Tuesday, February 10, 2015 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Pro-U.S. troops in Ukraine, U.S. bailout for Greece

The following two stories share one thing: the sheer stupidity of the political opinions that became common in the U.S.



Oleg told us about this terrific screenshot from a CNN show. Obama considers arming pro-U.S. troops. I have already discussed how crazy and counterproductive it is to think about weapon deliveries to Donbass. Russia would surely respond correspondingly and not necessarily symmetrically and the escalation of the sad conflict would be the only possible outcome. But the new funny twist is that the pro-Kiev soldiers were called "pro-U.S." troops.

Much of the Internet sources that did notice this detail at all called it a "Freudian slip". But after some years in America, I actually think that many Americans genuinely can't even understand why we find it so laughable and weird. Much of this inability to laugh to this stupidity comes from the Americans' naive, Hollywood-like understanding of the good of evil; some of it arises from the complete misunderstanding of the world geography and history and, indeed, the very existence of a world outside the U.S.




OK, let me assume that the dear reader really doesn't understand why we think that the CNN employees are imbeciles if this caption was more than a typo.

The reason why the caption is so hilariously stupid is that no one gives a damn about America as "primary driver of anything" in this civil war. This war is not all about America. (I am feeling like Leonard when he was slowly – and using his arms – explaining to Sheldon that Sheldon was not a part of Leonard's relationship with Penny.) The first event that led to the ongoing civil war was President Yanukovitch's veto of a Ukrainian-EU treaty that would effectively cut some Ukrainian-Russian relations.




Some anti-Russia political forces in Ukraine didn't like the veto and some street controversies revolving about the very identity of the Ukranian nation or country erupted which were later amplified by extremely harmful Western feedbacks. All these internal tensions have been kept in check for many decades. The genie got out of the bottle and by forcing Ukrainians to decide about this divisive question and to respond to an abrupt change of the status quo, the civil war was made unavoidable.

But note that the other "powers" outside Ukraine that were deciding about the Ukrainian internal conflict were Russia and the European Union, not the U.S. Of course, in early 2014, the U.S. "brokered a transition of power in Ukraine", as Obama boasted, but that wasn't because someone in Ukraine actually wanted these things to be decided by the U.S. It was because the U.S. couldn't resist to stick their "liberal" interventionist pricks inside other countries including those in Europe.



Second, the very idea that the pro-Kiev-junta troops are "pro-U.S. troops" is cool from a historical viewpoint. The picture above (click to zoom in) shows the Azov Battalion, the most important (loosely affiliated) subset of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). While the Novorussian Armed Forces closed the cauldron around Debaltsevo and units of UAF begin to surrender, Azov began an offensive from Mariupol (which they currently control) and grabbed several villages from NAF in recent 24 hours.

Note that Azov uses nice logos, especially the symbol on the right side – Americans must be proud that these troops are "pro-U.S. troops", unless they worry that America actually fought against these folks in the most recent world war.



The pro-U.S. troops in the Azov Battalion sometimes have to see the doctor, too. This guy's pro-U.S. tattoo is well done, isn't it?

U.S. bailout for Greece

Tomorrow, the new Greek communist government has to present its "alternative plan" what to do with their debt because, as you must have heard, these comrades don't want to repay the debt in the old-fashioned sense because capitalism and what we considered to be debt repayment has failed, they decided, because it has led to austerity and the Greek people just don't like it. The fact that all the Greek troubles were caused by four decades of completely wrong, left-wing, anti-growth, and financially irresponsible policies is of course a taboo.

While Europe has already understood that the Greeks have become full-time parasites who are abusing the compassion and the apparent (mostly fictitious) relationships that exist between the European nations because of the Eurozone and the European Union, most of the American officials – with the exception of Alan Greenspan who understands that no one can pay these freeloaders permanently – seem clueless.

Obama has indirectly supported the idea that Europe should forgive the debt and to keep on sending unlimited amounts of money to this black hole because these people are not doing great and it's bad to impose "austerity" when someone is not doing well. But there are billions of people in the world who are doing less well than Greece was doing in recent years. Why doesn't comrade Obama end the "austerity" of those nations, e.g. his homeland of Kenya?



A detail that makes the situation even funnier is that the new Greek defense minister, a guy from the fascist party that has formed the "diverse" coalition with the Marxists in Syriza, emphasizes that Greece has a "Plan B" where to get the funding after they are told "nein" tomorrow. They will just ask the U.S., China, or Russia for cash. And perhaps someone else, too.

I have already discussed some aspects of the idea of a Russian bailout for Greece. But what about the American one? It's even better. Barack Obama – along with the "economist" Paul Krugman – considers himself a soulmate of Syriza. So why wouldn't America just pay the debt and provide Greece with extra funding? It makes much more sense than to ask the most important European power(s) – which clearly have very different beliefs about the desirable management of government finances and about the very meaning of the word "debt".

Obama may simply mint a trillion dollar coin and use 1/2 of it to repay the Greek debt and the rest of it to stimulate the growth. With his modest help, Syriza may hire everyone into the public sector and pay the 13th and 14th salary and pensions to everybody, and so on.

Such a new affiliation of Greece with the U.S. would surely solve a problem that the European countries are facing and have been facing for several years. ;-) I am mostly joking but not quite. It really does seem that the White House is being occupied by a guy who thinks that to be unable to pay while having half a trillion of debt isn't a problem and the government is obliged (or, if it becomes impossible, other governments are obliged) to guarantee high living standards to such people.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (174) :


reader MikeNov said...

.5C when the overall warming is .7 to .8C is pretty substantial. With GISS and NOAA, it looks like they are smearing the urban warming onto rural areas rather than the reverse.

Either way, it is not that the paper by Phil Jones i wrong, though this is the paper for which Doug Keenan accused him of fraud, since they do not have the records to back it up. It is that the IPCC is willing to use one paper to settle the issue. They don't want to see another answer.


reader MikeNov said...

Now I'm worried Obama will do it. He feels that US wealth must be transferred to the rest of the world. He is also very sympathetic to government bureaucracy that eats up money and votes for more socialism.


reader Philip Weisler said...

Could you Luboš please explain me two simple questions? a) Why is US help to Ukraine unacceptable and illegitimate; and b) Russian military help to the secessionist side completely moral, constructive and OK?

Btw, ''Independent Greeks'' are not ''fascist'' by any stretch of imagination. It's like calling right-wing Tories ''Nazis''. You have lots of good posts here as well but such one-sided and primitve coverage will do a disservice to your blog


reader Gene Day said...

