the process is not heartwarming.
Exhibit 11 moves on to our production of CO2, which per capita is the largest in the world, just ahead of Australia. The two of us also worry the least, except for one Middle Eastern oil producer. There is a nice, i.e., interesting, negative correlation here of -0.54. Not bad at all. The greater your fossil fuel intensity, the more ingenious your fossil fuel propaganda is to create doubt and the more we are encouraged to think beautiful optimistic thoughts: clean coal and clean oil. And even as more people can see the climate damage, the richer countries can convince themselves that the damage is not that serious. Poorer countries, meanwhile, do not have that luxury and about 20% more are actively concerned (about 80% vs. 60%) than are the richer countries.
And this brings me to the last and my absolute favorite of these false propositions, which I label, “I wish the U.S. government wouldn’t give so much to foreign countries (especially when times are bad)!” Now, I do not think I have met a single American who does not believe that the U.S. government is generous in its foreign aid. Yet, it just ain’t so, and by a remarkable degree. Exhibit 12 shows what other developed countries give, with the usual goody-goody Sweden leading the way with 1.4% of their GDP and the U.K. having quite recently shot up to 0.8%, for once ahead of Japan and Germany. Dead last is the U.S. at 0.2% of GDP, which it has averaged forever. This is the item with the biggest and most permanent gap between reality and perception. And, as always, the misperception is in favor of the favorable, the data that we would wish to be true.
Conclusion
This is more or less the best I can do to prove the point. We in the U.S. have a broad and heavy bias away from unpleasant data. We are ready to be manipulated by vested interests in finance, economics, and climate change, whose interests might be better served by our believing optimistic stuff “that just ain’t so.” We are dealing today with important issues, one so important that it may affect the long-term viability of our global society and perhaps our species. It may well be necessary to our survival that we become more realistic, more willing to process the unpleasant, and, above all, less easily manipulated through our need for good news.
»
- 223 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
interesting how an article by Jeremy Grantham called "Give me only good news!" and focused on biases of how the American economy and society is going...
... get's a completely different ZH title: "Jeremy Grantham urges easily manipulated Americans to become more realistic about the World's Demise"
and the comments, interestingly, reflect so far more the title then the content. hmmm....
People are SO MAD at his suggestion that the US isn't #1! It's like the comments section is proving his point. Hilarious.
Conclusion
This is more or less the best I can do to prove the point...
Of the 12 exhibits presented, the only ones that might have some connection to the most important factor, i.e. military subservience, would be number 5 and number 12. No other nation on the planet in my lifetime has carried the weight of providing "security" for as many disparate peoples and nations as the USA.
For better or worse, this one dynamic outweighs all the rest of the factors this particular author has assembled to prove our unwillingness to confront evil reports.
I didn’t see exhibit 13, WTC7 either.
Jmf.
You're thinking of another chart he didn't include:
The average number of "aliens" killed per capita. Who could possibly be #1?
We must also not rush to spend more on things that do not work. The money cures all idea is our greatest, laziest problem. We have a national systemic problem. The people feel so far removed from any possible fix they have surrendered their responsibilites. We must find a way, a will to get that back.
Obama is totally disappointed that the white suicide rate has not doubled or tripled under his leadership. He is out to fix that problem.
After reading this article, that is what you come up with, OMG, talk about a prime example.
Like Bush and the rest were better. Get with the program.
If you cannot see that Obama is rascist against white America, you are simply naive. Obama is a follower of Jeremy Wright's racism; "God Damn America" (damn it to hell; kill it). That is Obama's arch-policy. Always was, always will be.
Felix da deluded....
The fact that our leaders predicate their plans on indefinte growth is just one of the proofs of human insanity.
Another is a defense policy based on blowing up life on earth.
They're easily manipulated for a reason... They raised their hands in school too much and asked that stupid question.
They are easily manipulated because they are mentally and morally lazy.
bad neuj is good neuj.
Great article, Americans are intellectually lazy, and easily manipulated. Just look how many flock to Trumps hate on Muslims, yet are Americans unaware that we have been killing Muslims for decades?! Destroying their civilizations, corrupting their governments...Simply amazing.
http://crimesofzion.blogspot.com/p/war-for-israel.html
conformity to messaging .... empty minds matter
Well as far as I can tell from what little history I know... USA didn't exist in the timeframe of 600-1200. Maybe you are unaware of Islam exploits and killing of christians since the beggining of Islam?
Does the name Khalid Al-Walid ring a bell?
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/crusades_timeline.htm
I hear what you're saying pazmaker, but be careful about opening the history books on religion.
As bad as Islam IS these days, Christianity will find nothing to brag about in those pages either.
To put it into perspective, Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. Now, what was going on in the Christian Churches about 600 years ago?
They were burning witches in Europe...so many that entire Swiss and German villages were nearly emptied. Tens and tens of thousands, tied to stakes and burned alive in front of cheering crowds...
Islam will get its act together one day. Not in OUR day, unfortunately. We of course have every right to defend ourselves...but these people are going to have to go through the same horrible crap as both we and the Jews did in our times.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam...the Larry, Curly and Moe of Abrahamic religion...If I could go back in time to do one thing, it would be to cut that man's balls off.
Humans are ruled by psychopaths. Is it any wonder that these leaders turn belief systems into rationale for their own genocidal wars? If you travel you will find the majority of people want the same things as yourself. To have basics of life and be left alone. Religion is just a pretext for these do-nothing parasites called "leaders".
Africa is concerned about climate change because they want the industrialized nations to pay them for the carbon offset.
