Wednesday Highlights

Links?

  1. So, will this news spread? Or will left wing MSM loyalists quash it successfully?
  2. The scandal of the day, it’s been my impressions that people are also saying “the cover up is making it worse.” If cover ups always made it worse, politicians would learn an never do it. That they do, gives reason to believe that most of the time, the cover up is successful. Which likely means that like icebergs 90% of the crap is under the surface.
  3. Watch for the smears to begin.
  4. So, in the wake of a cold snap, we are warned that “weather doesn’t equal climate” … except apparently when it is convenient to pretend it does. Consistency is apparently not required.
  5. Obama and Afghanistan. Has there been a more shallow President, ever?
  6. Cross-aisle praise.
  7. Thesis sometimes should begin with the letter “F” at the start instead of the di-graph “Th”.
  8. Crime and concealed carry.
  9. Stupid laws across the pond.
  10. What is a right (hint: not having healthcare/job/food/home provided)?
  11. An MIT climate scientist speaks on climate.
  12. Modeling and economics.
  13. Cold weather and verse.
  14. A commercial has “people talking” … how they talk beyond saying … “that’s really dumb” escapes me. I suppose they could enumerate the many ways in which it is really off the rails.

 

12 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. #4

    Weather does not equal climate, but ‘abnormal weather eventS’ does. If weather is an atom, then climate can be thought of as engineering. An atom is not a gun. But trillions of atoms of the right type and arrangement do equal a gun.

    The frequency of abnormal weather events would be climate and if that frequency is changing then every abnormal weather event is a reminder of that trend, but the individual event itself is not the trend.

    #2 I’m not sure the problem is really a coverup as much as it is about conforming to a narrative. Christie’s appeal is that he acts like Tony Soprano. That’s also his problem. Tony Soprano appeals because he’s a ‘tough guy’ who solves his problems quickly and more directly than we could ever wish to be able to do. Tony’s problem, though, is that he’s a bully and while this ‘direct approach’ is entertaining, after a while it becomes disturbing. Purposefully causing massive traffic jams to ‘punish’ the mayor of a city that failed to endorse the governor for re-election is just the type of stupid, low level thug shit that someone like Christie *looks* like he would engage in. The scandal then confirms the narrative that while Christie may be fit for low level local politics, he is unworthy of a national ‘serious’ office.

    Interestingly you could compare this to a Clinton scandal that ‘worked’ (Monica) to one that flopped (Paula Jones). The former confirmed a narrative about Clinton that seemed true, a man who wanted everyone to like him but had no self control & personal discipline. The latter, a psyopathic near rapist, did not.

  2. 5.Obama and Afghanistan. Has there been a more shallow President, ever?

    He did exactly as promised. He shifted the focus to going after Bin Laden. Shifted the focus away from endless nation building in Iraq and transitioning the fight for Afghanistan away from US troops and to the Afghan people.

  3. An example of Christie’s problem. There’s the story of his argument with Romney over the details of his convention speech. At some point Christie told Romney’s managers something like “you either let me have my way or you’re going to see me drop the F-bomb on prime time TV”.

    That story, like the GWB one, reinforces both Christie’s initial talent and what limits him. One a low level people like a no-nonesense guy who plays it tough. A little bit of that goes a long way and after a while people tire of someone who governs by temper tantrum and ‘tough guy’ threats. Whatever Christie ‘knew’ about the bridge, fact is the story indicates this is what you get when you give him high office.

    It’s not the ‘coverup’ that will sink him, what will sink him is that he will seek to demonstrate he is ‘technically innocent’ here but fail to see the bigger picture….that he is not able to mature out of this immature ‘style’ hence is not worthy of a mature office.

  4. Boonton,

    The frequency of abnormal weather events would be climate and if that frequency is changing then every abnormal weather event is a reminder of that trend, but the individual event itself is not the trend.