No. The satellite may send out a sharp (radar or optical) pulse but the return signal is a horrific mess when over the ocean. Over land, of course, things works quite well and the measured rise of the Antarctic Peninsula, (an amazing 15 mm/year) is probably accurate.
There are numerous problems over water but the big one is the rapidly changing nature of the reflecting surface. Our oceans are never smooth and it is necessary to do iffy simulations in order to model the behavior of the reflecting water surface. When fluid turbulence is involved, modeling usually involves wishful thinking just as for climate modeling.
The angle if incidence equals the angle of reflection, of course, so the only thing that is seen is the small fraction of the sea surface that happens (instantaneously) to be orthogonal to the line of sight. Diffraction limitations cause the observed area to be much larger than the detailed structure of the water’s surface, naturally.
You can find the raw data on the NOAA website and I have done that. It is just a mess and I am sure that an honest reporting of the experiments would show a rise rate of about 3.0 +/- 3.0 mm/year at best.
I would add that, even in the rare case when the ocean is very smooth, there are many things other than melting land ice that effect the level. These things are not well understood, either.


reader Swine flu said...

This is really not complicated. Until the EU gets out of its diapers and assumes full responsibility for its own defense, the US will remain a regular presence in European affairs.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Mike, what would happen internally in the U.S. politics if he did something like that? Would the Republicans object? How?


reader Justin Boston said...

Oxford defines adjustment as "a small alteration or movement made to achieve a desired fit, appearance, or result" as well as "the process of adapting or becoming used to a new situation." So you are correct that adjustments can be good as they help to achieve the desired result. And therein lies the problem with temperature adjustments. Skeptics by and large believe these adjustments are being made for a "desired result," and not necessarily the desired result intended by all. I think the phrase 'temperature alterations' might be a better term in this case, and also something more people could adjust to over time.


reader Gene Day said...

Now you know why I voted for Obama in 2008. The alternative was John McCain, who would send high-tech American arms to Kiev tomorrow and the marines next week.


reader Gene Day said...

So much for CNN, Lubos, but they are getting slammed everywhere I look. Even by the sophomoric standards of current journalism this one is just nuts and everyone knows it.
I do think you are taking this inanity a little too seriously.


reader Gene Day said...

I don’t even know what MikeNov is talking about; do you?


reader Gail Combs said...

OH, and Luboš
Look at this graph of the Raw data
US Temperatures Show No Correlation With CO2 increase
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/screenhunter_5685-dec-30-18-55.gif

and this graph showing the adjustments perfectly correlate with CO2 increase.
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_3233-oct-01-22-59.gif

Those two graphs alone are utterly damning.


reader Luboš Motl said...

I get your point, Gene.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Gene, that's strange, I understood him perfectly.


reader Richard Warren said...

I don't believe I would have told that one, brother.


reader Richard Warren said...

If pro US means supporting the actual values or interests of the vast majority of the people in the US, then of course they are not pro US. If, however, by pro US one means (as does CNN) deemed (rationally or not) to be in some fashion useful to the interests of the administration, its a different question.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Philip, first, I don't think that there is evidence that the Russian government is materially supporting the Novorussian republics. But let me generously ignore this detail because I think that Russia *should* officially support them.


It is by orders of magnitude more justifiable for Russia to support Novorussia in the civil war than it is for the U.S. to support Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk because:


1) There are tens of millions of ethnic Russians on the Ukrainian territory, and the political rights of O(10 million) were really reduced (starting from the non-democratic coup against the Russophone president) while thousands of ethnic Russians have been killed


2) Ukraine has a very long border with Russia and any major political changes in Ukraine represent a potential existential threat for Russia. Ukraine has been a part of countries with the capital city in Moscow for centuries and even in recent decades, continued to be a part of the Russian sphere of influence and its buffer zone


3) Russia is generously hosting about 1 million refugees who escaped from Ukraine due to the civil war, the U.S. hosts almost none, and it has very good reasons to wish that the outflow of people from Ukraine to Russia slows down or gets reverted


I will generously overlook your "systemic" unjustified attack in your comment but won't be this generous forever.


reader Michael said...

Hi Lubos,

"We could argue that the Earth's gravity determines the size of the animals because this size may be maximized so that the bones may sustain the weight"



I don't remember if I have mentioned this here before, but this made me think of "the thick atmosphere solution to the huge size of the dinosaurs"


The dinosaurs were very big and heavy, especially some of the sauropods (some say 70-100 tons). Now their weight increase as their dimension to the third power, but the strength of their bones only to the second, so the bones must become relatively bigger to support their weight. And it could be they are just too weak, as well as the muscles having trouble for these large animals.


The flying dinosaurs (well technically these aren't dinosaurs but whatever, the pterosaurs), where apparently also much much too big and heavy to fly, but they are clearly built for it, and it is silly to say that they could not fly.


The two-legged carnivores were also very heavy for being two-legged and also built very stream-lined.


Now the thick atmosphere solution is simply that the atmosphere was so thick that it exerted considerably buoyancy to help the big animals lift themselves, and it makes sense for many to be two-legged, and aerodynamic with the long stiff tail and narrow built so they easily "cut through" the increased air resistance.


reader Oliver_K_Manuel said...

Regretfully, Lubos, you are wrong.

Data adjustments are used to protect false consensus models from reality of a pulsar-centered Sun one astronomical unit (1AU) from Earth.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Swine flu, another point is that it is *stupid* for America to insert its prick everywhere.


Equally importantly, Ukraine has nothing to do with the EU and if someone powerful enough is responsible for its defense, it is Russia, and as far as I can see, Russia is willing to assume full responsibility for its defense.


reader Gene Day said...

Why not? I did not make a mistake.


reader Roby 83 said...

A worry is that many videos paint Obama as a ridiculous feminist comparing him to Putin. So Obama might have stupid reactions against Putin...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiUYlm7M6vc


reader Gene Day said...

I was referring to his first sentence. Reducing our wealth for the benefit of others would be political suicide and, while he is no genius, he is not stupid.


reader Oliver_K_Manuel said...

You or your parents probably lived under communism. You should have recognized the danger of totalitarian science.


reader Shannon said...

Lol! The US are not defending the EU, they do right the opposite ! Don't you see that we are ennemies ? This is war!


reader D J said...

As Paul Homewood has shown, the weather record in Iceland tells us the truth, while the "homogenized" temperature data shows us the lie.


reader Richard Warren said...

In a piece Michael Zantovsky wrote about the Havel Doctrine of "humanitarian intervention" he noted that the weakness lies in the question of who determines what is evil. This misses the point in current American politics, where the question is not about evil at all but mostly about whose short term political interests are served. Whether the pro Russian people are worse or better than the other guys is simply not relevant to whatever decision the US government will make.


reader Oliver_K_Manuel said...