Spending more money on healthcare and not seeing the benefit of an increased life expectancy does not correlate to a poor healthcare system. It doesn't matter how much money you spend on healthcare, if you are a fatass that sucks down a dozen twinkies a day, regardless of care available, you are not going to live a long life
I believe the middle east has had many droughts/famine prior to the discovery of fossil fuels, so saying it is a fact that they contributed to the Syria having poor growing seasons is not a fact.
While the statistics in this article article may be fact, the conclusions the author jumps to based on the data, are anything but.
I stopped reading after he mentioned the climate change bullshit.
And that's why he's right.
Right again! The 45 year flatline in US wages takes us back to 1970, at, on or about the time the buck lost convertability to gold, ie "it's our currency and your problem". The steady inflation and lack of indexing in IRS Form 1040 has kept the working stiff on a zombie treadmill for all of those 45 years. Between the fiat currency and regressive tax policies, the Dems have kept their people in chains beyond the special interests' wildest dreams. The "system" is working for their benefit, not the peoples'.
You're pretty much proving the point of his article - the idea of climate change makes you feel bad (or uncomfortable), so you ignore it.
Quod erat demonstrandum...
this is at times disingenuous, to wit:
" our belief that we have the best health care system in the world." - is partially based on the delivered discoveries/inventions of US pharmaceuticals, and biotech advances, and not based on our health care service delivery system, which we all know sucks.
"You can see that the U.S. share going to the government in taxes is about the least in the developed world.." - is at least in part due to low cap gains rates, while the general belief is based on middle class perceptions of being taxed at ordinary income tax rates.
“We have the best education system in the world” - we have not really believed this one for quite a while.
"And even as more people can see the climate damage.." - what the fuck is this other than a biased, vague presumption? we can see the smog, but the CO2 effects are less provable.
Ol' Jeremy's doing a little bit of manipulating himself.
Exactly the response from most of the ZH drones I expected.
Nice collection. Well done.
My take on the same thing is that the human world is almost entirely an illusion, across the board. There is more "confirmation bias" than just what is presented here. A lot more. I could come up with probably 100 more items to add to this list without even pausing to think about them. Just crazy shit that nearly everyone believes but (as Twain observed) "just ain't so." I've been living outside the human world for most of my life, and the scope of the things you people steadfastly and incorrectly believe about your place in the universe is mind boggling.
+1 Cougar. A lot more confirmation bias, so much, that it hard to discern what factual basis, one might base a conclusion. A multitude of voices and reams of information to digest...what passes as fact, is rarely confirmed at least twice, or researched enough to pass muster. Instant information has been a Godsend....and a curse.
Lets not forget easily manipulated Europeans who allowed millions of muzzies into their countries for years. It was all going to be a love-fest right? Or that the Euro rather than their own sovereign currency was a great idea? Or how about those gullible Russkies that Communism was the way to go?
Bite my bean bag.
You have to keep in mind that there are 2 different dynamics involved. While an individual can spot a particular problem, and resolve to fight it, a GROUP of individuals is more likely to accept problems as long as their overall status quo isn't disturbed. The bigger the group, the more they'll tolerate in the interest of 'keeping the peace'.
This of course pisses the individuals off no end, but they have a harder and harder time being heard in a growing crowd of people who mostly just want to be left alone.
TPTB want a global society for this reason. The more folks they can get to 'invest' in the status quo, the less likely that any outliers will be able to be heard.
Correct Oberserver. I just went through this with my in-laws. One was excluded from an inheritance share because he received a lot of cash in the past. When the person died he came forward and cried he was being exluded and the others were unfair to him. Despite written wishes from the deceased, rather than rebut this jerk they all caved in to his bullying demands. "We want to keep family peace". Peace at the price of being abused and cheated? Yes. The crowd goes with what is easiest. Most people prefer conflict avoidance to truth.
Crowds (groups) do have their own psychology. I have a great mistrust of them, as their 'moods' are seldom my own.
I think the conflict-avoidance comes in at the point where you don't KNOW a lot of the people around you. You have to watch yourself more, since you can't be sure of how they will react to anything you do. Best to just let it go, whatever it is...
It probably makes sense biologically. If you are going to live in large groups, you have to be willing to put up with more, or else you'll all kill each other.
But that makes it harder to make changes for those of us who think life should be about more than putting up with someone else's bullshit...*sigh*
Grantham should go back to school and retake 9th grade science. I'm am so sick of these non-scientist climate fearmongers pushing bad science. There is no proven correlation of CO2 causing higher global temperature. In fact CO2 levels lag temperature changes by 800 years which is perhaps proof that rising temperatures cause rising CO2 and not the other way around. Many respected scientists disagree with the current climate hysteria. Others look at the same data and find a way to be pro global warming. The smart ones stay quiet because its career-dangerous to be contrary to government agendas. Increasing numbers of honest analysts are concerned about a new ice age. At the very least we should agree that there isn't enough data to form a conclusion as quickly as Al Gore and Mr. Granthan.
Simple no to CO2 correlation: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Yes to CO2: https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77
But read the last paragraph. It says CO2 is not the only driver of climate change. In fact it may be a tiny driver or none at all. The earth's climate is a complex analysis and we don't remotely know all the right inputs to the formula if there is one.
I strongly suspect this climate change drum beating is about carbon credits and punishing big national energy producers and users with higher costs via global taxation - aka Russia and China. Do you really believe the US Defense Dept, Obama and other global control types pushing global warming give a crap about climate 300 years from now?
Stupid is as stupid does....
The education data is quite laughable. Of course the United States ranks poorly - it imports a massive amount of people from the third world, and already has a large population of people with... difficulties in eduction. The same effect is clearly visible in Sweden, where the population is supposed to be educated and aware. Take the average suburban white in the US and the same in Sweden and I doubt there is much difference to the top. Other parts of the data presented in the article need more detail as well to get to the bottom of it.
