You twit. The main reason defense spending went down as a % of GDP over time was because of the growth of our economy, not because of a reduction in defense spending.
Using the amount as a % of GDP is just a mask. All this is is another case of how to lie with statistics.
Start with the relation A/B. You're claiming the A shrunk because the relation A/B shrunk. But the reason A/B shrunk isn't because A shrunk, but because B grew, and continues to grow.
The 2016 campaign season is going to be a doozy. the only comedians not lining up for this party are those that have already did their time and gotten burnt out from the last several cycles.
No, its actually very right, unlike basically anything you wiull find on WUWT.
Some adjustments are upwards. But most are downwards. Particularly those in the arctic which are are some of the largest magnitude adjustments.
The over all effect IS to reduce the apparent warming. That is not a debatable statement, but it is easily verifiable by looking at the data yourself.
The primary source of adjustments upwards is the United States, when we switched from taking readings in the afternoon to doing it in the morning it introduces a very large bias. And in order to correct that bias in order to achieve the same base reference point so that our data is comparable to and can be combined with the rest of the world's data, it requires adjusting upwards:
It is clear that the shift from afternoon to morning observations in the United States introduced a large cooling bias of about 0.3 C in raw U.S. temperatures. As contiguous U.S. temperatures have risen about 0.9 C over the last century, not correcting for this bias would give us a significant underestimate of actual U.S. warming. While some commenters have hyperbolically referred to temperature adjustments as “the biggest science scandal ever”, the reality is far more mundane.
Thing is....the US isn't the world. If you recall. And the majority of the rest of the world's adjustments are downward. And the overall effect is to, just as I said, reduce the amount of apparent warming.
The data, THE RAW DATA you jerkwads are always asking for, because you dont trust scientists, because you think you can independently check them, IF TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS makes the Earth appear 20% warmer than it actually is.
It makes the state of global warming look WORSE than climatologists say it actually is. In other words...the adjustments help you idiots who would rather say its not happening.
BTW, it also shows that the scientists dont have an agenda, and don't give a shit about any predetermined outcome, and truly do simply want to find out the factual truth of it all. Because if they truly had any sort of agenda, if it trully was solely about being an alarmist and scaring the shit out of people, why the fuck would they intentionally reduce the apparent magnitude of the warming if that was their goal?!
Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.
If Skeptical Science were publishing and creating its own scientific research.....the way WUWT does....then you would have a point.
But since they simply repeat what actual scientists say, tracing everything back to verifiable scientific observations and papers, they stand on pretty firm ground. Unlike WUWT, and unlike you.
Ah yes. Newsbusters understands neither science nor probability, and misrepresented the statements of scientists in order to imply that the scientists are most likely wrong...news at 11:30.
So what’s up with this 38 percent figure, and does it really undermine the idea that 2014 was the hottest year on record?
The figure comes from slide 5 of the PowerPoint presentation mentioned above, where NASA scientists noted that there was a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year, but only a 23 percent chance that the honor goes to the next contender, 2010, and a 17 percent chance that it goes to 2005.
The same slide shows that NOAA’s scientists were even more confident in the 2014 record, ranking it as having a 48 percent probability, compared with only an 18 percent chance for 2010 and a 13 percent chance for 2005.
According to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced. So it may not have been as prominent as the press releases from the agencies, but it was available.
The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released. In the briefing, NOAA’s Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, noted:
Certainly there are uncertainties in putting all this together, all these datasets. But after considering the uncertainties, we have calculated the probability that 2014, versus other years that were relatively warm, were actually the warmest year on record. And the way you can interpret these data tables is, for the NOAA data, 2014 is two and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on record, 2010, to actually be the warmest on record, after consideration of all the data uncertainties that we take into account. And for the NASA data, that number is on the order of about one and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on their records, which again, is 2010. So clearly, 2014 in both our records were the warmest, and there’s a fair bit of confidence that that is indeed the case, even considering data uncertainties.
Karl further noted that the Japan Meteorological Agency had also found 2014 to be the hottest year on record.