You are praising Lubos' keen intellect?


reader Philip Weisler said...

''* anti-immigration and having lots of xenophobic policies
* they are violently anti-German''

Look, mate, since when do you consider anti-immigration policies automatically ''fascist''? It's more like the leftist game of calling anyone opposed to uncontrolled mass immigration ''far-right'' etc. You know this very well.

Also, being stupidly anti-German does not make you a fascist either. SYRIZA is just as anti-German as Independent Greeks and I don't think you dispute they are hard-left.


reader Swine flu said...

Some of what's happening is merely a consequence of the decisions made way before 2008. After expanding NATO too far East and assuming responsibility for defending countries bordering Russia, the last thing anyone wants is to actually have to defend them. And now that Russia has shown that it is willing to act aggressively in its neighborhood, something that was bound to happen sooner or later, there must be fear that if it is not intimidated somehow to "not do it again", NATO may end up facing a most unpleasant prospect of either having to deal with Russia directly in the Baltics and possibly elsewhere, or revealing NATO security guarantees to be utterly hollow.

And so the US administration, despite its head clearly being an isolationist at heart who doesn't like the idea in the least, is now talking of sending heavy weapons to Ukraine. One can only wonder how it will all end, and I don't just mean Ukraine.


reader Swine flu said...

So, the US troops stationed in Germany are an occupying force?


reader BobSykes said...

Yes.


reader Richard Warren said...

It would seem to me that the onus of justifying adjustments would be on those making them, particularly when they want to use the adjusted data to support policies that have the potential to needlessly degrade the life of every person on the planet. It is reported at least that those doing the adjusting have not chosen to explain their actions. In light of the recorded willingness of some of them to lie to achieve their goals, I don't think it is irrational to suspect their product.


Similarly, if their adjustments arguably do not affect their overall conclusions, an interested observer might reasonably want to see what conclusions the unadjusted data leads to.


I am an occasional consumer of scientific reports and always want to know (even if I do not always fully understand) how the data was arrived at, which includes such things as interpolations and adjustments (to account for things like missing data and changes and disparities in data collection rates, methodologies, and equipment), even if I have confidence in the end product because of who did it, because I may at some point be called upon to defend them and their conclusions. I frequently find big conclusions based on scanty actual data.


The stridency of the vocal condemnation by unsophisticated opponents of global warming radicalism (such as myself) of adjustments may be attributable more to the lack of candor and transparency of the global warming crowd than to any real antipathy toward science.


I see no "moral equivalence" between those who, out of "rational ignorance," condemn those who roundly deserve to be condemned but for the wrong reason, and those who know better yet choose to mislead the public.


reader Shannon said...

Yes.


reader tarajunky said...

The USCRN network shows a decade-long cooling trend, the satellite data show a decade-long pause or cooling trend, the radiosonde data don't match up with the land measurements.

WHY do people insist on using the most flawed dataset we have as the basis for their beliefs about the state of the climate?

Back in the late 90's when the satellite measurements were spiking to record highs, all the Warmists flocked to the satellite data saying that land and ocean measurements were obsolete and flawed. Now they're back selling the flawed, obsolete data because the other datasets don't match their narrative.

We have more than enough satellite data collected to prove that the Global Warming models and the underlying hypothesis are false. The scientific method can only disprove what is wrong, it can never prove something to be right. The reluctance of so many to allow ugly facts to disprove their beautiful hypothesis tells me that this has morphed into more of a new-age religion than a scientific endeavor.


reader Shannon said...

The US should pay the full amount of the Greek debt. Nothing else in return. Then the US should kneel down and thank Greece for accepting the deal. :-)


reader Luboš Motl said...

Sure and I am just watching The Hunt for Red October 1990 which starts by Sean Connery's murder of obnoxious KGB political officer Putin.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Sorry, Gentlemen, I obviously can't afford to waste the time to respond to every single nut job who has posted to this thread because their number is overwhelming. None of you has presented any genuine or rational evidence that any of the global-temperature-related adjustments were illegitimate.


reader Swine flu said...

But the point is that the U.S. will keep doing stupid things. Our foreign policy of late is about creating as many failed states as we can manage. So, if you don't want to get entangled with the U.S. stupidity, and right now you are entangled, get yourself a real army. The U.S. would never meddle in Ukraine if it didn't have other security responsibilities in Europe.


reader tarajunky said...

That second graph has been floating around now for months, and I still haven't seen anyone making these adjustments even attempt to dispute or explain it. The only quote I've seen was that the NCDC stated "our algorithm is working as designed".

Clearly CO2 levels are a key part of that algorithm, whether intentional or not.


reader Swine flu said...

The US has about 39 thousand military personnel stationed in Germany. It's a substantial force. For comparison, the US only has about 29 thousand in South Korea.

The data is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments


reader Truthseeker said...

I could not put it better than Tony has himself ...

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/lubos-missing-the-forest-for-the-trees/


reader Luboš Motl said...

They're measurements of temperature, not CO2. None of the major teams that maintains a surface temperature record is using any information about CO2 to evaluate the temperatures and only loons believe that this is happening.


reader Truthseeker said...

Using the ad hominem attacks of "nut job" and "crackposts" is really showing your scientific credentials ...
Then you continue with "... completely automatized in the BEST approach ..." which is an arguement from authority logical fallacy.
All of Tony Heller's work on the US land data set and Ken Kingdom's work on the Australian land data set are fully substantiated from the raw and adjusted data sets supplied by the relevant agencies. So your "totally unsubstantiated" remark is simply wrong.
So your argument is made up of logical fallacies and false statements. Based on that, how much weight should anyone give anything you say on this subject?


reader QsaTheory said...

It is a complex multidimensional problem, involving the concerned governments(failed), shrewd businessmen/gangs on both sides, the illogical behavior of both the immigrants and our people.


In your case the problem is minute comparing to ours. Such campaign you saw in the article is just a once in a blue moon to give the impression that authorities are doing something about it. But each year the influx is more than the previous one. It is a huge industry for certain people, but these lower end workers still make 3-6 times more money than home if they find a job there. So the incentive is so strong to come here at any cost. Moreover, healthcare is free, so you see so many of them bring their wife even their salary is low because it only cost 6 dollars to deliver a baby with a state of the art healthcare. Abundance of cheap and good products. You can imagine the pressure that our infrastructure is under.


They can only be deported if they cannot find a job, however, if they cannot find a job they can always pay money to a "phony" sponsor(company). Many of them engage in multiple illegal jobs, illegal activities, crime. There are areas of no go which look like a different country all together.


On one hand I wish their governments takes care of them and they stay home. On the other hand, you can't blame them from trying to escape poverty.


