As found on the warmlist, this isn't the first time climate change has been accused of threatening coffee. Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...
I did in fact find out about darwin from a skeptic site. that doesn't mean it's wrong, and my preliminary checking indicated that they had a point. I have since one upped real climate though...
I got the monthly averages from GHCN Monthly v2. After importing both adjusted and raw mean temperatur data into Access, I calculated the adjustment for every month, station, and year. If the data in either file said -9999, I set the adjustment as 0. I didn't take the time to alter the data structure so i could easily remove just the faulty months, and the extra zeroes should only serve to reduce the magnitude of adjustments. I then averaged across all stations for each month/year, and posted it. There is a definite upward trend in the adjustments for the 20th century. Not sure why the adjustments suddenly drop down at the start of the century.
Would you agree that I have not cherry picked with this chart, and that the GHCN adjustments themselves contribute to an upward climb in the data regardless of whether the adjustments are valid or not?
After poking around a bit, it was a little frustrating to find raw data but it does seem to be there. I chose Land surface 1 hour to < 1 day, platform observations, and found the ds463 set or the ds510 for the US. Seems to be about what some people would be looking for for raw data. I'll skip downloading the 380GB data for now.
So far i think my favorite site for looking at what adjustments have been done is here. It's not really raw data per se since annual and monthly averages are by definition derived rather than raw, but not in any way that really bothers me.:p It does allow you to see what they've done to various stations. Most of the stations are largely unadjusted. Out of the stations where i saw noticeable changes (I don't count changes where the whole set is shifted a fixed amount or where there is no adjusted data for comparison) about 2/3 had more of a warming trend in the adjusted data than in the unadjusted. That's by eyeball comparison, and relying on memory, so YMMV. I'd say about half don't even have an adjusted set or have a fixed shift for whatever reason.
You could list me as a skeptic without the scare quotes i think. I find the station adjustments which themselves follow an increasing trend suspicious (darwin for instance), but not proof. If I had the time and inclination, I'd examine all stations, average all adjustments, and see if there was a net pattern to the adjustments.
Except they can't actually find the contracts that say they aren't allowed to share, and because they can't identify subsets of the data which are safe, they refuse to share any of it.... Meanwhile, amongst the skeptic crowd we find McKintyre at climateaudit.org, who always does a full disclosure of methods and data.
I would note that it's not clear that Wang was actually innocent, and the university committee has been balking at releasing the committee findings. Since defense relies on the memory of Zhaomei Zeng, who was a co-author of the report that claimed those stations didn't have a quality history in 1990 but now claims they did but that she lost the information. It's a strong sign that there is an issue with station selection, even if the error lies with Zeng not Wang. This is exactly the sort of issues that FOI requests can reveal.
Fair enough. your post only mentioned randomly tracking human populations though. I could be excessively picky and point out that humans may not react the same way as animals.:)
Oddly enough, it's usually the residents of those rural areas who are least likely to ask the government to step in as a middle man. It's funny how often far left individuals complain about poor rural individuals voting against their own interests by supporting republicans, who are slightly more likely to balk at government support for anything instead of just giving them what they want. For the most part, rural states would be happy to let the government stop supporting things, as long as it's not inflicting demands on them. Their politicians are about as good at representing their preferences as any other politician... which for the humor impaired is damning with fain praise.
Actually, that's not quite enough. It's possible that some genetic trait which predisposes someone to acquire cancer also predisposes them to enjoy the feel of smoke in their lungs more than most people. I. For instance, a weakened immune response to foreign contaminants in your lungs would reduce the inflamation response, making smoking feel slightly better, but also extend the period of time before your body cleans them out, giving them more time to cause damage. (This mechanism pulled from thin air, but was the most plausible method I could think of. Used just for rhetorical effect.) Unless you randomly inflict smoking on people, the self selection involved in becoming a smoker will always counfound any conclusions.
Wherease our least dense rural states are larger than sweden or finland, with a lower density. Taking finland, at 16/km2, which is roughly 41/mi2. Compare it to alaska, 1.2/mi2 according to http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/usadensityh.htm . I was tempted to ignore alaska as an outlier, but it is at roughly the same latitude as finland, but about 5 times as large. Raw countrywide density doesn't really provide a lot of useful information, since how it's distributed matters a lot.
It's that "reasonable price" thing which kills the analogy. It is not the same thing. The right to bear arms does not mean a right to compel a gun shop to sell to you if they don't want to.