    So. What you’re saying is if there is a increased frequency of abnormal events that is evidence for global warming? Does that mean the opposite as well, if there is no increased frequency, that is a indicator that the warming is not significant?

    Re coverup, my rejoinder was that often people say the coverup is worse (or more damaging) than the crime. This is often the case. My contention is that the coverup is done because normally 9 out 10 times it works. Your point on why the coverup works when it does may be correct, i.e., that a coverup may be more successful when the crime counters expectations. Alas, the (probably) psychopathic rapist Clinton got away with it, eh? Ms Jones brings to mind the weakest defense ever offered in Mr Clinton’s behalf (on PBS News Hour) by James Carville regarding that case (referring to Ms Jones “Well, you see what you get when you go trawling in trailer parks with $20 bills” … which alas begged the question why Clinton was trawling for girls in trailer parks with 20s).

  5. So. What you’re saying is if there is a increased frequency of abnormal events that is evidence for global warming? Does that mean the opposite as well, if there is no increased frequency, that is a indicator that the warming is not significant?

    Let’s say you’re running a casino. The games are, of course, random but you are able to set a payout level. Say you tell the floor manager to set the slots up to payout about 40% of the funds gambled keeping 60% for the house.

    Now let’s say your floor manger is not quite trust worthy (think of Robert Deniro’s problem he had in Casino). You notice an ‘abnormal’ jackpot. Is that evidence that your manager has set the payout rate to a different level or is that simply a function of the randomness of the games? Well say you observe multiple machines for numerous plays and observe they are paying out about 55%. Well those numerous observations are clearly evidence that the manager screwed up.

    But what about any one particular payout? You can’t say nothing. Some little old lady bet $100 and won $10,000. If your setting wasn’t tampered with would she have still won? Perhaps or perhaps not. You are free to use her as an illustration of what happens when the payout ratio is set too high (the house looses money) but that’s really it. It’s meaningless to try to say whether or not the change in the payout ratio caused her to win. Likewise if global warming causes more dramatic weather of all types, you still can’t say one particular incidence of dramatic weather (polar vortex, Sandy, snowacopolypse etc.) was ’caused’ by global warming.

    Alas, the (probably) psychopathic rapist Clinton got away with it, eh? Ms Jones brings to mind the weakest defense ever offered in Mr Clinton’s behalf (on PBS News Hour) by James Carville regarding that case (referring to Ms Jones “Well, you see what you get when you go trawling in trailer parks with $20 bills”

    Actually that was a pretty good defense. What is your argument against it? That people don’t make false claims to try to garner fame, money, fortune? I’m reminded of the woman who claimed to have had Justin Beiber’s baby, until DNA knocked her out. Notice that after the political urgency of opposing Clinton left, almost all the serious accusations against him disappeared. Once he left office and trying to defeat him politically ceased to be a priority for the right, what happened to all the murder victims, the intimidation victims the rape victims? They evaporated faster than a snowman in Miami.

  6. Boonton,

    You are free to use her as an illustration of what happens when the payout ratio is set too high (the house looses money) but that’s really it. It’s meaningless to try to say whether or not the change in the payout ratio caused her to win. Likewise if global warming causes more dramatic weather of all types, you still can’t say one particular incidence of dramatic weather (polar vortex, Sandy, snowacopolypse etc.) was ’caused’ by global warming.

    You didn’t answer the question. Are you dodging? I’ll repeat … if a higher frequency of abnormal weather is a indicator of global warming is the absence of the same an indication of that this is not occuring?

    Let’s look at your casino example. Say your floor manager is honest. Yet another who distruts/hates your manager points out every large jackpot with a remark at “look at that abnormal jackpot, must be your manager is cheating.”

    Likewise if global warming causes more dramatic weather of all types, you still can’t say one particular incidence of dramatic weather

    So why then to global warming alarmists point out every hot spell as evidence of warming?

  7. Boonton,

    Actually that was a pretty good defense.

    As I said, it begs the question why Mr Clinton was trawling for girls in trailer parks, given that it admits he was doing that it seems problematic as a defense.