Of course the whole ordeal is mismanaged among many other mismanaged issues.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Ha ha ha! You French are adorable.


reader Cogniscentum said...

How do you go from communism to fascism? You change the stationary and marketing campaign.


Done. Next problem?


reader Cogniscentum said...

"Air touches your brain, your never the same." is a saying of brain surgeons. Air touched Biden's brain when he had the aneurysm.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Then why does it bother you obsessively.


reader Luboš Motl said...

The presentation of this correlation makes it very clear that the person who was doing that has no idea what he's doing. Instead of a correlation with CO2, one could easily describe it as a correlation between the correction and time - because CO2 depended on time via a monotonically increasing function, anyway.

The correlation between the correction and time is in no way surprising - it just means that the breakpoints that need to be adjusted were increasing with time. In fact, it may even be understood why these breakpoint corrections were approximately a linear function of CO2 because the CO2 excess above 280 ppm is proportional to the CO2 emissions, for the exponential growth, and CO2 emissions may be easily proportional to the number of urban heat islands that are created and that force to relocate stations etc. - proportional to the overall activity that makes breakpoints necessary.

At any rate, these adjustments were done automatically at BEST and what they really are, and how small they are, is described by graphs, including the U.S. 48 graphs, at

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/



No information about CO2 was used (e.g. by BEST) in these temperature reconstructions because it's temperature, stupid, and only unhinged conspiracy theorists may believe otherwise.


reader Werdna said...

For a long time I've been bothered both by a belief by those-let's call them "extreme skeptics"- who think all the records and all the adjustments are biased and incorrect in one direction, and by those who on the contrary, think there is no bias whatsoever. I think the answer lies in between, but not because I apply some sort of Golden Mean Fallacy: No, instead, to quote Issac Newton "I have calculated it."

I haven't done the analysis in a while-most recently, over a year ago now-but I could update it at any time: An empirical estimate, of the potential warming bias in the temperature record, at least for the period from 1979 to the present. And it's not zero.

I actually got the idea from something from the climategate emails, that was a communication between (if I remember correctly) Ben Santer and Tom Wigley. They were discussing the lack of the expected amplification of trends at the surface, in the troposphere, and the fact that fluctuations from say, El Nino/La Nina, and volcanic eruptions, did appear to be enhanced aloft. The idea was that I could empirically estimate a "scale factor" for estimating surface temperature anomalies from satellite LT anomalies. As you say to Mr Heller, Lubos, we would expect satellites and surface stations to say the same thing since they are measuring different things. But theory, models, and empirical data can be used, together, to tell us what these two things should say in relation to one another.

I get some mixed, but interesting results:

https://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/temperature-data-internally-consistent-beliefs-and-data-bias/


Contra-Heller et al. there appears to be no warming bias from adjustments, indeed hardly an bias is apparent at all in the US temperature data, when compared to lapse rate scale factor adjusted satellite anomalies for the same region.


But globally, there appears to be some substantial, residual bias toward warming in the surface temperature data.


Heller et al. are wrong indeed to think all adjustments are suspect. NOAA's procedures appear to produce good results in places like the US, which actually completely invalidates almost everything Heller has been screaming about for several years now. But it is also true that data bias plays a larger role than people on the other side would be willing to admit.


reader dave1964b said...

Why wait for the EU to "get out of their diapers"? I say just pull out all US military presence now.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Very nice but is this some joke? The air today is about 1,000 times lighter than water (or flesh, which approximately floats) so do you really propose that the air was 100+ times denser back then?


reader dave1964b said...

The Republicans are phonies. US politics is totally down the toilet.


reader dave1964b said...

Reducing US wealth for the benefits of others is central to Obama, but not in Ukraine or Greece. Obama is all about the third world.


reader Swine flu said...

It can be done "now", which would be irresponsible, or over a period of time to allow our current allies to take over their defense needs in an orderly manner.


reader dave1964b said...

Why would it be irresponsible? Western Europe isn't facing imminent invasion.


reader Cogniscentum said...

FYI: There is zero appetite for intervention in Ukraine in American public. Zero. Except for one crazy old coot from Arizona. Putin may do as he likes. His confreres may shoot down as many airliners as they feel the job requires. He knows this and is acting on this certain knowledge.


reader dave1964b said...

"One of the lessons of history is that France is an important country and that those who think otherwise realize their mistake sooner or later." Yes, France was an important country in 1914.


reader dave1964b said...

No, the US saved you assholes.


reader dave1964b said...

"Assholes. Never try to save us again. OK ? We don't like you and we don't need you."



Fine with me. We don't like you either.


reader Cogniscentum said...

I don't care about any of them, honestly. We have our nuclear deterrent, two oceans, and a continent, more oil and coal than we can use in centuries. Huge agricultural capacity. Mineral wealth of every kind.


reader Luboš Motl said...

I watched Mel Gibson as the Patriot a few days ago. So don't forget that without the help of France,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War



you may have remained the rural British colonial bumpkins who would love to avoid paying the U.K. taxes even officially! ;-)


reader dave1964b said...

France did save the US in the revolutionary war, but what relevance is that to this discussion? He was talking about WW2. You can't deny that the US and Britain drove the Nazi's out of France.


reader QsaTheory said...

There is no unified opinion about public opinion influence on foreign policy.

http://www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/To%20what%20extent%20is%20foreign%20policy%20making%20affected%20by%20public%20opinion.pdf


reader Luboš Motl said...

I am surely not denying it. The U.S. army also drive Nazis out of my hometown and a part of Czechoslovakia, unfortunately just 10% which wasn't enough for making Western Bohemia a country analogous to West Germany. ;-)


reader dave1964b said...

"Dear Swine flu, another point is that it is *stupid* for America to insert its prick everywhere. " I agree completely. The US has been making stupid moves since the end of WW2, especially from Vietnam onward.


reader dave1964b said...

"the French fertility rate is 2.08 children/woman versus 1.43 for Germany" Is that for native French women or including Muslim immigrants to France?


reader Swine flu said...

Some West European countries are closer to Russia than others. And I am not talking about Ukraine. :)


reader Swine flu said...

Sudden changes are often destabilizing in ways that aren't always easy to foresee.

As for not caring ... Well, listening to the Europeans yap about the US being this and the US being that gets old after a while and also has a way of putting one in the mood to wish them a happy self-immolation while we enjoy the bounty of a separate continent. And yet, there's this thing called Western Civilization, which we do belong to. So, a certain measure of well-being of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys and their various neighbors does matter some in the end. The thing is, they have the resources to provide for their own security, but they will need some time to ramp them up properly. So, I am for an orderly transition.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Interesting paper, thank you.