The right to bear arms != the entitlement to own a gun with no cost to you. The difference is that the government doesn't mandate that gun shops provide service to people, it will not interfere (except for a compelling reason according to the supremem court...), much the way they don't stop you from getting broadband now. The right to own X is not the same as the right to compel a third party to provide X. Postive rights types conflate the 2, but they are categorically different things.
I think you may be wrong about that. If your resource is element-79 for instance, then no, it really would take a government action to grant total control over that resource. If for no other reason than the price of said element climbing out of their price range as a group of people attempted to buy it all up. I can't think of a single true monopoly which wasn't put into place with government assistance above and beyond enforcing private propery rights.
You know, it's funny. Currently, the only google link for the phrase "Hayessociated press" is the source article. Are we sure the article isn't making up it's story about the telegram out of whole cloth, or at least spinning the actual events?
Oh yes, insinuating that the released emails were genuine when that hadn't yet been determined, since CRU was acting like it really had been hacked but hadn't yet admitted to it... such a terrible attitude to take./sarcasm
So if George Will told people he wasn't a conservative since he's not a member of the conservative party, that would be just fine? Socialism isn't just a party, it's a collection of ideas. A number of prominent democrats do appear to hold some of those ideas. Heck, Obama even put the means of production in the hands of the workers when he bypassed normal bankruptcy law to give the UAW control of GM.
Regarding Global Warming in particular, it amuses me to see people hold up scientists as a group, but selectivly say 'but you are not a climate scientist' on the other when someone does disagree. Do you have a cite for that 90%, and is the percentage the same for climate scientists as it is for other groups? Is that 90% the number who believe it's happening, or the number who believe it's caused by human activity?
I'm sorry, a Daily Show complaint about Glenn Beck engaging in What If scenarios does not in any way indicate a disconnect between Glenn Beck and Common Sense. Funny bit, but not relevant, unless you honestly think contingency planning is utterly useless. Note I'm not saying you couldn't find evidence of stupidity on his part, only that you failed to prove your case.
Actually, the article is wrong. The legal challenge didn't stop them, they went ahead and installed their fiber network anyways. The article is simply wrong.
So how exactly do you blame Libertarians for anything you complained about in your post? I'm not even going to touch the assumptions that go into your spin in your first paragraph, but even accepting them at face value there is nothing there that can be linked to libertarians.
Please add the cost of running the IRS to Medicare's overhead, add fraud to both sides of the ledger, and then see who comes out ahead. Also, I assume you mean the health insurance industry, since that actually has a comparable function to medicare. A large portion of the overhead goes to fraud prevention, which Medicare does very little of and consequently wastes about 29 percent on fraudulent claims. I can't find a source with fraud as a percentage of payouts for private insurance for comparison, so I can't rule out the possibility that private insurance has greater losses to fraud and fraud prevention, but the point stands that the overhead numbers usually given are misleading.
I prefer the shorter, slightly related statement form: Hard cases make bad law. This puts the onus on those making the law not to spend so much time chasing extremely rare odd cases. Part of the benefit of Judges and Juries, along prosecutor and police officer's discretion, is the ability to apply a broad law in a tailored fashion. Instead lawmakers turn circles into the Mandelbrot set by trying to specify each possible case in advance.
Because she's an honest person? It's really no great surprise to anyone who is opposed to government programs that said programs tend to reward bad behavior. That's a problem with the program, not a reason to abuse the system. It may actually be deliberate in some cases, since reducing the need for unemployment coverage also reduces the need for the bureaucrats running those programs.
We will all go together when we go.
All suffuse with an incandescent glow.
No one will have the endurance
To collect on his insurance,
Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go.
-- Tom Lehrer
There is no natural right to own ideas. At all. If I steal a chair from you, you no longer have a chair to use. If I copy something you created, you still have what you made as well, but now I have it too. There's a rather fundamental difference there.
It's not that I have a natural right to your idea: you are perfectly free to keep it for yourself. I do have a natural right to do with it whatever I want if you give it to me. Copyrights and patents act to prevent that.
What you are missing is that Chancellor wasn't an elected position. His party was elected, and convinced the president to appoint him as chancellor. It would be like Obama appointing McCain as Secretary of State.
Actually, it's pefectly possible to pay your own way for things and still live in a house instead of a cave, with heat, etc. It's called voluntary trade. Trade can make both participants better off. That doesn't make it right to engage in confiscation. Confiscation and trade are different things.
However, the GP post claimed only to be against any dependence on other people, so I can't fault your complaint about his principles. I only take issue with your first statement.
