Free Republic

My continuing question about these climate models is this:

If the (original) climate models justified the warming hysteria, why have the modelers worked so diligently (and at such great cost) to continually revise their models to account for the errors that are brought to their attention (after each iteration)?

I'm reminded of an old Bugs Bunny cartoon:

Dramatic Personae:

White coated scientist: Elmer Fudd

Laboratory Rabbit: Bugs Bunny

Scenario:

Elmer Fudd brings Bugs a platter holding two carrots, one large and one small.

Bugs selects smaller carrot.

Scenario repeats (twice, as I remember)

Fudd: “Wabbit! Why do you keep picking smaller cawwat?)

Bugs: Because, if I pick the bigger one, you'll stop bwinging me more cawwats!)

And the lesson learned? If the scientists on the public dole (the billions we spend on climate research) admit the science doesn't support their scary predictions) we'll stop giving them carrots.

If their models were so good, why do they continually revise them? I thought (per Al Gore) that the science “was settled”.

“On March 14, 2005, Greenberg stepped down amid allegations about his involvement in a questionable deal and accounting practices at AIG.”

Oh, really? Do we detect a bit of bias in this article? Nothing about Eliot Spitzer’s lust for power and that he had threatened to indict AIG itself (the kiss of death — see Arthur Anderson’s fate re: Enron — and it’s later and too late exoneration).

Seems to me there’s too little here to cast blame on Hank. He says there was under 7B in mortgage backed CDO’s when he was forced to leave. AIG’s current management claims more. I think I’d take Hank’s word on this.

Great job, WP — thousands of words aimed at obfuscating what really happened. Business as usual.

There’s an excellent study released by The Independent Institute that puts paid to this kind of nonsense: http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf

It was loose lending standards pushed by Acorn et al that led to massive foreclosures in all segments (not just sub-primes). And, it goes waaaay back.

Here’s the reply I posted on the NYU bulletin board:

Norman Rogers
Dec 11, 2008 10:39

Gee, I think she answered both parts of your question (she said she didn’t know).

As to your commentary, I find it peurile (”shitty conservative commentator”). I am pleased that you rabid lefties actually permitted a conservative to speak without silly disruptions. Perhaps everyone does eventually grow up. And, having to live with your choice as our President for the next four years will only help.

And I’m pleased that it was my alma mater that showed the “students” and “faculty” (of such important subjects as “Women’s studies” and “Gym Flloor Mopping) of Columbia how to behave. I am a graduate of NYU (BS Engineering Physics ‘70, MS OR and Computer Science ‘72). It’s a subject of amusement to me how the prestige of this school has grown over the years. And, I think it’s a stitch that they’re reacquiring the Engineering School with the “merger” with Brooklyn Poly.

OBTW, Ms. Coulter really does stay on point. If you had actually read any of her numerous books, you’d know that. You obviously heard what you wanted to hear.

I’m of an age to remember when SNL first burst on the scene (back when it was funny — at least occasionally). I tuned in Saturday night to see how the self-styled intelligentsia would try to wield humor as a weapon to slay the PalinMonster. And here’s my takeaway:

1. Tina Fey did a great job mimicking Gov. Palin’s voice and speech patterns. The look was pretty much spot-on as well. But, Tina Fey can’t help smirking and telling us that she’s in on the joke. This is a fatal flaw in any comic mimicry (the comic actor MUST play it straight and let the material deliver the laughs). Jon Stewart and others manifest this same flaw — that “chocolate” smile that always curls their lips.

2. The content of the skit fell flat (this is the thing that makes SNL unwatchable — their comic premise is sometimes good but their execution is often (always?) heavy handed and lame). The SNL writers (and producers and actors) sought to portray Gov. Palin as an airhead — and Her Highness Hillary as accomplished and entitled — albeit suffering from overweening ambition and a sense of entitlement. The members (an overwhelming majority, I expect) of the SNL audience probably found this skit funny — largely because they’re up-to-date with the desperate untruths the media has tried to float.

3, This SNL episode put everything in context a few minutes later when it presented a truly awful skit of a kind of college bowl game show pitting some high school dullards against what was supposed to be a “typical” Fundamentalist Christian Family — lifted right out of the Ozarks (and the set of Deliverance). Of course the SNL skit was unfunny. And of course it was crass. And of course it showed us all once again the ignorance of these writers and producers and actors who have this strange need to imagine that people of faith are stupid and narrow minded — and only them urban folks have any sense at all.

What I don’t get (and never will) is why these folks keep patting themselves on the back and telling each other how smart they are — and all the while they’re insulting folks who might otherwise be loyal viewers. And you wonder why network television (and the MSM) is failing?