On
the one hand realists find public opinion volatile, emotional, lacking coherence and
structure, and with little if any influence on foreign affairs. On the other, liberalists
suggest that public opinion on international affairs is stable, sensibly structured,
consistent, and influences foreign policy making in a ‘reciprocal relationship’. Hence,
some leaders take into account the public opinion when making important decisions
others ignore it.



I guess the liberalists are morons who think countries can be friends and should be laughed out of the academy. ;)


reader QsaTheory said...

I think the world is much more a complicated place these days. You know, the global village. one look at these statistics and you will see that such simplistic solutions are not viable.

http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_imports.html


reader Swine flu said...

I see you are still lamenting the end of the Cold War.


reader dave1964b said...

? Your comment makes zero sense.


reader Gail Combs said...

"Data is what is measured everything else is analysis. It’s just that simple."

However if you want to talk the Zeke/ Mosh adjustments lets talk about two of them.
@ Judith Curry's Zeke wrote in an article entitled Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data.

"Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements."

Should this cause a cooling or a warming of the older temperature data?

In " Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting" 1918 by Willis Isbister Milham

Mr Miham states:
QUOTE
...When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread....
.................

.....The observations of temperature taken at a regular station are the real air temperature at 8am and 8pm, the highest and lowest temperatures of the preceding 12 hours, and a continuous thermograph record.... (Richard Freres thermograph) ....these instruments are located in a thermometer shelter...

...The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887...will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree....
UNQUOTE

On page 68 he says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. Two thermometers are used an Alcohol for Minimum and a Mercury for Maximum supplied with a manual in 1882 to the coop stations by the US Weather Bureau. Milham mentions the Six thermometer and says the accuracy was not good so the US weather service used the two thermometers mentioned above.

So some stations were getting continuous readings some were read twice a day and the coop stations had the mercury thermometer read in the afternoon because that was the most accurate!

So based on that historical information should we be cooling the past temperatures as is the case with the official dataset? Should we leave them alone? OR Should we add back the half degree lost because the temperature was read in the evening?


reader Gail Combs said...

And then there is the second adjustment mentioned by Zeke.

....For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s....

Yet notrickszone reports
QUOTE
...German veteran meteorologist Klaus Hager, see here and here. The test compared traditional glass mercury thermometer measurement stations to the new electronic measurement system, whose implementation began at Germany’s approximately 2000 surface stations in 1985 and concluded around 2000.

Hager’s test results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings: a whopping mean of 0.93°C warmer. The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “warmer” system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer is: absolutely!...
http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.Es2IbMZo.sAqMRsUB.dpbs
UNQUOTE

so with just those two wrong way adjustments they change the data by more than 1 °C and that does not get into dropping rural stations and smearing the data from airports for 1200 kilometers.


reader Eclectikus said...

Yes Gene, I was not intended to speak about rigorous science though, but rather about applied science and geosciences. Some errors could be flagged as systematic errors, but usually you have no clue where the error comes, and the error of bad faith can not be ruled out. I mean, in an atmosphere of mistrust and notwithstanding that adjustments are naturally essentials, they are also unavoidably the usual suspects as a source of biasing, and in that sense, is not extravagant that skeptics suspect that settings in land temperature series, might being not properly applied. My comment (as devil's advocate) is just to point out that there is a certain logic (and legitimity) in the fact that skeptics suspect about adjustments even by default.


reader Gail Combs said...

And if you want to get into the station drop out Verity Jones did a great job of showing how Canadian data stations were dropped and the temperature warmed as a result.
Canada – Top of the Hockey League (Part 1)
https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/canada-top-of-the-hockey-league-part-1/

E.M. Smith did the same with Bolivia
The Bolivia Effect: GIStemp anomaly maps show warmth where there is no data.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/


reader manicbeancounter said...

I happen to agree with you Lubos. The overall impact of adjustments is likely to be small on the overall warming trend - but is sufficient to invalidate 2014 as the warmest year.

More significant was something I found for the Paraguay data. A large fall in temperature in the late 1960s across at least eight temperature stations met with a 1C temperature adjustment. There seems to have been a regional / sub-regional fall in temperatures that was incorrectly identified as an anomaly, so adjusted out of the record due to it being regarded as an anomaly. There seems to have been a lack of trust in the instruments.

http://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/020815_2350_isthereahom8.jpg?w=900


reader Swine flu said...

What about Muslim immigrants having sex with native French women?

But to come back to your question in its simpler form, the CIA World Factbook gives the surprisingly large range of 5%-10% for the percentage of Muslims in France. It would appear that the number is not well-known, so let's use 7.5%. One can do simple math to find that if this many immigrants had 3 children per woman, the natives would still have to have 2.005 children per woman for the total to be 2.08. With 4 immigrant children per woman, the natives would have 1.92 per woman, while with 5 immigrant children per woman, the natives would have to have 1.84.

It appears that the native French are still having a respectable number of children even under fairly unfavorable scenarios.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Exactly. It's not like we are expecting the French to snuff the militarization of the Rhineland or anything.


reader Swine flu said...

What solutions? I didn't propose any solutions, only that the zeroing out of the US commitments to European security to be done in an orderly manner rather than precipitously.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Well the Cold War ended well for us despite decades of "stupidity." We are the Forest Gump country.


reader dave1964b said...

Well maybe, I hate to make definite statements without hard data. But I think the real number of Muslims in France is probably closer to 12% and they are probably averaging 5 children each. But you are right even then its a bit favorable compared to Germany, but you can also see that over time that as long as the French birthrate is below "replacement" over time the Muslims will become majority population. I could care less - but just observing that this is the path they are on.


reader dave1964b said...

I really can't see Russia starting a full scale war in Europe. In fact Putin has been remarkably restrained in the Ukrainian situation. If he wanted to Russia could take over the entire area in a week.


reader Gail Combs said...

And if you do not like the analysis by independents even the Russians accused the Adjustments of being biased.

From the Ria Novosti agency,

QUOTE
On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
UNQUOTE


reader Swine flu said...

The point was that enough things had to be done right to win the Cold War.

It's an interesting question how avoidable Vietnam really was. The US set up the kind of world order after WWII where it would protect those taking part in it from the Soviets. If it didn't actually go to war wherever Communism metastasized, its protection would lose credibility. (This is what's likely to happen with the Baltics after the Ukraine debacle.) Back in those days the US sought to be credible. It might lose a war, but it would go to war. And that was the message.

And pulling China away from Soviet Union was not a minor step either, as history has clearly shown.



So, no, plenty of things were done right, but certainly not all of them.


reader CJ said...