In light of all of this, is there anything wrong with NASA and NOAA declaring 2014 a record? To the contrary, it’s hard to see how there could be.
If anything, in criticizing NASA, and holding forth the 38 percent figure as though it somehow undermines the analysis, climate “skeptics” are simply exaggerating scientific uncertainty — which always exists and can never be fully dispelled — and letting it undermine what we actually know.
A better scientific way of assessing evidence, in contrast, is to take uncertainty into account — which NASA and NOAA clearly did — but then go with the conclusion that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. And from Karl’s words above, you can clearly see that the weight of the evidence, supported by both NASA’s and NOAA’s analyses, shows that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2014 is the hottest year on record.
Indeed, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who heads up the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which did the temperature analysis from its records, dubbed “GISTEMP”) and also participated in the press briefing above, has written a blog post to explain all of this further. Here’s what he notes:
In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04C, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.0
Government taxes account for a whopping 18 cents per gallon.
The state of Oklahoma alone gave the oil industry in this state over 500 million in subsides and tax cuts/credits (which are another form of subsidy) last year. (meanwhile we had a budget shortfall of ~600 million....just by coincidence....)
Considering the industry is present in most states, if every state gave the industry just half that much support, it would total ~13 billion dollars, just from the states. the Federal government from its own admission pitches in another 4.5 billion or so. Oddly enough, that totals ~17.5 billion.
the economy and the middle class flourished because of all those evil leftist things, like workers rights, unions, minimum wages, and regulations.
then, after fattening the cows (the middle class), they started stripping those things away, and while the economy still continues to grow as they suck the life out of the middle class it will eventually come to a halt when the idle class can't be sucked any drier.
That is completely idiotic, and par for your course. If something has achieved its goal, there is no need to keep doing it.
You're that guy who keeps hammering the nail after it's already flush with the board and the pieces joined, resulting in a ruined finish and the need to start over, again. Which is actually exactly what would result from your "option".
No, the republican "options" are: A) continue the sanctions, even after they already achieved their goal B) Military intervention.. yet again.
These options rooted primarily in the currently Party SOP. That SOP can be summed up thus: position_GOP = !position_Obama And the code is set to run until at least 2024, when Hillary leaves office (:P)
Let's remember the push for these talks extends back to Bush, and even to Clinton. And if the talks occurred under Bush, or under a potential GOP 2016 winner (assuming he didn't cancel he talks and send in the bombers) the GOP, and you, would not be offering any opposition, but lauding their successful statecraft at achieving a diplomatic solution.
If they don't fear sanctions why did they finally come to the negotiating table because of the sanctions, sanctions created specifically for that purpose?
oh right. you still don't know what youre talking about. as usual.
No actually they were formed in opposition to the mujahedeen.
some of the members may have been former members of the mujahedeen, but that's still not the same thing as saying that "Taliban = mujahedeen", especially considering the two parties opposed each other and even came into open conflict.
Essentially you're statement is no different from (and just as ignorant as) the ignorant people who try to say that because the man who started the KKK was a democrat, therefore the Democratic party created the KKK.
Slashdot Mirror
You twit. The main reason defense spending went down as a % of GDP over time was because of the growth of our economy, not because of a reduction in defense spending.
Using the amount as a % of GDP is just a mask.
All this is is another case of how to lie with statistics.
Start with the relation A/B.
You're claiming the A shrunk because the relation A/B shrunk.
But the reason A/B shrunk isn't because A shrunk, but because B grew, and continues to grow.
The 2016 campaign season is going to be a doozy.
the only comedians not lining up for this party are those that have already did their time and gotten burnt out from the last several cycles.
No, its actually very right, unlike basically anything you wiull find on WUWT.
Some adjustments are upwards.
But most are downwards.
Particularly those in the arctic which are are some of the largest magnitude adjustments.
The over all effect IS to reduce the apparent warming.
That is not a debatable statement, but it is easily verifiable by looking at the data yourself.