When I was a kid, I was taught that CO2 was the most important molecule for human, insect, plant and animal life. And that it was the ability to store CO2 in the lungs that enabled Kenyans to run marathons better than other athletes. And that when you have respiratory problems the emergency services will give you a mixture of O2 and CO2 at 10-50k ppm.
Those lying motherfuckers!! How dare they lead me astray with basic physics and chemistry.
????
WTF?
This gets my "Most Unintentionally Funny" of the week award.
Aka the Poe Award...
Nope! The Darwin Award.
Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it.
No, the Poe Award...
Given to the best impersonation of a whackadoo because it is impossible for someone so stupid to actually exist...
Wasn't it V-Ger (Star Trek 1) who called us Carbon Based Units? Hey, I like Carbon.
why do you think the liberals lover drugs so much....legal or illegal....it dulls the populace into not caring!
Liberals love drugs because drugs make the world beautiful without trying and without giving up anything important. A typical liberal/progressive approach to change.
I think what you are referring to are the Statists. Not the same bunch. Statists just want you to shutup and go along with it, beautiful or not. Their drug of choice is alcohol, so you know.
On the road to Shambala.
-Three Dog Night
Quote: Jeremy Grantham Urges "Easily Manipulated" Americans To "Become More Realistic" About World's Demise
"World's Demise" is increasing population numbers that magnify dehumanizing effects of centralization. Plain and simple. Moratorium on immigration and the will to implement it would at least spare most Western nations which already have a balance in birth to death rates. And a technology to lighten the load of an ageing population.
Mr. Grantham would be advised to actually study the various global warming proponents conventional climate models because they are all built wrong. DR. David Evans has developed a more useful model that actually agrees well with real world empirical data. His theory predicts significant global cooling from 2017 onwards.
THE NOTCH DELAY SOLAR THEORY
http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html
Summary
Notch-Delay Solar Theory Predicts Cooling from 2017
Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s. This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017).
DOCUMENTS
Systems, Sinusoids, the Fourier Transform, and Filters. Frequency-domain knowledge behind this work, explained from scratch, including linear invariant systems, sinusoids, the Fourier transform, simple low pass, delay and notch filters, transfer functions, and step responses. [Last updated 19 Aug 2015.]
The Optimal Fourier Transform (OFT). The OFT is a low-noise variation of the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT), essentially the same except the OFT is free to use any frequencies rather than the prescribed grid of frequencies used by the DFT. Slow to calculate, but more useful for analyzing time series containing only a few of the cycles of interest. [Last updated 18 Oct 2015.]
Spreadsheet (Excel, 20 MB). Contains the notch-delay solar, all the data, and all the calculations. Programmed in VBA, the BASIC programming language that is part of Microsoft Office. Requires Excel to run the programming. [Last updated 31 Aug 2015.]
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/systems-ft-filters.pdf
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/optimal-fourier-transform.pdf
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/cfa/climate.xlsm
OLD BLOG POSTS
BIG NEWS Part I: Historic Development — New Solar Climate Model Coming. Introduction. — Guest post by Dr David Evans, 14 June 2014
BIG NEWS Part II: Mysterious Notch Filter Found in the Climate. The TSI peaks every 11 years or so, yet there is no detected corresponding peak in the temperature, which is unexpected. This implies there is a natural notch filter that filters out the 11-year hum from the Sun. — by Dr David Evans, 15 June 2014
BIG NEWS Part III: The Notch Means a Delay. Several independent findings of a delay around 11 years between changes in solar radiation and the corresponding effect on surface temperatures exist in the literature, and without a delay it is hard to see how solar changes could have much influence on surface temperature (e.g. Lockwood and Froehlich 2007). — Dr David Evans, 16 June 2014
BIG NEWS part IV: Understanding the Mysterious 11 Year Solar Delay. The delay is a true delay, not merely a time constant of a dissipative element like a store of ocean heat. The notching suggests that there is a countervailing force that counteracts the TSI peaks in the global surface temperature, which must be synchronized to the Sun. — Dr David Evans, 17 June 2014
BIG NEWS Part V: Escaping Heat. The Three Pipes Theory and the RATS Multiplier. — by Dr David Evans, 18 June 2014
BIG NEWS part VI: Building a New Solar Climate Model with the Notch Filter. The notch filter, a delay filter, low pass filter and RATS multiplier are arranged in their correct order. The notch and delay filters are shown to modulate the albedo of the Earth — how much solar radiation is let into the climate system after reflections by clouds, ice, snow and so on. — Dr David Evans
BIG NEWS Part VII: Hindcasting with the Solar Model. The notch-delay solar model hindcasts temperatures from 1770 to 2013 reasonably well, getting most of the major turning points about right, including “the pause”. It also reproduces some of the short term jiggles known as “natural variation”, which the CO2 models cannot begin to predict because CO2 rises smoothly. — Dr David Evans, 24 June 2014
BIG NEWS VIII: New Solar Theory Predicts Imminent Global Cooling. There are three big drops in solar radiation in the 400 years of records. The first, in the 1600s, led to the Maunder Minimum, the coldest time in the last 400 years. The second in Napoleon’s time, led to the Dalton Minimum, the second coldest time in the last 400 years. The third started in 2004, but hasn’t led to cooling...yet. The delay is tied to the solar cycle length, currently 13 years, so the cooling is likely to start in 2004 + 13 = 2017. The cooling will be at least 0.2°C, maybe 0.5°C. — Dr David Evans, 27 June 2014
BIG NEWS part IX: The Solar Model! The spreadsheet containing all the data, model, and calculations, all in one Microsoft Excel file, now available for download. — Dr David Evans, 8 July 2014
Possible Physical Mechanism. Stephen Wilde's hypothesis could explain how the Sun is driving the albedo, and appears to fit with the notch-delay theory. It involves the Sun affecting ozone differentially over the poles and equator (possibly via extreme UV and energetic electron precipitation), which affects the height of the tropopause over the poles and equator like a see-saw, causing climate zones to shift towards then away from the equator, moving the jet streams and changing them from more zonal jet streams to more meridonal ones. When more meridonal, the jet streams wander in loops further north and south, resulting in longer lines of air mass mixing at climate zone boundaries, which creates more clouds. Thus the Sun can modulate the Earth's albedo. — January 2nd, 2015
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-i-historic-development-ne...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-ii-for-the-first-time-a-m...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-iii-the-notch-means-a-delay/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-iv-a-huge-leap-understand...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-v-escaping-heat-the-three...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vi-building-a-new-solar-c...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vii-hindcasting-with-the-...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-viii-new-solar-model-predicts-...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/big-news-ix-the-model/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-t...