    Why did the Paula Jones rape case disappear, apparently the $850k cash settlement appeased her. Google turned up this.

  8. As I said, it begs the question why Mr Clinton was trawling for girls in trailer parks

    I think you’re misreading Carville’s statement. The premise was that enemies of Bill Clinton trawled the ‘trailer park’ to find someone to make a false accusation against him.

    Why did the Paula Jones rape case disappear, apparently the $850k cash settlement appeased her.

    There never was a rape case. Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment and then accused him of retribution in her career (which was a questionable accusation since HR records showed no change for better or worse in her regular raises and promotions after the alleged incident happened).

    You didn’t answer the question. Are you dodging? I’ll repeat … if a higher frequency of abnormal weather is a indicator of global warming is the absence of the same an indication of that this is not occuring?

    OK, the original issue was/is if global warming increases abnormal weather, can you honestly say incident X was a result of global warming. The illustration with the casino indicates that a change in the underlying system can indeed cause things to happen, but it will forever be impossible to say a particular incident happened because of that change. If I load a die to land on 6 more often than it should, then I roll the die and get a 6 you cannot say my roll was necessarily the result of changing the die. I could have very well have threw the 6 if I didn’t alter the die.

    So now you ask if higher frequency indicates a change. Let me translate that to our gambling analogies. If we flipped a coin and you lose, then how should we react if you accuse me of using an unfair coin? Well your theory would imply that if we flipped the coin many times, the distribution of heads-tails would not be approximately 50-50. So to test the theory we flip it ten times, flip it 100, 1,000 and so on and see whether or not it converges on 50-50 the more we flip it or some other distribution.

    Let’s look at your casino example. Say your floor manager is honest. Yet another who distruts/hates your manager points out every large jackpot with a remark at “look at that abnormal jackpot, must be your manager is cheating.”

    If we flip the coin 5 times and it comes out heads it’s possible the coin may be unfair. But there’s a 1 out of 64 chance that a fair coin will produce 5 heads in a row. Since there’s billions of coins in the world, if we tested all of them by giving them 5 flips, we’d see a lot of perfectly fair coins declared unfair. No doubt if you really wanted something like the Treasury to produce ‘cerfiticates of fairness’ for every coin it mints, you’d want them to test the coin by a huge number of flips, not just one.

    In Casino DeNiro fires a manager who doesn’t pull a machine that generated two megajackpots in a day. His reason for firing the guy was not that the machine made two payouts, but that it made two payouts and he didn’t pull it from the floor for investigation. He, being a vetern gambler with a sharp understanding of chance, knows its possible.

    So assume that global warming is happening. Does that mean there will be more ‘abnormal weather’? Well I would guess so. Weather is caused by the fact that the earth is not heated evenly. Since different spots have different levels of heat that causes weather as the air and oceans try to find a balance that never arrives since the sun keeps pumping energy in unevenly while energy radiates away from the earth unevenly. It seems logical if you increased the energy trapped on the surface you’d start getting bigger temperature differentials which would make for more violent weather.

    To test that theory I’d need a model that would first define what exactly ‘abnormal weather’ is and then predict it’s frequency. Let’s say Model A says something like “X increase in global warming will produce a Y increase in strange weather”. Fine, two possibilities here:

    1. The model is right.
    2. The model is wrong.

    If #1 and there’s no increase in strange weather, then it makes sense to conclude no global warming.

    If #2, though, then we know nothing. Strange weather may be increasing but since the model is wrong that doesn’t mean there’s underlying global warming. Or there might be global warming but the model is wrong to predict Y increase.

    If there was only one model of global warming’s impact on abnormal weather, I suppose we’d be good. Except there’s plenty of models and there’s plenty of possible models (possibly an infinite number of models). Only if you could know your particular model was absolutely the right one could you be sure the reasoning works in the reverse.