I’m of an age to remember when SNL first burst on the scene (back when it was funny — at least occasionally). I tuned in Saturday night to see how the self-styled intelligentsia would try to wield humor as a weapon to slay the PalinMonster. And here’s my takeaway:

1. Tina Fey did a great job mimicking Gov. Palin’s voice and speech patterns. The look was pretty much spot-on as well. But, Tina Fey can’t help smirking and telling us that she’s in on the joke. This is a fatal flaw in any comic mimicry (the comic actor MUST play it straight and let the material deliver the laughs). Jon Stewart and others manifest this same flaw — that “chocolate” smile that always curls their lips.

2. The content of the skit fell flat (this is the thing that makes SNL unwatchable — their comic premise is sometimes good but their execution is often (always?) heavy handed and lame). The SNL writers (and producers and actors) sought to portray Gov. Palin as an airhead — and Her Highness Hillary as accomplished and entitled — albeit suffering from overweening ambition and a sense of entitlement. The members (an overwhelming majority, I expect) of the SNL audience probably found this skit funny — largely because they’re up-to-date with the desperate untruths the media has tried to float.

3, This SNL episode put everything in context a few minutes later when it presented a truly awful skit of a kind of college bowl game show pitting some high school dullards against what was supposed to be a “typical” Fundamentalist Christian Family — lifted right out of the Ozarks (and the set of Deliverance). Of course the SNL skit was unfunny. And of course it was crass. And of course it showed us all once again the ignorance of these writers and producers and actors who have this strange need to imagine that people of faith are stupid and narrow minded — and only them urban folks have any sense at all.

What I don’t get (and never will) is why these folks keep patting themselves on the back and telling each other how smart they are — and all the while they’re insulting folks who might otherwise be loyal viewers. And you wonder why network television (and the MSM) is failing?

I’m of an age to remember when SNL first burst on the scene (back when it was funny — at least occasionally). I tuned in last night to see how the self-styled intelligentsia would try to wield humor as a weapon to slay the PalinMonster. And here’s my takeaway:

1. Tina Fey did a great job mimicking Gov. Palin’s voice and speech patterns. The look was pretty much spot-on as well. But, Tina Fey can’t help smirking and telling us that she’s in on the joke. This is a fatal flaw in any comic mimicry (the comic actor MUST play it straight and let the material deliver the laughs). Jon Stewart and others manifest this same flaw — that “chocolate” smile that always curl their lips.

2. The content of the skit fell flat (this is the thing that makes SNL unwatchable — their comic premise is sometimes good but their execution is often (always?) heavy handed and lame). The SNL writers (and producers and actors) sought to portray Gov. Palin as an airhead — and Her Highness Hillary as accomplished and entitled — albeit suffering from overweening ambition and a sense of entitlement. The members (an overwhelming majority, I expect) of the SNL audience probably found this skit funny — largely because they’re up-to-date with the desperate untruths the media has tried to float.

3, This SNL episode put everything in context a few minutes later when it presented a truly awful skit of a kind of college bowl game show pitting some high school dullards against what supposed to be a “typical” Fundamentalist Christian Family — lifted right out of the Ozarks (and the set of Deliverance). Of course the SNL skit was unfunny. And of course it was crass. And of course it showed us all once again the ignorance of these writers and producers and actors who have this strange need to imagine that people of faith are stupid and narrow minded — and only them urban folks have any sense at all.

What I don’t get (and never will) is why these folks keep patting themselves on the back and telling each other how smart they are — and all the while they’re insulting folks who might otherwise be loyal viewers. And you wonder why network television (and the MSM) is failing?

So Dad worked all his life and the government took some of his wages and transferred them to other folks — with the “promise” that he and his spouse would be eligible to receive barely subsistence level payments on their retirement — or survival to age 70.

And you want to perpetuate this scheme?

What if Dad had been permitted to invest these same monies in his own retirement plan? Then, on his death — Mom would have had a lump sum (or annuity) to live on. And, it would have been a much, much larger sum (take a look at Chile’s retirement savings plan).

SS is an abomination.

The flaw in Dr. Gale’s analysis is the implicit assumption that everyone dances each dance (no one sits out and the women aren't promiscuous).

Consider the simple proposition that 100 men and 100 women attend the dance and that 90 women dance with only one partner (keep it clean, folks!) and that the 10 prettiest girls each have one dance with each of the 100 males. Assume further that there are 1,000 dances between the monogamous pairings and 1,000 dances between the ten comely women and each of the 100 men (another 1,000 dances).

The result would be for each male to dance 1,010 times and having a total of 11 partners and each female dancing 1,000 times with 90 of them having one partner and 10 of them having 100 partners.

Thus, the average (all, in this case) male would have had 11 partners and the average female 10.1 — but 100% of the males would have had 11 partners and 90% of the women would have had only one (and 10% of the women would have had 100 partners)!!! 90 of the women would dance half the time (no doubt sitting out because of a “headache”). Each of the males would dance 1010 times (about half the time, too — no doubt recovering their energies).