Related blog posts:
Lubos and a few misconceptions. Lubos Motl posted some inaccurate criticisms of the model, so we correct the main ones. Basically he attacked us for things we never said. — by David Evans, 19 June 2014
Are transfer functions meaningless (the “white noise” point)? Beware your assumptions!. A review of the assumptions underlying the investigation that led to the notch, because some people haven't noticed both assumptions or appreciated their implications. — June 29th, 2014
The Solar Model finds a big fall in TSI data that few seem to know about. Leif Svalgaard beclowned himself in a vitriolic orgy of baseless accusations over at WUWT, so we graph his own data, and that of the IPCC’s preferred TSI reconstruction, and show that they also show strong falls in TSI, albeit from 1996 as well as 2003/2004. — July 1st, 2014
More strange adventures in TSI data: the miracle of 900 fabricated, fraudulent days. Answers the fallacious charges of Lief Svalgaard and Willis Eschenbach in comments in a recent post at WUWT. The repetitious, tendentious, and aggressive nature of their comments mark them as something other than truth-seeking. — Dr David Evans, 4 July 2014
Notching up open review improvements — a correction to Part III. Originally we thought a notch in a linear invariant system necessarily implied the existence of an associated delay. However electrical engineer Bernie Hutchins showed that a notch filter can be causal, not necessarily non-causal as we thought in Part III. [We later discovered the original calculations using FFTs were correct, just incomplete -- a notch filter can be either causal or non-causal. However there is a lot of physical evidence for an 11 -year delay, so perhaps this misconception was a lucky accident, alerting us to the delay. Apart from the notch-causality, the rest of the theory stands. Oct 2015.] — July 21st, 2014
Is a mini-ice age coming in 2030, and does the sun have two dynamos? Another model of the Sun predicts decreasing solar activity. Combined with the Notch-Delay solar theory, this suggests cooler decades ahead. — July 14th, 2015
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/are-transfer-functions-meaningless-the-...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the...
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/notching-up-open-review-improvements-a-...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/is-a-mini-ice-age-coming-in-2030-and-do...
Nice cut and paste...
BTW, this nonsense was from over a year ago, why hasn't it been published?
PS Mr Granthan does not waste his time on web sites that cater to the deluded living in denial...
stop the long posts...or banishment
Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics
A mistake in the climate model architecture changes everything. Heat trapped by increasing carbon dioxide just reroutes to space from water vapor instead.
Short and Sweet
Many scientists believe in the carbon dioxide theory because of “basic physics”, or rather its application to climate, the basic climate model. Other scientists are skeptical, because of the considerable contrary empirical evidence.
Dating back to 1896, the basic climate model contains serious architectural errors. Keeping the physics but fixing the architecture, and using modern climate data, shows that future warming due to carbon dioxide will be a fifth to a tenth of official estimates. Less than 20% of the global warming since 1973 was due to increasing carbon dioxide.
Increasing carbon dioxide “thickens the blanket”, reducing the heat radiated to space by carbon dioxide. In reality, the blocked heat mainly just reroutes out to space by being radiated from water vapor instead, all in the upper atmosphere. In the current climate models, however, that blocked heat travels down to the Earth’s surface where it is treated like extra sunlight, and instead less heat is radiated to space from water vapor.
The belief in the danger of increasing carbon dioxide is wholly due to a poor modeling assumption made over a century ago. This error presumably went unnoticed because critics focused on the values of the parameter values in the model (such as how much heat is trapped by increasing carbon dioxide) rather than on how the model combines them to estimate future warming.
The Error
The physicists got it right. The climate scientists got it wrong.
In 1896 when sensitivity to carbon dioxide was first estimated, climate scientists could estimate how much the world would warm if absorbed sunlight increased. But while they could estimate how much heat was blocked from leaving Earth by increasing carbon dioxide, they couldn’t figure out how much surface warming that would cause.
Here is the poor modeling assumption responsible for the alarm over carbon dioxide: the climate scientists assumed that blocking some heat to space by increasing carbon dioxide causes the same surface warming as if absorbed sunlight increased by the same amount, instead. Their basic climate model calculates the warming due to extra carbon dioxide precisely as if it were extra absorbed sunlight.
But while this assumption was convenient and made a sensitivity estimate possible in 1896, it is obviously wrong. Extra absorbed sunlight changes the total heat radiated by the Earth, but extra carbon dioxide does not*—because total outflow is just equal to the inflow (once steady state resumes). Increasing carbon dioxide merely redistributes the emissions between the various emitters to space: water vapor, carbon dioxide, the surface, cloud tops, etc.