  9. Boonton,

    I think you’re misreading Carville’s statement. The premise was that enemies of Bill Clinton trawled the ‘trailer park’ to find someone to make a false accusation against him.

    I understand that’s what he intended. However, it’s not the more obvious reading, in that Mr Clinton and Ms Jones had some association prior to the kerfuffle. Of what sort? How did he find her if not by “trawling with $20s”? Mr Clinton is quite the sleaze, … as confirmed by Mr Carville.

    Paula Jones accused Clinton of sexual harassment and then accused him of retribution in her career …

    And he settled why? Perhaps because he wouldn’t have a whole lot of credibility if everything came out and you can’t pretend to be an honest Joe when you’ve just been disbarred for perjury.

    So regarding global warming. As you know there has been no actual increase in storm or abnormal weather patterns statistically speaking. But it’s interesting to see your belief in global warming is not falsifiable. Thanks for verifying the non-scientific nature of global warming claims.

  10. I understand that’s what he intended. However, it’s not the more obvious reading, in that Mr Clinton and Ms Jones had some association prior to the kerfuffle. Of what sort? How did he find her if not by “trawling with $20s”? Mr Clinton is quite the sleaze, … as confirmed by Mr Carville.

    Well the original story was they had an affair, actually one night stand. However that was put out by David Brook who later changed his tune and jumped ship from the conservative movement. She alleged it wasn’t an affair but a lewd proposition that she was brought to a hotel room to by state police. Clinton denied both accounts. Strangely she sued Clinton for defamation of character rather than the Conservative magazine…which is very strange when since they alleged she had a consensual one-night stand with Clinton.

    So your story would be true if the original account is the truth, that he had an affair with her. Although a woman who sleeps with a married man is sleezy, one who tries to make that into a payday is sleezier IMO. The second case would be justified yet the story was never really supported. And, in the 3rd case then your reading would be irrelevant. If Jones just ‘jumped on the bandwagon’ trying to get a payday by taking advantage of the fact that Clinton did have other extramarital affairs, Carville’s statement would be totally accurate and yours would be off kilter.

    And he settled why? Perhaps because he wouldn’t have a whole lot of credibility if everything came out and you can’t pretend to be an honest Joe when you’ve just been disbarred for perjury.

    The perjury thing might have been credible had it been about the Jones case, instead it was about an affair that happened a decade later with a modus operendi that looked nothing like Jones’s accusation. Which lead many resonable people to suspect the whole thing was an abuse of the legal system, using the lawsuit as a pretext to try to force gossip out of Clinton via putting him under oath. As for why settle, come come now, certainly you’re not that ignorant about the civil system. Sometimes it’s just easier to let a case go away by settling than fight it out and after Clinton left office everyone wanted to move on.

    Which proves my original point. If Clinton had a whole bevy of victims silenced by his all powerful political ‘machine’, then the moment he was done with power they would have come out of the woodwork in force. Yet just the opposite happened. The moment Clinton was no longer a problem for the Republicans, the accusations disappeared. At this point no one even seems to remember them very well. You’d think all these victims would still be pretty sore about the whole thing (let’s not forget back then it wasn’t just rape or harassment victims, supposedly Clintonites were murdering political enemies left and right).

    So regarding global warming. As you know there has been no actual increase in storm or abnormal weather patterns statistically speaking. But it’s interesting to see your belief in global warming is not falsifiable.

    Well actually it’s pretty falsifiable. If the temperature trend decreases or ceases to increase that would falsify it. Whether or not warming results in abnormal weather is it’s own question. I’ve sketched out exactly how one would falisfy or confirm these things, you’ve ignored that.

  11. Boonton,

    Well the original story was they had an affair, actually one night stand.

    So, now it comes. Who trolled first? Clinton as you noted never said “I never met, never saw” her.

    And, in the 3rd case then your reading would be irrelevant.

    ?? third case? Are you suggesting (what Mr Clinton did not) which is that he never had any contact with her?