The primary source of adjustments upwards is the United States, when we switched from taking readings in the afternoon to doing it in the morning it introduces a very large bias. And in order to correct that bias in order to achieve the same base reference point so that our data is comparable to and can be combined with the rest of the world's data, it requires adjusting upwards:
It is clear that the shift from afternoon to morning observations in the United States introduced a large cooling bias of about 0.3 C in raw U.S. temperatures. As contiguous U.S. temperatures have risen about 0.9 C over the last century, not correcting for this bias would give us a significant underestimate of actual U.S. warming. While some commenters have hyperbolically referred to temperature adjustments as “the biggest science scandal ever”, the reality is far more mundane.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Thing is....the US isn't the world. If you recall.
And the majority of the rest of the world's adjustments are downward.
And the overall effect is to, just as I said, reduce the amount of apparent warming.
Attn mods: stating a fact is not trolling.
The data, THE RAW DATA you jerkwads are always asking for, because you dont trust scientists, because you think you can independently check them, IF TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS makes the Earth appear 20% warmer than it actually is.
It makes the state of global warming look WORSE than climatologists say it actually is.
In other words...the adjustments help you idiots who would rather say its not happening.
BTW, it also shows that the scientists dont have an agenda, and don't give a shit about any predetermined outcome, and truly do simply want to find out the factual truth of it all. Because if they truly had any sort of agenda, if it trully was solely about being an alarmist and scaring the shit out of people, why the fuck would they intentionally reduce the apparent magnitude of the warming if that was their goal?!
Besides being bullshit due to a misunderstand on your part, none of that changes, nor is it relative, to what I said, nor to what the GP said.
No, they addressed it by comparing the data both with those stations included,
and then with them excluded, entirely , ie, using solely rural stations.
And guess what? The result was the same; nearly unchanged.
In short, the idea that somehow its all due "heat islands", and that scientists are too stupid to think of this on their own, is bullshit .
Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.
If Skeptical Science were publishing and creating its own scientific research.....the way WUWT does....then you would have a point.
But since they simply repeat what actual scientists say, tracing everything back to verifiable scientific observations and papers, they stand on pretty firm ground.
Unlike WUWT, and unlike you.
Part of your problem is that you think someone repeating peer reviewed science is on equal footing with someone who spouts gibberish.
Ah yes. Newsbusters understands neither science nor probability, and misrepresented the statements of scientists in order to imply that the scientists are most likely wrong...news at 11:30.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
So what’s up with this 38 percent figure, and does it really undermine the idea that 2014 was the hottest year on record?
The figure comes from slide 5 of the PowerPoint presentation mentioned above, where NASA scientists noted that there was a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year, but only a 23 percent chance that the honor goes to the next contender, 2010, and a 17 percent chance that it goes to 2005.
The same slide shows that NOAA’s scientists were even more confident in the 2014 record, ranking it as having a 48 percent probability, compared with only an 18 percent chance for 2010 and a 13 percent chance for 2005.
According to a NASA spokesman, the PowerPoint containing this slide went online at the same time that the 2014 temperature record itself was announced. So it may not have been as prominent as the press releases from the agencies, but it was available.
The slide was also discussed in the press briefing when the news of the new record was released. In the briefing, NOAA’s Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, noted:
Certainly there are uncertainties in putting all this together, all these datasets. But after considering the uncertainties, we have calculated the probability that 2014, versus other years that were relatively warm, were actually the warmest year on record. And the way you can interpret these data tables is, for the NOAA data, 2014 is two and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on record, 2010, to actually be the warmest on record, after consideration of all the data uncertainties that we take into account. And for the NASA data, that number is on the order of about one and a half times more likely than the second warmest year on their records, which again, is 2010. So clearly, 2014 in both our records were the warmest, and there’s a fair bit of confidence that that is indeed the case, even considering data uncertainties.
Karl further noted that the Japan Meteorological Agency had also found 2014 to be the hottest year on record.
In light of all of this, is there anything wrong with NASA and NOAA declaring 2014 a record? To the contrary, it’s hard to see how there could be.