Ever since 1896, climate scientists have been convincing themselves that a decrease in heat outflow is equivalent to a matching increase in heat inflow, as assumed in their basic model. While it is equivalent with respect to the amount of heat on Earth, it is not equivalent in terms of how the outgoing heat is distributed between the various emitters—which is what matters, because surface warming is determined only by the change in emissions from the surface (a warmer surface emits more to space).
The large computerized climate models are tailored** to give the same answer as the basic climate model. While there are obviously some differences in the way they treat extra carbon dioxide and extra absorbed sunlight, essentially they treat them the same—in both cases they reduce the heat radiated to space by water vapor (“water vapor amplification” of the surface warming), but it has been clear from the empirical evidence since before 2000 that this was not happening.
Documents
Example Tweets:
CO2 alarm entirely due to bad modeling assumption from 1896. Overestimated 5 to 10 times. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Climate Fear caused by nineteeth century accounting error — new findings show. http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
New Climate model says man not to blame! http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html
Media Release (1 page) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/media-release-evans-cl...
Essays (all share the same introduction):
Climate Scientists Misapplied Basic Physics (2,500 words, includes politics) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay1-misapplied.pdf
Why More Carbon Dioxide Makes Little Difference (1,350 words, dam analogy, short version) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay2-little-differen...
Why More Carbon Dioxide Makes Little Difference (2,400 words, dam analogy, long version) http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/essay3-little-differen...
Summary (13 pages). http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/summary-of-basic-clima...
Synopsis (24 pages, last update 28 Nov 2015). http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/synopsis-of-basic-clim...
Spreadsheet (Excel, 250 KB). Contains the alternative basic climate model, as applied to recent decades. Also contains the OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) model, and a computation of the Planck sensitivity/feedback.
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/alternative-model.xlsx
Media
Miranda Devine http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-devine-perth-e...
UK Express
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-di...
Blog Posts
This material is being introduced in a series of blog posts on Joanne's blog. Those with a climate science background will likely find the posts tagged in red of more interest.
New Science 1: Introduction to the Series. The conventional basic climate model is the application of “basic physics” to climate. The idea that “it’s the physics” makes the CO2 theory impregnable in the minds of the establishment. Despite the numerous mismatches between theory and climate observations to date, many climate scientists remain firm in their belief in the danger of carbon dioxide essentially because of this model, rather than because of huge opaque computer models. The basic model ignited concern about carbon dioxide; without it we probably wouldn’t be too worried.
New Science 2: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — Simple. Presenting the conventional basic climate model, in its simplest configuration—the only input is the change in carbon dioxide level, and there are no feedbacks. Computes the no-feedbacks equilibrium climate sensitivity as 1.2 °C.
New Science 3: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — In Full. Presenting the conventional basic climate model, in full—multiple inputs, and feedbacks. Computes the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) as 2.5 °C.
New Science 4: Error 1: Partial Derivatives. The basic model relies heavily on partial derivatives. A partial derivative is the ratio of the changes in two variables, when everything apart from those two variables is held constant. But in climate everything depends on everything, so it is not possible to hold everything constant except for only two variables, as required for a partial derivative to exist. The partial derivatives are not empirically verifiable, so employing them in a climate model incurs unknown approximations.
New Science 5: Error 2: Omitting Feedbacks that are not Temperature-Dependent. In the conventional model every “feedback” (something that affects what caused it) is in response to surface warming—directly dependent on the surface temperature, but not on the climate drivers or on other feedbacks. Feedbacks rule the climate. Due to its architecture, if there feedbacks to climate drivers exist (such as the rerouting feedback in post 7 below) the model omits them.
New Science 6: How the Greenhouse Effect Works. Heat radiated to space (outgoing longwave radiation, or OLR) is mostly emitted by four disparate emissions layers: the water vapor emissions layer, the CO2 emissions layer, cloud tops, and the surface. The hotter a layer, the more it emits. The so-called greenhouse effect exists because OLR is emitted from an emission layer high in the atmosphere, where it is cold, rather than from the surface, where it is warm. The total emissions must equal the heat absorbed from the Sun and has to be emitted somehow, so the surface is much warmer than it would be if most of the OLR wasn’t emitted from high in the cold atmosphere.
New Science 7: The Rerouting Feedback. We propose the “rerouting feedback”, in which OLR blocked by an increasing CO2 concentration is mostly just rerouted to space via emission from water vapor and clouds tops instead. Occurring high in the atmosphere, this feedback to increasing CO2 is omitted from the conventional basic climate model, which can only contain feedbacks in response to surface warming. Increasing CO2 warms the upper troposphere, because less OLR is emitted from there by CO2 molecules. This heats neighboring molecules, including water vapor molecules in the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL), so more OLR is emitted by water vapor molecules. Because the WVEL emits more it must be at a higher average temperature. The average height of the WVEL declines, as the upper troposphere is more stable and convection is less vigorous. Humidity builds up and clouds condense at lower levels, suggesting the average height of the cloud top emission layer would also decline, and more OLR is emitted from cloud tops.
New Science 8: Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth.The Stefan-Boltzmann equation only applies to a solid isothermal surface, so it cannot be literally applied to Earth. However it can effectively be applied to the Earth as seen from space if the Earth's temperature is considered to be its “radiating temperature”, defined simply as the temperature that satisfies the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with the OLR and emissivity (~0.995) of the Earth.