    (let’s not forget back then it wasn’t just rape or harassment victims, supposedly Clintonites were murdering political enemies left and right).

    I recall no accusations of murder.

    If the temperature trend decreases or ceases to increase that would falsify it

    Globe mean temps have not increased for about 2 decades. None of the warming predicting models predict that. Every single model published in the graphs is now well above the actual mean temp trend. But apparently that trend “has not gone on long enough”. How long before it is in doubt? Dunno. Just “more time” I guess.

    Whether or not warming results in abnormal weather is it’s own question. I’ve sketched out exactly how one would falisfy or confirm these things, you’ve ignored that.

    No. You showed how it would be unfalsfiable. You said that there are an infinite number of models and a lack of extreme weather only isolates those models which predict increased extreme weather, which presumably means a large number of models remain untouched. Whether the remaining models are actual models being used by weather researchers is apparently irrelevant.

  12. So, now it comes. Who trolled first? Clinton as you noted never said “I never met, never saw” her.

    As I pointed out, the original story was not from Clinton but the right wing magazine. I don’t believe Clinton ever deviated from his denial not only of her harassment claim but also the story’s one-night stand claim.

    ?? third case? Are you suggesting (what Mr Clinton did not) which is that he never had any contact with her?

    Let’s list the possibilities:

    1. Original magazine story: Clinton had his troopers introduce him to her and they had a one night stand.

    2. Clinton’s story: “No idea who she is…”

    3. Jones story: Taken by force to the hotel room, Clinton dropped his pants then she ran out.

    If #2 is the truth, then the ‘trailer park’ accusation is exactly right in the context that he Carville meant it. If #1 is true, then your context is partially right since Clinton hooked up with a person whose morals were not only low enough to sleep with a married man but then to later try to cash in about it by deception. If #3 is right then Jones is totally innocent, a total victim and it’s wrong to refer to her as trash in any context.

    I recall no accusations of murder.

    You must have spent much of the 90’s inhaling. If you forgot, I suggest you use Google to help create your own virtual time machine…start by searching on ‘Clinton body count’. If that doesn’t help, try meditating on whether or not Vince Foster sounds like a name you heard.

    Globe mean temps have not increased for about 2 decades

    I suggest you consult the video on http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20130115/, which is current through 2012. If you rather look at a graph then use http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/418335main_land-ocean-full.jpg which clearly does not show global mean temps failing to increase over the past two decades.

    You said that there are an infinite number of models and a lack of extreme weather only isolates those models which predict increased extreme weather…

    Well yes, an examination of whether or not extreme weather is increasing only applies to models that predict increasing extreme weather. What more could you want it to do?

    Look, if your wife were to boil two large pots of pasta on the stove would you expect humidity to increase in your upstairs? A simple model would say yes, boiling water makes water vapor which would make the air in the house more humid which means you should pick up higher humidity upstairs. If you fail to detect higher humidity, does that mean your wife is not boiling water? It does, but there’s other things that could be afoot. For example, maybe it’s a very dry day and your wife opens all the windows and turns on the fan while boiling the water so none of that humidity reaches the upstairs. Perhaps your measurement device is not sensitive enough to pick up the changes. Perhaps you don’t know how to read it correctly. Now before you say you’ve ‘proven’ your wife isn’t making a lot of pasta, you either have to test a lot more possible models or find a way to make a more direct measurement (go downstairs and look at the stove)

    ‘Extreme weather’ is a pretty fuzzy term and a rather subjective one. We think weather is very extreme when it’s very disruptive to what we normally expect to deal with. A 99 degree day repeated five days in a row is pretty extreme in Chicago in the middle of winter….likewise 3 feet of snow in Chicago in mid-August would also be pretty extreme. But what about two weeks worth of 20 degree days in some part of Antartica that normally sees an average of -40 degrees at that time? Is anyone tallying that and is there a way to weight that properly? Are the models even trying to predict this type of highly measurable ‘extremeness’?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>