Just when it looks like the mainstream media might start questioning the validity of temperature data used by President Obama to enact draconian climate and energy regulations you throw cold water on the whole thing and even call Steve Goddard "irrational". You appear to agree with Steve Goddard that the temperature data was probably adjusted to show warming but make a big deal about how some adjusted data is a good thing. With President Obama claiming Climate Change is a greater threat to the U.S. than Radical Islamic terrorism or Iran about to get nukes this appears to be a relatively minor point in the whole scheme of things. Why not emphasize the part showing the data does appear to be adjusted thus should not be used to make energy policy with. Energy policy like shutting down U.S. Coal which provides the U.S. 40% or our energy and blocking development of the U.S. vast natural fossil fuel resources.


reader Swine flu said...

How full scale? Like taking Berlin and Paris? Unlikely. But being a major headache for any number of countries closer to Russia geographically is certainly something to consider.

He's been restrained because the response after the Crimea annexation has been fairly forceful, so he is still testing waters. Maybe the damage will remain fairly contained, but it's too early to tell.

Russia would recreate Soviet Union in part if it could, and quite possibly some of the Eastern block as well. The balance of military force still matters in today's world. I wish it didn't, but it does.


reader William said...

But is that actually what the United States wants, though? The Common Security and Defence Policy of the European Union was criticized by many in America. For example, by Madeleine Albright, who was worried that it would decouple Europe from NATO.



It seems to me that the United States doesn't really want an independent European defence. It would undermine and weaken the Americentric NATO alliance, and it would pretty much end American control over the various European armed forces.


Also, why is it necessarily irresponsible if the United States quickly withdraws its troops from Europe? You seem to imply that Europe is threatened. By whom? I just don't see why we should have fear of a Russian or Chinese invasion. It's American fear mongering.



Besides, isn't it a big and pervasive American myth anyway, that Europe is weak? Total European defence expenditure is 2nd in the world, only behind the United States. Furthermore, Britain and France have powerful nuclear deterrents.


reader Gail Combs said...

You are not reading the graphs correctly.

They are not BEST

QUOTE
The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is a high-quality data set of daily and monthly records of basic meteorological variables from 1218 observing stations across the 48 contiguous United States....
Most of these stations are U.S. Cooperative Observing Network stations located generally in rural locations...
UNQUOTE

Therefore your comments are completely inappropriate for the data set presented.


reader QsaTheory said...

"mood to wish them a happy self-immolation while we enjoy the bounty of a separate continent"

I just interpreted what you said as a separate living. I do not believe that you can separate economics from politics, there is a very complex interconnection.

"Global economic crisis or widespread economic slowdown;" a quote from this

Obama’s National Security Strategy: New Framework, Same Policies

http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/2015/02/06/obamas-national-security-strategy-new-framework-same-policies/


reader Swine flu said...

The EU "getting out of its diapers" can involve telling the US to leave the continent alone, whether the US is thrilled by the idea or not. I didn't say anything to suggest otherwise.



And the problem is not whether Britain and Franch will be attacked by Russia. They won't be. It's the countries geographically close to Russia one has to worry about.


reader John Archer said...

"John is a protestant which is closed to the talmudists. Business and money is their God."

Haha!

I get your drift but is that "closed" a typo — surely you intended "close"? No?

Anyway, you're wrong on all counts. :)

I'm not the religious type. And business and money are not ends in themselves, unless of course one is completely screwed in the head. They are good only for a purpose, which by definition would therefore have a prior claim to any godhead.

Nevertheless, dominus vobiscum, Shannon, et mecum, natürlich.


reader Swine flu said...

Oh, that quote was simply that one occasionally gets tired of hearing the Europeans whine about the US. Many of them who permanently live in the US can be just as tiring in this regard. After a while it makes you wonder why they are still here.


reader John Archer said...

It's the "what".

But the white supremacists types etc don't bother me. After all I'm white too.

Actually I'm not entirely sure what a white supremacist is supposed to be but from what I can tell at least one of their aims seems to be broadly the same as mine, namely chucking all the wogs and other turd-world dross back out. So there's obviously some affinity there and I'd rather associate with them than anything that nowadays could be described as 'liberal', in that now wholly corrupted sense of the term anyway. I'm not interested myself though in lording it over other races, if that's what it entails. But each to his own as long as they don't expect me or mine to support any foreign adventures pursuing that aim.

Britain for Britons. No one else. It's that simple.

Sieg heil!


reader Gene Day said...

American public opinion forced us out of Iraq, Vietnam, Korea and, now, Afghanistan. It is asinine to think that any US government can ignore public opinion for long. That, actually, is a very good thing.


reader Gene Day said...

You are basically right in that this country is not ready to commit ground troops to that conflict but you sound like just another Putin demonizer. This anti-Russia phobia needs to end.


reader Gene Day said...

We are not the lender in this charade, Shannon; it’s your problem.


reader Gene Day said...

Yes, it would be a huge mistake to send arms.


reader Uncle Al said...

I often disagree with some of Luboš' postulates, offering empirical falsifying tests in counterpoint. One cannot fault his rational pragmatic derivations. The world is not about promised whipped cream, it is about delivered steak. If you want steak you cannot ignore accumulating manure. It must be removed, not called "sausage" and eaten with relish.


reader Jeff Id said...

So, on reading this again, and after some time with BEST, I would say that I again agree with Lubos's commentary. Were this blog easier to comment on, I would probably do so more often.

Corrections to the temperature record are not necessarily bad. That is from someone who was written up in two fraudulent psychology papers for allegedly claiming the opposite. BEST, however, has a cut and splice methodology for temperature records which for all intents and purposes is statistically un-vetted. As Mosher points out, the differences in its methodology and standard results are so minimal that mentioning them against Lubos's point that the entire modern history of temp has minimal change is pointless. Lubos would need a government license to be more right about that particular point. However, BEST does appear to be wrong in its jackknife CI calculation. ---- I'm starting to feel like Doug Cotton for bringing that old argument up again! I really don't give a crap if they don't want to make a good CI calc as few pay attention or even understand its significance (some pun intended). It's their own ignorance at stake, not mine.

I wouldn't expect even tenths of a degree change in the temp trend either way but BEST is a black box right now that spits out an answer from what is probably the single mose complete raw dataset anyone has ever collected. Wasted opportunity anyone?

What I don't really like is the claim that skeptics demand adjustments. Watts has never asked for adjustments, he has asked for elimination of bad data on the basis of sighting. That is scientifically different and wholly arguable from a scientific standpoint. CA has never argued for more adjustments, I have never asked for that. In fact, I don't know of any climate change skeptic at all who has asked for "adjustment" to the record. It is the internet though so they must exist somewhere.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the article as always..


reader Gene Day said...

I agree completely and would only add that Obama’s biggest failure is a lack of leadership. We really don’t need a President who just blows in the wind in this, potentially dangerous, situation.


reader Gene Day said...