Slashdot Mirror
As found on the warmlist, this isn't the first time climate change has been accused of threatening coffee. Amazing how climate change seems to be the bane of all existence...
I did in fact find out about darwin from a skeptic site. that doesn't mean it's wrong, and my preliminary checking indicated that they had a point. I have since one upped real climate though...
I got the monthly averages from GHCN Monthly v2. After importing both adjusted and raw mean temperatur data into Access, I calculated the adjustment for every month, station, and year. If the data in either file said -9999, I set the adjustment as 0. I didn't take the time to alter the data structure so i could easily remove just the faulty months, and the extra zeroes should only serve to reduce the magnitude of adjustments. I then averaged across all stations for each month/year, and posted it. There is a definite upward trend in the adjustments for the 20th century. Not sure why the adjustments suddenly drop down at the start of the century.
Would you agree that I have not cherry picked with this chart, and that the GHCN adjustments themselves contribute to an upward climb in the data regardless of whether the adjustments are valid or not?
After poking around a bit, it was a little frustrating to find raw data but it does seem to be there. I chose Land surface 1 hour to < 1 day, platform observations, and found the ds463 set or the ds510 for the US. Seems to be about what some people would be looking for for raw data. I'll skip downloading the 380GB data for now.
:p It does allow you to see what they've done to various stations. Most of the stations are largely unadjusted. Out of the stations where i saw noticeable changes (I don't count changes where the whole set is shifted a fixed amount or where there is no adjusted data for comparison) about 2/3 had more of a warming trend in the adjusted data than in the unadjusted. That's by eyeball comparison, and relying on memory, so YMMV. I'd say about half don't even have an adjusted set or have a fixed shift for whatever reason.
So far i think my favorite site for looking at what adjustments have been done is here. It's not really raw data per se since annual and monthly averages are by definition derived rather than raw, but not in any way that really bothers me.
You could list me as a skeptic without the scare quotes i think. I find the station adjustments which themselves follow an increasing trend suspicious (darwin for instance), but not proof. If I had the time and inclination, I'd examine all stations, average all adjustments, and see if there was a net pattern to the adjustments.
Except they can't actually find the contracts that say they aren't allowed to share, and because they can't identify subsets of the data which are safe, they refuse to share any of it.... Meanwhile, amongst the skeptic crowd we find McKintyre at climateaudit.org, who always does a full disclosure of methods and data.
I would note that it's not clear that Wang was actually innocent, and the university committee has been balking at releasing the committee findings. Since defense relies on the memory of Zhaomei Zeng, who was a co-author of the report that claimed those stations didn't have a quality history in 1990 but now claims they did but that she lost the information. It's a strong sign that there is an issue with station selection, even if the error lies with Zeng not Wang. This is exactly the sort of issues that FOI requests can reveal.
Fair enough. your post only mentioned randomly tracking human populations though. I could be excessively picky and point out that humans may not react the same way as animals. :)
Oddly enough, it's usually the residents of those rural areas who are least likely to ask the government to step in as a middle man. It's funny how often far left individuals complain about poor rural individuals voting against their own interests by supporting republicans, who are slightly more likely to balk at government support for anything instead of just giving them what they want. For the most part, rural states would be happy to let the government stop supporting things, as long as it's not inflicting demands on them. Their politicians are about as good at representing their preferences as any other politician... which for the humor impaired is damning with fain praise.
Actually, that's not quite enough. It's possible that some genetic trait which predisposes someone to acquire cancer also predisposes them to enjoy the feel of smoke in their lungs more than most people. I. For instance, a weakened immune response to foreign contaminants in your lungs would reduce the inflamation response, making smoking feel slightly better, but also extend the period of time before your body cleans them out, giving them more time to cause damage. (This mechanism pulled from thin air, but was the most plausible method I could think of. Used just for rhetorical effect.) Unless you randomly inflict smoking on people, the self selection involved in becoming a smoker will always counfound any conclusions.
Wherease our least dense rural states are larger than sweden or finland, with a lower density. Taking finland, at 16/km2, which is roughly 41/mi2. Compare it to alaska, 1.2/mi2 according to http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/populations/usadensityh.htm . I was tempted to ignore alaska as an outlier, but it is at roughly the same latitude as finland, but about 5 times as large. Raw countrywide density doesn't really provide a lot of useful information, since how it's distributed matters a lot.
It's that "reasonable price" thing which kills the analogy. It is not the same thing. The right to bear arms does not mean a right to compel a gun shop to sell to you if they don't want to.