New Science 9: Error 3: All Radiation Imbalances Treated the Same. The response of any climate model to increased absorbed solar radiation (ASR) is its “solar response”. Due to its architecture, the conventional basic climate model applies its solar response to the radiation imbalance caused by any influence on climate, even a radiation imbalance due to increased CO2—one size fits all. However increased ASR causes increased OLR, whereas increased CO2 does not change the total OLR (when steady state resumes, ignoring minor surface albedo feedbacks). Also, increased ASR mainly adds energy to the surface, but increased CO2 blocks energy leaving Earth from the upper atmosphere. So it is physically unrealistic to apply the solar response to the influence of extra CO2.
New Science 10: Externally-Driven Albedo (EDA). Albedo is the fraction of incoming radiation reflected back out to space without heating the Earth, about 30%. Externally-driven albedo (EDA) is the albedo other than that due to feedback in response to surface warming—presumably it is caused by external influences. Here we show that EDA has at least twice as much influence on surface warming, and maybe much more than that, as the direct effect of variations in the total solar irradiance (TSI).
New Science 11: An Alternative Modeling Strategy. The road-map for building an alternative model without the problems of the conventional basic climate model. A paradigm shift from summing forcings to summing warmings is proposed. Each climate influence has its own response (sensitivity and feedbacks), instead of all using the solar response as in the conventional basic model. Radiation must still balance, so this constraint is applied to the sum-of-warmings model. An OLR model based on physical parameters of emission layers estimates the change in OLR, leaving only the CO2 response parameter as an unknown when the sum-of-warmings model is joined to the OLR model to form the alternative model. Observations over a period allow the CO2 response parameter to be estimated, and thus the sensitivity to CO2.
New Science 12: Modeling the Thermal Inertia of the Earth. The relationship between absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and the radiating temperature is a low pass filter. This is at the heart of the solar response in the sum-of-warmings model within the alternative model.
New Science 13: The Sum-of-Warmings Model. The sum-of-warmings model independently calculates the surface warming due to each climate driver (such as increasing absorbed solar radiation, or increasing carbon dioxide), then adds them. This allows each climate driver to have its own specific response, including feedbacks.
New Science 14: Emission Layer Parameters. Basic information about the layers that emit OLR—such as how much OLR comes from each emission layer, and the heights of the emissions layers.
New Science 15: The OLR Model. The OLR model estimates how much the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space changes with changes to the heights of the emission layers, the lapse rate, the surface temperature, the cloud fraction, and the CO2 concentration.
New Science 16: The Alternative Basic Climate Model. The sum-of-warmings model (post 13) and the OLR model (post 15) are joined together to form the alternative basic climate model.
New Science 17: Solving the Mystery of the Missing “Hotspot”. In the conventional models (including the GCMs), surface warming for any reason causes the water vapor emissions layer (WVEL) to ascend, creating “the hotspot”. In the alternative model, surface warming and the solar response both cause the WVEL to ascend, while the CO2 response (how the planet reacts to increased CO2) causes the WVEL to descend—which is consistent with the rerouting feedback. The last few decades saw surface warming, increased ASR, and increased CO2, while the empirical data from the radiosondes and the better satellite analysis showed that the WVEL did not ascend and may have descended. The conventional models (including the GCMs) are wrong—they apply the solar response to both increased ASR and increased CO2, so they say all the forces on the WVEL were causing it to ascend. The alternative model resolves the data—there were opposing forces acting on the WVEL, the hotspot is indeed missing, and the CO2 response was stronger than the solar response over the last few decades.
New Science 18: Calculating the ECS Using the Alternative Model. Fitting the data to the alternative model, we conclude that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the surface warming per doubling of the CO2 concentration, might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C. Most likely, less than 20% of the global warming since 1970 is due to increasing carbon dioxide. The CO2 response is less than a third as strong as the solar response—both measured in degrees of surface warming per unit of radiation imbalance.
New Science 19: Comments on Conventional versus Alternative. General comments tying together some of the main ideas of the series to date.
New Science 19b: Synopsis. Released for download.
New Science 20: Introduction. The series of blog posts continues on from the critique of climate model architecture that showed that carbon dioxide caused less than 20% of the recent global warming. This post begins the solar part of the series, where we search for what did cause the warming.
New Science 21: The Notch. The empirical transfer function from total solar irradiance (TSI) to surface temperature has a notch at 11 years, the frequency of the sunspots. The extra radiation at every sunspot peak is not producing any discernible warming at the Earth's surface, where it should be detectable. Therefore a countervailing cooling influence is present at precisely the times when TSI peaks, is synchronized to the Sun, and is as strong as the direct heating effect of TSI. Furthermore, the transfer function is flat for low frequencies, suggesting that there is exists an indirect solar sensitivity that is ~14 times greater than the direct heating effect of TSI.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-clima...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-2-the-conventional-basic-cl...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-3-the-conventional-basic-cl...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-4-error-1-partial-derivatives/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-5-error-2-model-architectur...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-6-how-the-greenhouse-effect...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-7-rerouting-feedback-in-cli...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-8-applying-the-stefan-boltz...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-9-error-3-all-radiation-imb...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-10-whatever-controls-clouds...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-11-an-alternative-modeling-...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-12-how-do-we-model-the-ther...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-13-the-start-of-a-new-archi...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-14-emission-layers-which-pi...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-15-modeling-outgoing-radiat...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-building-the-alternative...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-17-solving-the-mystery-of-t...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-18-finally-climate-sensitiv...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-19-the-invisible-nameless-m...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-19b-a-synopsis/
http://jo.nova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/david-evans/synopsis-of-basic-clim...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-20-its-not-co2-so-what-is-t...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-21-the-mysterious-notch-in-...
Related blog posts:
Lucia has a Bad Day with Partial Derivatives. Over at the Blackboard, Lucia thought David had made some errors with partial derivatives in post 3, and was talking about GCMs in post 4. This post is a reply, showing her how to do partial differentiation, and correcting her misconception.