Again, I agree.


reader Gene Day said...

Yes.


reader Gene Day said...

My goodness. Cheese-eating surrender monkeys? Are you there, Shannon?


reader PR Blondlot said...

You think you are joking, but a US senator has already proposed to bail out Greece using the Federal Reserve.
www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/02/us-senator-demands-a-federal-reserve-bailout-of-greece/


reader Jeff Id said...

You know, it really helps that I've actually made my own global temp series a couple of times. I've always thought that working with the data gives you an entirely more complete understanding. Any question you ask about quality or issues is quickly answerable. From that work I am absolutely certain that global trends aren't going to change much, no matter what reasonable tweaking anyone does to them.

I really wonder if all of BEST or others machinations make any improvement in the final data at all.


reader Gene Day said...

I finally disagree (somewhat) with you. The response to the Crimea annexation has not been strong in any real sense. Putin’s restraint is mainly due to the unaffordable economic cost of occupying Ukraine.
Russia could, indeed, invade and conquer Ukraine in a matter of weeks. It would be expensive but it could be done. But the cost of keeping it would be an order of magnitude greater than any possible benefit.
Russia may dream of past glories during the USSR but is merely a dream.


reader Gene Day said...

That’s OK. You are just cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Ha-ha.


reader Gene Day said...

I’ve wanted to bring them home for decades.


reader Swine flu said...

I regard the response as fairly strong in the following sense. First, the sanctions were imposed. Second, the EU countries have shown sufficient unity. A couple of smaller East European countries disagreed, but overall, there has been a surprising degree of unity in the response. This probably still won't save Ukraine, which seems beyond salvation as a single country at this point, but perhaps it will slow down Russia if its plans include destabilization of any of the Baltic states in order to weaken NATO.



This discussion was actually about whether Europe needs defending from Russia at all. My view is that it would be imprudent to assume otherwise. After all, one could turn the argument around and ask why Russia cares about NATO, since no one would seriously consider invading Russia. And yet, Russia clearly does care about NATO. And so, it makes sense for the European countries to care about Russia's military capabilities and what it might do with them.


reader Gene Day said...

Now, we really do disagree. In no sense did we pull China away from the Soviet Union. That was historically inevitable and, if anything, we slowed the unavoidable divorce.
I do agree that we did many things right but not all of them.


reader Slimething said...

Congratulations Lubos, you have now joined the ranks of John Cook at Skeptical Science by banning those that put you in a bad light. Your thinking on this subject of adjustments is so far off it is probably not worth the time to debate the issue. Maybe However you could explain why SAT is diverging from satellite and radiosonde data when it is the TLT that should be warming at a significantly faster rate than the surface. We've been told for nearly 30 years now the greenhouse effect was going to accelerate.


reader Gene Day said...

We may’ve helped create a few failed states, such as Iraq, but most of them would have made it without our help.


reader Swine flu said...

I thought it was a given that Nixon went to China as part of the Cold War strategy. Even Wikipedia agrees with me :), by saying, "The repercussions of the Nixon visit were vast, and included a significant shift in the Cold War balance, pitting the PRC with the U.S. against the Soviet Union." (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Nixon_visit_to_China )


reader Gene Day said...

I suspect that we won’t actually get very involved. The sanctions are a mistake but military involvement in Ukraine would be a profound mistake.


reader Swine flu said...

In this particular context, it was a term of endearment. :)


reader Gene Day said...

You would do well to avoid personal attacks, Philip. Lubos’ view is more rational than are most of the responses.


reader Swine flu said...

The talk of arming Ukraine may just be a bit of posturing during negotiations with Russia, but we'll see.


reader Swine flu said...

I thought it was universally recognized that Nixon's going to China was very much part of the Cold War strategy.


reader William said...

It was just a question.

So do you agree that the United States doesn't actually want an independent European army? Whenever Europe tries to break free from NATO, it seems the United States tries to pull Europe right back in. Therefore, unlike you, I'm really not convinced the United States would stop trying to influence European affairs regularly, even if a European army is a reality. To truly stop the intermeddling, another prerequisite has to be met: Europe has to decouple from Americentric NATO.

As for any potential Russian attack on France or Britain, I'm not worried about that either. But I'm also not worried about a Russian attack on the Baltics, even without an American presence. Nuclear powers France and Britain, under the mutual defence clause of the Treaty of Lisbon, have the obligation to defend the Baltic states in the event of a Russian invasion. They're in a sense militarily linked. It seems very unlikely that Russia would risk a (military) conflict with the entire European Union.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Responsible world leaders don't seek instability. Instability leads to chaotic and unpredictable turns of events.


We are still paying for that assassination of that Arch-Duke and will for the foreseeable future.


reader CJ said...

Deal with the facts and stop using ad hom attack please. Your point that adjusted data may be justified and anyone who dares question this is irrational sounds bat shit crazy to me.

Gail Combs says:
February 11, 2015 at 2:02 am
I just checked back at Motl’s. He left my first two comments but the others that showed where he was mistaken about Tony’s graphs (They are USHCN rural not BEST) and where the adjustments were incorrect never got posted.

I posted a longer version of the same comments starting HERE:

http://iceagenow.info/2015/02/london-telegraph-agw-biggest-science-scandal/#comment-284188

I sure hope Lubos gets medical help fast.


reader QsaTheory said...

John, please help me to understand. What is it in Indians that you see threatening other than having a different skin.


reader Michael said...

I figured you might answer something like this, but it wasn't actually meant as a joke, so yes. I know it has serious conflicting issues with the standard research, but I just thought if one only entertains the issue with their size for a moment it seems such a simple solution. For example when it is claimed that the pterosaurs couldn't fly http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090428-giant-pterosaurs-fly.html , and from anatomy it is clearly a flying animal (a little like the bumblebee myth perhaps, although I think this only came from a footnote, and of course it is debunked just by looking; it flies about fine.)

In fairness though the critique that the sauropods are too large to walk about has mellowed apparently and it is known that they had huge air-sacks in their bones to make them lighter, like birds do (and the two-legged dinosaurs have feathers now ;-) ). But even with this Argentinosaurus is estimated at 70-100 tons, and it has a very long neck it waves about. In comparison the already very robustly built African male Elephant is at 5 tons. And it is no longer believed that they lived in water to support their weight for several reasons.

It is from this site http://www.dinosaurtheory.com. He also believes that the internal heat in the earth, is not primarily from radioactivity but from tidal heating. Although this is also discussed by many others and mentioned on wiki, so not as controversial in that sense. Tidal forces being the source of internal heat for instance fits with the moon being locked in resonance and being geologically dead. Although he extends it a bit to make it more controversial.