B=G? I think not!

So far all of the analyses I've seen misses the role of the Vice President.

If the ailing Senator is unable to vote on the first bill to come to the floor -- THE ONE THAT ESTABLISHES THE RULES FOR THIS SESSION, AND THE ONE THAT DIVVIES UP THE MAJORITY/MINORITY COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS,OFFICE SPACE, STAFF, ETC -- then the Dems would have 50 votes, the Republicans 49, and the President of the Senate (Cheney) has the power to MAKE or BREAK a tie.

If the Republicans don't like the deal, Cheney can effectively block it (all resolutions require at least a simple majority -- ties don't carry the day).

So if they can't bring the guy onto the floor, the Dems do not have a working majority, TODAY!

Absurd!

I don't know why the Courant published this piece -- but it ignores the 800 lb gorilla in the room -- SADDAM!

We know that Saddam had manufactured glass ampules of anthrax and we know there was never any evidence that these were systematically destroyed.

We know that there were credible reports by a pharmacist in Florida that a man he identified as resembling a picture of one of the 9/11 hijackers sought treatment in August of '01 for what appeared to be an anthrax sore on his leg.

Common sense suggests that Saddam would have been likely to "give a taste" of his biological weaponry to Al Q -- not enuff to give Al Q leverage against Iraq, but plenty enuff to cause mayhem in the US. And we know Atta investigated renting crop dusting aircraft.

I am bemused by all of the caterwauling about Israel's "losing" the war.

Here is how things stand (my view):

1. This was a battle, not a war.

2. This was Lebanon vs. Israel (Hezbollah IS Lebanon). The meme that Hezbollah is somehow separate from Lebanon is like the great myth that Austria was "Hitler's first victim" (were it not for an unfortunate appointment to the UN Secretary General, this myth would have gone on, unchallenged. Old Joke: What is Waldheimer's Disease? Answer: It makes you forget you were a Nazi).

If you count the casualties and battle damages, Israel won by a TKO.

3. No matter how many weapons and how many troops Hezbollah retains, Lebanon will not soon again try to singe Israel's beard.

4. Iran's cards have been played and they have lost. Hezbo spent over half their missiles store and inflicted precious little damage for all their sound and fury. Now the threat is gone. Yes, Hezbo can start firing them again -- but they won't. They didn't work when tested and would work less well if used again (think of the Battle for Britain and the great Blitz).

5. I predict that GWB will link recovery aid to Lebanon with Hezbo disarmament. Lebanon will have to choose: Give up the proxies or squat in your own filth.

6. The IDF has gotten a good lesson (watching the success of the Yanks in Iraq wasn't enough). The IDF will come up with counters to Hezbo's use of wire guided missiles in lieu of tube artillery and will train the troops to avoid sheltering in buildings in sight of enemy positions. And tank commanders will be taught to keep their heads down and their hatches battened. And the IDF will greatly strengthen training of regular troops and reserves. And the IDF will get substantially greater operating funds.

I don't know if Olmert will survive -- and I don't know if he should survive. I need to know more about the advice he was given and the warnings he received (from Rice & co).

But, PLEASE! Chill out! So what if the Hezbillys dance in the street? Smell the rotting corpses in their bunkers and gauge their appetite to rejoin the battle.

Condi is pretty cool under fire. I'll bet TIME was gnashing its teeth.

Dumb article -- the reason the French helped us during our revolution is because it hurt the British, full stop.

Yes, were it not for the French navy, Washington (who was a terrific general, by the way) could not have taken Cornwallis at Yorktown. And yes, we got serious aid from the French. But their motivations were there own and it was all about sticking it to King George.

Well, Annie has quite a body of work to pick on, and that's the clear intent of Ms. King. For whatever reason, Ms. King has produced a "hatchet job" of an essay (as opposed to the scalpel wielded by literary luminaries praised by name by Ms. King -- such as Dorothy Parker). Let's call this a "FLOJOB".

OK, Flo -- you've demonstrated that SOME of Annie's witticisms are less artfully phrased than some truly immortal quotes you cite. And, your point is ...?

That Jennie Churchill got off a terrific one liner? Or Dorothy Parker, many? (OBTW, the horticulture one was a setup. No disrespect to Ms. Parker, who was witty as hell -- but the horticulture question (use the word in a sentence) was prearranged.

This essay is as fatuous as the left's risible attempts to make GWB look stupid by virtue of some of his extemporaneous remarks. Did Ms. King cite any examples of what she considered "clever" quotes from Ms. Coulter? Of course not! That wouldn't have proved her point.

And why compare Ann Coulter with the great wits of letters to begin with? Ann is a muckraker -- she writes to educate and to expose. Her writings are polemic, but to the point. And she is a meticulous researcher and provides footnotes.