Lucia has a Bad Week on Partial Derivatives. Over at the Blackboard, Lucia dug a deeper hole, this time focusing on the existence of the partial derivatives in the basic model. This post is a reply, showing that her alternative development was mere notational trickery. Having read carefully through Lucia‘s two posts and their comments, we are still waiting for Lucia to find any mistakes in our posts above or even made any informed criticism of them.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/lucia-has-a-bad-day-with-partial-deriva...
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/lucia-has-a-bad-week-on-partial-derivat...
* Ignoring the minor surface albedo changes due to surface warming.
** The large computerized climate models (GCMs) are bottom up models that try to produce observable macro trends by modelling masses of minor details. GCMs are effectively tailored to produce the same sensitivity to carbon dioxide as the conventional basic climate model, in three steps:
The conventional basic climate model estimates the sensitivity to carbon dioxide as ~2.5 °C (the equilbrium climate sensitivity, or ECS). But this is an overestimate: fixing the faulty architecture shows it is less than 0.5 °C.
A sensitivity of ~2.5 °C very roughly accounts for observed warming since 1910. To believers in the conventional basic climate model, this implies that increasing carbon dioxide alone can explain 20th century warming.
So GCMs use increasing carbon dioxide as the dominant driver to reproduce 20th century warming. GCMs that do not succeed in this task are not published (see p. 32).
Externally-driven albedo involving the Sun is the main cause of warming, but it is omitted from all current climate models.
© Science Speak 2015
Hilarious...
So now climate scientists don't understand partial derivatives...
Do you even know what a partial derivative is?
It has something to do with interest rate swaps?
The world isn't experiencing its demise. The slave system is coming to an end.
And we are supposed to live in fear of this? lol
Blah blah blah doom. We been enjoying marshmallow land since WWII. The kids will not. Hope I did before I get old. Remember Pete Townsend's lyrics
Let's get straight to the point. War is draining the blood and treasure of humankind, all for the few who profit off it.
'All wars are banker wars.'
"If my sons did not want wars, there would be none." (Gutle Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild's wife.)
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." (Lord Acton)
Open your eyes to that reality, and deal with it. See the routine record fines for rigging all markets. There is no other market nowadays, and 'investors' have been replaced by gamblers, and pension funds taken hostage.
Climate change? Huh! How much wrecking is caused by all those missiles, chemicals and other weapons of war? Far more than any 'man made' climate change in other ways. Yet the war profiteers who rig all markets also want a pound more flesh by de-industrialisation and de-population, according to their Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations.
This is the reality:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." (Thomas Jefferson)
End the Fed, and its uglier parent, the Bank of England, and its cousins, the BIS.
The BIS isn't a cousin. It's the One Bank to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.
That "deaths" chart is stunning. That almost proves there is some deadly poison being intentionally introduced into the environment in the USSA.
Could be chemtrials?
Could be fluoride?
Could be GMO?
Could be all the above and more.
But that chart definitely demonstrates the predators-that-be in the USSA are mass murderers, the only question being "how". My guess is, not just one cause... probably 2, 3 or 5. But definitely intentional.
Try Oxycontin....
I doubt enough oxycontin is consumed to explain those statistics, but massive over-consumption of prescription drugs is almost certainly one factor.
Throw in a dash of heroin and the other pharmacuticals and you have a winner...
Google the study...
I like this article. Though missperception is a global phenomenon and certainly does not only occur in the US and my favourite topic "inflation" has been left out.
Forget the dichotomy between good news and bad news.
The day is fast approaching when there will be NO news.
We might end up like North Korea with only hymns of praise for the great leader and the occasional announcement of how the enemies were repelled at the gate.
"Similarly, we environmentalists were shocked to realize how profoundly the general public preferred to believe good news on our climate, even if it meant disregarding the National Academies of the world. The fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, encouraged this positive attitude. They had billions of dollars to protect. If the realistic information were to be widely believed, most of their assets would be stranded."
Right there. That is the fucking spot that you lost me. Right.the.fuck.there.
That's the moment I realized this was another bullshit piece that the Tyler's apparently have to run from time to time to appear fair and balanced.
Take all the rest of your shit, from this point forward, and shove it back up your ass.
The fraud of Global Cooling/Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Cooling as something that is a product of man rather than a tremendous nuclear furnace in the sky is such dumbshittiness that nothing else you say has any relevance.
You realize that JG is talking about you?
Yes, actually, I do. I read the information, compare it to what I know has occurred, and draw my own conclusions. This climate change is a fraud, the New Anglia 'research' was a manipulation of data that was patently a fraud. However, Al Gore (I invented the internet) did his movie, research grants poured in and climate research became the new fad.
It's complete bullshit.
And asshats that write this shit lose me immediately. Even if they have anything else valid in their claims. If they want my attention, admit it's a fucking fraud, then tell me the valid shit.
I'll check their 'valid shit' before believing, though. That insulting 'easily manipulated american' is something I work pretty hard at not being.
Even the IPCC threw out the Bradley/Mann/Huges - Gore "Hockey Stick" graph of Temp & CO2 vs time as BAD SCIENCE long before the last AR4 report was published. Even they recognized it as crap science. AGW is a religion, not science.
You are deluded and lying to yourself...
MBH98 has been verfied by at least 5 other independent studies...
Google "PAGES2K Images"
Your complete denial of the science is exactly how religion works....
Actually I think JG is talking about himself. If you are aligned with George Soros and Tom Steyer on a political issue in which the "proven science" is not subject to full disclosure then you are the fool. Or he is talking his book.
Generally I respect JG but on this issue common sense is defied.