The right to bear arms != the entitlement to own a gun with no cost to you. The difference is that the government doesn't mandate that gun shops provide service to people, it will not interfere (except for a compelling reason according to the supremem court...), much the way they don't stop you from getting broadband now. The right to own X is not the same as the right to compel a third party to provide X. Postive rights types conflate the 2, but they are categorically different things.
I think you may be wrong about that. If your resource is element-79 for instance, then no, it really would take a government action to grant total control over that resource. If for no other reason than the price of said element climbing out of their price range as a group of people attempted to buy it all up. I can't think of a single true monopoly which wasn't put into place with government assistance above and beyond enforcing private propery rights.
You know, it's funny. Currently, the only google link for the phrase "Hayessociated press" is the source article. Are we sure the article isn't making up it's story about the telegram out of whole cloth, or at least spinning the actual events?
Oh yes, insinuating that the released emails were genuine when that hadn't yet been determined, since CRU was acting like it really had been hacked but hadn't yet admitted to it... such a terrible attitude to take. /sarcasm
So if George Will told people he wasn't a conservative since he's not a member of the conservative party, that would be just fine? Socialism isn't just a party, it's a collection of ideas. A number of prominent democrats do appear to hold some of those ideas. Heck, Obama even put the means of production in the hands of the workers when he bypassed normal bankruptcy law to give the UAW control of GM.
Regarding Global Warming in particular, it amuses me to see people hold up scientists as a group, but selectivly say 'but you are not a climate scientist' on the other when someone does disagree. Do you have a cite for that 90%, and is the percentage the same for climate scientists as it is for other groups? Is that 90% the number who believe it's happening, or the number who believe it's caused by human activity?
"Federalism" - I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'm sorry, a Daily Show complaint about Glenn Beck engaging in What If scenarios does not in any way indicate a disconnect between Glenn Beck and Common Sense. Funny bit, but not relevant, unless you honestly think contingency planning is utterly useless. Note I'm not saying you couldn't find evidence of stupidity on his part, only that you failed to prove your case.
Actually, the article is wrong. The legal challenge didn't stop them, they went ahead and installed their fiber network anyways. The article is simply wrong.
So how exactly do you blame Libertarians for anything you complained about in your post? I'm not even going to touch the assumptions that go into your spin in your first paragraph, but even accepting them at face value there is nothing there that can be linked to libertarians.
Please add the cost of running the IRS to Medicare's overhead, add fraud to both sides of the ledger, and then see who comes out ahead. Also, I assume you mean the health insurance industry, since that actually has a comparable function to medicare. A large portion of the overhead goes to fraud prevention, which Medicare does very little of and consequently wastes about 29 percent on fraudulent claims. I can't find a source with fraud as a percentage of payouts for private insurance for comparison, so I can't rule out the possibility that private insurance has greater losses to fraud and fraud prevention, but the point stands that the overhead numbers usually given are misleading.
I prefer the shorter, slightly related statement form: Hard cases make bad law. This puts the onus on those making the law not to spend so much time chasing extremely rare odd cases. Part of the benefit of Judges and Juries, along prosecutor and police officer's discretion, is the ability to apply a broad law in a tailored fashion. Instead lawmakers turn circles into the Mandelbrot set by trying to specify each possible case in advance.
Because she's an honest person? It's really no great surprise to anyone who is opposed to government programs that said programs tend to reward bad behavior. That's a problem with the program, not a reason to abuse the system. It may actually be deliberate in some cases, since reducing the need for unemployment coverage also reduces the need for the bureaucrats running those programs.
We will all go together when we go.
All suffuse with an incandescent glow.
No one will have the endurance
To collect on his insurance,
Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go.
-- Tom Lehrer
There is no natural right to own ideas. At all. If I steal a chair from you, you no longer have a chair to use. If I copy something you created, you still have what you made as well, but now I have it too. There's a rather fundamental difference there.
It's not that I have a natural right to your idea: you are perfectly free to keep it for yourself. I do have a natural right to do with it whatever I want if you give it to me. Copyrights and patents act to prevent that.
What you are missing is that Chancellor wasn't an elected position. His party was elected, and convinced the president to appoint him as chancellor. It would be like Obama appointing McCain as Secretary of State.
Actually, it's pefectly possible to pay your own way for things and still live in a house instead of a cave, with heat, etc. It's called voluntary trade. Trade can make both participants better off. That doesn't make it right to engage in confiscation. Confiscation and trade are different things.
However, the GP post claimed only to be against any dependence on other people, so I can't fault your complaint about his principles. I only take issue with your first statement.