If Ms. King had written that Ms. Coulter, "wasn't as funny as Sinclair Lewis", this article would at least have been on point (if, just as absurd).

Here are some Coulterisms that Ms. King would be hard pressed to disparage:

By 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an antiwar demonstration, and married his first heiress.

Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it.

Democrats couldn't care less if people in Indiana hate them. But if Europeans curl their lips, liberals can't look at themselves in the mirror.

Have we been cryptic? Right-wingers said Clinton was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. It turned out he was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. Now liberals scratch their heads demanding to know: So what was it about him you didn't like?

If John Kerry had a dollar for every time he bragged about serving in Vietnam - oh wait, he does.

If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?

Liberal soccer moms are precisely as likely to receive anthrax in the mail as to develop a capacity for linear thinking.

Liberals are stalwart defenders of civil liberties - provided we're only talking about criminals.

Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

Taxes are like abortion, and not just because both are grotesque procedures supported by Democrats. You're for them or against them. Taxes go up or down; government raises taxes or lowers them. But Democrats will not let the words "abortion" or "tax hikes" pass their lips.

The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control.

Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening.

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

We've finally given liberals a war against fundamentalism, and they don't want to fight it. They would, except it would put them on the same side as the United States.

When we were at peace, Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Now there's a war, so Democrats want to raise taxes. When there was a surplus, Democrats wanted to raise taxes. Now that there is a mild recession, Democrats want to raise taxes.

Whenever a liberal begins a statement with 'I don't know which is more frightening,' you know the answer is going to be pretty clear.

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.


While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.

State Senator Wozniak should take a position on other hazardous hobbies, like rock climbing and bungee jumping. Does he think he can outlaw stupidity?

Freedom means being able to make choices -- and not letting the state decide what's "safe".

It's one thing to protect minors, it's quite another to constrain adults.

The real problem is that the safety folks (and most other beauracracies) have been in business too long. They have too many suits drawing big salaries. Years ago, before automobiles used safety glass, there were horrendous accidents and there was a need to get the industry to become more safety concious.

Now, these federal morons have to keep looking for things to keep them busy -- to justify their jobs.

A prime example is the mandated installation and use of air-bags. The original rational for these things was that folks couldn't be expected to buckle their mandated lap belts -- so "passive restraints" were needed. Auto makers were given the choice of automatic shoulder belts or air-bags.

But, airbags KILL women and small children -- in the HUNDREDS! And, with seat-belt laws being enforced, nearly everyone buckles up. So why do we still have mandatory passive restraints? Because the suits in DC are morons.

This is unbelievable! If the NYT got wind of Enigma in 1939, would they feel obliged to publish it "because of public interest"? This is insane

Take a deep breath, everyone.

Tom Delay has staged a strategic retreat. He might have won in November, but he might have lost.

By withdrawing now, he gains lots of points for being a team player and he has set the stage for running for Governor of Texas (assuming he beats the rap). I think he will be acquitted (or have the indictment dismissed) and it will give him the imprimatur of a warrior who has defeated the partisan (and unprincipled) Democrats.

I think Delay is one smart cookie who is playing the hand he was dealt to perfection.

A good article, I think. It presents what the author avers are summaries of the responses he got to his questions.

I am reminded of an old Bugs Bunny cartoon (I can't remember if it was on film or in print).

Dramatic personae:

Laboratory Rabbit: Bugs Bunny
White Coated Scientist: Elmer Fudd

Several Scenes where the rabbit is presented with a choice of two foods: A large carrot and a small carrot. The rabbit repeatedly chooses the small carrot.

Scientist asks rabbit, "Wabbit, why do you keep choosing the smaller cawwit?"

Rabbit: "Because if I took the bigger one, you'd stop bringing me cawwits!"

The lesson?

If the scientists slopping at the public trough ever admitted that there is no scientific basis to their repeated claims of anthropomorphic climate changes -- they'd lose their funding!

What we have is the repeating absurdity of climate modelers continually presenting their latest tweaks -- only to be upstaged by skeptics pointing out what these geniuses missed -- followed by a new cycle of "corrected" models.

If the science behind Kyoto was so good, then why do the proponents have to continually revise their models to take account of the factors they missed on the previous go-around?

What we never hear is an admission that their previous models were flawed and that the Kyoto accord was based on flawed data and flawed models. Instead, we continually hear, "We got it right THIS TIME!"

What a hoot!

Norman Rogers

What's remarkable about this story is just how illustrative it is of the difference between Internet news and the MSM.

McDermott tells us how expert he is on the life of Atta -- yet he provides no citations to back his claims. We just won't stand for this kind of silliness on the Internet. If you or I want to make a claim we're obliged to provide factual support.

The only guy I know of in the MSM who seems to get this is John Tierney of the NYT Op-ed pages. He regularly footnotes his essays with links.