You are never so wrong than when you are so right.
When will the climate debate be sett;ed? 100 yrs? A 1000 ?
Man will suffer more at the hand of climate nazis than climate denyers.
No PHD, just a student of history and common sense.
Psst... its settled everywhere except the floor of the House and Senate...
And your common sense has failed you spectacularly....
Climate change is psuedo science, and the media have lapped it up like cream. There is no proof, just lots of money tied up in it, so much so, that they can't stop the bullshit.
"There simply cannot be compound growth in a finite world."
Yep! This planet is finite. Space-X has the right idea. Go somewhere else to mine what we need. The Universe is a pretty big place. Who ever said that we have to be stuck here with limited resources?
Think outside the box!
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/11/climate-hustle-the-global-warming-shak...
Hopefully, someday JG will receive the Darwin Award.
Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it.
http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2014.html
"You cannot prove that it did not have a large effect" is the thinking of a moron. I gave you a one-star precisely because - while a ton of your information is absolutely accurate - you approached this article with the same goddamn horse blinders on that you rail against, which made this piece of text more of comic relief, than informative.
Demanding that one prove a negative is a primary error in reason, and in your invocation of this, you have shown your true colors.
These are interesting tidbits. I would offer a few more beliefs to bust:
1. Banks exist to lend money to fuel the economy.
2. The jews are god's chosen people.
3. Russia wants to rule the world.
4. Your vote counts.
5. There are checks and balances in government.
6. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
So the good news from Holland is.....
CBS statline : working pop (between 15-75 year)= 12.6 million that is profession + non-profession ..... (HUH !!!????)
non-profession pop ( people who don't work but also have... not a profession ????) = 3.7 million
of the profession pop (8.8 million) we have 600.000 unemployed !!!!
We too are the best !!
WE HAVE AN UNEMPLOYMENT RATE OF.....7% !
great.
So: number of Dutchies between 15-75: 12.6 million
Number of Dutchies going to their work (Full or parttime): 8.2 million
MY unemployment rate would be: not working/(working+ not working)= (12.6-8.2)/12.6 = 35 % !!
Note: (minus) 1.7 million work less than 20 hours/ week. thats = .8 million --> (12.6-7.4)/12.6= 41 %
Note: 1 million (atleast) work for the government and so are paid by the other workers: 1(12.6-6.4)/12.6= 50%
So one Dutchy pays "voluntary" the other Dutchy...pension,medicare, underwear, etcetera......
....in a free modern society, which is ruled by and for the people. :-]
Once in the early 80's I was passing by a television set and there on the screen were William F Buckley & Henry Kissinger. They were having a conversation. I stopped to watch & listen because those two characters are pretty entertaining no matter what they say. I didn't hear the question but the part of Kissinger's answer I heard and remember to this day is as follows:
"When World War Two ended the United States were preeminent among all the nations of the world. Since then there has been a systematic effort to reduce the status of the United States to that of peer-among-equals."
I reckon the astonishing industrial production and ruthless pursuit of absolute victory exhibited by U.S farm-boys in WW2 must have scared the pants off the ancient old guard of global status quo.
Here's a pretty fair assessment of how the peer-among-equals strategy is being accomplished: http://www.amazon.com/The-Devils-Pleasure-Palace-Subversion/dp/159403768X
deleted
I love the climate change "debate".
For: Because science.
Against: Because you are assholes who hate America. and Obama is a communist, fascist Muslim Jew! So there"
Someone needs to check his statist leaning. After all the exposed corruption, demonstrably false propaganda, rigged funding, and exclusion of data if you’re still a man-caused global warming alarmist, it’s because the fraud is news you don’t want to hear. Either your ego can’t bear having been duped or you’ve fully adopted the religion and it’s become a matter of faith.
This piece only ranked being skimmed after that but I did catch an attempt to quantify government growth simply by taxes paid. I guess the author is in the camp that debt doesn’t matter.
Haha! I am so naiive!
From the title, I thought for sure this article would be about why the general public has such difficulty even considering the possibility that 9/11 was a false flag. I glimpsed the title, and thought to myself "Hmmm... this could be good."
But no, of course it wasn't about that; it's just run-of-the-mill globalist carbon tax propaganda.
The "Inventor of the Internet" wants you to pay him for sunlight. Sounds reasonable to me....
A criticism of exhibit 6. The around 23 percent of taxes to GDP ratio is always cited by mostly liberal commentators as proof that versus various European nations, where taxes are 40 or more percent of the GDP, Americans are undertaxed. Europeans do not have state governments that impose significant taxes; the US does. Add in the roughly 18 percent of GDP ($3.2 trillion/$17 trillion) that states and municipalities take, and it puts the US in the same tax to GDP ratio as many European nations. 40 percent or more of the GDP going to taxes is obscene anywhere, and is a big part of the reason both Europe's and the US's trend rates of growth has deteriorated, especially in the past decade. The other big reason is their increasing debt loads and the consequent increase in the debt service burden, one reason central banks have been buying so much governmental debt.
"Climate Change" Just think about how insubstantial and nebulous that term is. It was intentionally changed from "Global Warming" because their narrative would be destroyed if temperatures notably declined. So, we can scream "Climate Change!" when anything happens environmentally that is not advantagous to man kind.
"Climate Change" = Global Control. It's nothing more than a thinly veiled program to ensnare nations and bring them under a single umbrella. Centralized power is never a good thing and that's all this is about. Power.
Funny how everyone seemed to have forgotten about, you know, ALL THE OTHER (REAL) POLLUTION out there. No, we need to cut back on thing that plants need to grow.
Yawn...
Empty rhetoric fueled by ignorance driven paranoia and conspiracy ideation...