If anything, in criticizing NASA, and holding forth the 38 percent figure as though it somehow undermines the analysis, climate “skeptics” are simply exaggerating scientific uncertainty — which always exists and can never be fully dispelled — and letting it undermine what we actually know.
A better scientific way of assessing evidence, in contrast, is to take uncertainty into account — which NASA and NOAA clearly did — but then go with the conclusion that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. And from Karl’s words above, you can clearly see that the weight of the evidence, supported by both NASA’s and NOAA’s analyses, shows that the most reasonable conclusion is that 2014 is the hottest year on record.
Indeed, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who heads up the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (which did the temperature analysis from its records, dubbed “GISTEMP”) and also participated in the press briefing above, has written a blog post to explain all of this further. Here’s what he notes:
In both analyses, the values for 2014 are the warmest, but are statistically close to that of 2010 and 2005. In NOAA analysis, 2014 is a record by about 0.04C, while the difference in the GISTEMP record was 0.0
And what makes you think that isn't just EXACTLY what they do?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+clima...
Very first result: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Any uniformed suggestions?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=raw+clima...
First link on page: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Any other uninformed questions?
he doesn't hate all nations.
just the global poor who, for some reason never logically explained, will all die if we don't keep burning fossil fuels.
false dichotomy
If you're going to link to a site, you should link to one that involves actual scientists using actual science.
Again.
For million and oneth time.
The adjustments LOWER the amount of apparent warming.
Again.
For millionth time.
The adjustments LOWER the amount of apparent warming.
Amen, brother. I don't go anywhere without my mutated anthrax. For duck huntin'.
Government taxes account for a whopping 18 cents per gallon.
The state of Oklahoma alone gave the oil industry in this state over 500 million in subsides and tax cuts/credits (which are another form of subsidy) last year.
(meanwhile we had a budget shortfall of ~600 million....just by coincidence....)
Considering the industry is present in most states, if every state gave the industry just half that much support, it would total ~13 billion dollars, just from the states. the Federal government from its own admission pitches in another 4.5 billion or so. Oddly enough, that totals ~17.5 billion.
the economy and the middle class flourished because of all those evil leftist things, like workers rights, unions, minimum wages, and regulations.
then, after fattening the cows (the middle class), they started stripping those things away, and while the economy still continues to grow as they suck the life out of the middle class it will eventually come to a halt when the idle class can't be sucked any drier.
it's illegal if it's taxi company that ignores taxi regulations.
be like running a powerplant that ignores emissions rules, or a restruant that ignores health codes.
That is completely idiotic, and par for your course.
If something has achieved its goal, there is no need to keep doing it.
You're that guy who keeps hammering the nail after it's already flush with the board and the pieces joined, resulting in a ruined finish and the need to start over, again. Which is actually exactly what would result from your "option".
and in so doing, by continuing to repress them, you only help the recruiting activities of actual terrorists, thus furthering the cycle.
No, the republican "options" are:
A) continue the sanctions, even after they already achieved their goal
B) Military intervention.. yet again.
These options rooted primarily in the currently Party SOP.
That SOP can be summed up thus: position_GOP = !position_Obama
And the code is set to run until at least 2024, when Hillary leaves office (:P)
Let's remember the push for these talks extends back to Bush, and even to Clinton.
And if the talks occurred under Bush, or under a potential GOP 2016 winner (assuming he didn't cancel he talks and send in the bombers) the GOP, and you, would not be offering any opposition, but lauding their successful statecraft at achieving a diplomatic solution.
If they don't fear sanctions why did they finally come to the negotiating table because of the sanctions, sanctions created specifically for that purpose?
oh right.
you still don't know what youre talking about.
as usual.
No actually they were formed in opposition to the mujahedeen.
some of the members may have been former members of the mujahedeen, but that's still not the same thing as saying that "Taliban = mujahedeen", especially considering the two parties opposed each other and even came into open conflict.
Essentially you're statement is no different from (and just as ignorant as) the ignorant people who try to say that because the man who started the KKK was a democrat, therefore the Democratic party created the KKK.