Its just these solutions are so so simple, that I would mention it to you, even though I sort of knew I could risk ridicule as it conflicts so completely with what the standard research indicates.


And you know that with a very thick atmosphere and very strong greenhouse effect (think a Venus Earth, but not at all as extreme of course), the temperature differences between the poles and the equator are mellowed out, something that seems to have been the case in the past (with plants on Antartica and stuff(even though one must remember, of course that the continents move about a lot and can compromise such arguments.)

If you feel it has just wasted your time by being so outrageous and also not amused you, I apologize. But I must admit, ignoring the standard research a bit, it is pretty amazing that a big animal like T-rex is built so streamlined and that the animals, both flying and non-flying, could be so absurdly big. You know many claim that the Andean Condor is the limit for a flying bird; well it clearly wasn't back then. The dinosaurs were so extremely different, it has to have some reasons I think.


reader michael said...

I wrote an answer to this comment but I can't see it. Maybe I am placed on a blacklist because of saying something that conflicts so much with the standard research. But if you have it, I will just add that Amphicolias was estimated at 122 tons.


reader Gene Day said...

We'll see.


reader Rehbock said...

Yes. You are right on all you have said. American public opinion also gets us into these too, though. I hope that you are right that we don't get involved but I know you are right that it would be a huge mistake to send arms.


reader Swine flu said...

I don't know the history of US views on European defense arrangements, so there's little point in my speculating on this subject.

Compared to Britain and France, Russia has the advantage of a common border with two of the Baltics, and of its armed forces geared towards fighting major ground wars. (Here is one way to see this: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp). So, if Russia wanted to take Latvia, for example, it's hard to see Britain and France stopping it.


reader Swine flu said...

Here is a working link: http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp


reader Gene Day said...

Nixon's visit was a very good thing but it was a result of a process that had been going on for a long time. The USSR and China had differing interests, just as China and Russia do today. These differences were more important than any similarities in their "communist" governments. Geopolitics always trumps ideology in the long run.
John Foster Dulles, who did more harm than good, in my view, got it right when he said that nations do not have friends; they have interests.


reader CJ said...

NOAA admits they adjusted their raw temperature data to make the past cooler and the present warmer. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php "Adjustments largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes but appear to leave a small overall residual negative ("cool") bias in the adjusted USHCN version 2 CONUS average maximum temperature."



NOAA's explanation for this does not hold water in my opinion. If the data is bogus why not just discard it? It's pretty fishy when all the so called bogus data is adjusted to cool the past and warm the present. Other examples include in-filling of missing data with warm data rather than cooler data from nearby stations. So much adjusted and missing temperature data says past temperature data are so rotten all the records should all be tossed out. The State Of Denmark Comes To Mind


reader Luboš Motl said...

Thanks, Jeff, for this rare visit of a thoughtful reader to this thread! ;-)


reader Shannon said...

Yes you are. It is entirely your problem. The entire world is your problem. You are responsible for every bad things that happens on earth. You must pay for this. Pay, pay, pay until your printer breaks down.


reader Shannon said...

No problem. With a good propaganda the rest of unitedstatians will agree with you and want war against Russia. Because at the end of the day, no matter what you say, that is what you want. You know nothing else, ultimately, that is what you want. You first, the rest of the world can die.


reader Shannon said...

The reality is that the US is at war against Europe. Russia is only public relation for the media. Business between the US and Russia has gone up 7% since the beginning of the "hostilities".


reader Cogniscentum said...

When I said zero, I included myself. You are the one cheering on Putin in sending heavy weapons across borders.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Sometimes your humor doesn't translate. This time it does.


reader Cogniscentum said...

My senator. What a fool. How does this represent Vermont? It doesn't. Sanders is an international socialist who puts the cause of socialism above the interests of the state that elected him.


reader Cogniscentum said...

Could you define "at war" please?


reader Shannon said...

Oh I see ! You are the "crazy old coot from Arizona" :-)


reader Shannon said...

Glad you take that way :-)


reader Shannon said...

Do you have dictionaries in Arizona ?


reader Cogniscentum said...

That would be Sen John McCain - R Arizona. I was serious in everything I wrote above. Is there something incorrect in what I wrote?


reader Jeff Id said...

I spent a few days working on a correction method for hockey sticks. I never quite solved the problem but you are right that the correction was almost exactly the extracted signal. IMHO, it's hard to beat an average. The problem with proxy data today is that it has been pre-sorted by the industry before the paper even begins. The signal that creates is no different than Mannian regressomatic algorithms.


reader Cogniscentum said...

War: A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.


So you believe that the EU and the US are in a state of armed conflict?


reader Cogniscentum said...

I am from Vermont. The state with the senator who thinks the US should bail out Greece.


reader cynholt said...

Political and military figures criticizing Russia for 'annexing' Crimea 'forget' that an overwhelming proportion of the people there voted to leave Ukraine after the elected government was overturned by a violent coup led by two neo-fascist parties, Svoboda and Right Sector, with US State Department help and financing of the fake 'democracy' movement in Ukraine. They also 'forget' that they have themselves effectively 'annexed' whole swathes of the world with more than 450 US military bases in other peoples' countries, and have invaded and occupied and drone-attacked dozens in the last ten years alone. While Russia, though dominated by oligarchs internally, has approximately 5 military bases outside its borders, and all but one or two are essentially ship refueling points or similar facilities.


reader cynholt said...

Too bad President Putin didn't liberate East Ukraine when Crimea was peacefully liberated. It will be much harder now that the fascists in Kiev have had a chance to organize (with US backing). The people in eastern Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to return to their native Russia. But votes only matter to the USG when they go its way.


reader cynholt said...

Part of what's sick about what we're doing in Ukraine, as well as Syria & Libya, is that if Bush were doing it there'd be marches in the street, but it's the Chosen One so the "liberals" and "pwogs" keep their mouths shut.

This is a dangerous game, there must be deep concerns about imminent American economic collapse for the War Party to push this hard for war with powers this big on such a rapid timetable. What we have here is an armed madhouse run by idiots who still might kill us all.


reader cynholt said...

I think you've missed the point. Russia is being sanctioned for not playing ball and letting the Western players, (that destabilized Ukraine and installed their Soros puppet,) to have their way. So in effect, those restrained sanctions are a slap in the face to Russia for an event that we started/caused. To think that we could just spend 5 billion to topple a government on the Russian border (with warm water naval bases), replace the existing government and get away with it without some pushback is incredible. Russia is being hurt for our meddling and the hate and discontent they feel is growing.


reader cynholt said...

"Pentagon 2008 study claims Putin has Asperger's syndrome"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/04/putin-aspergers-syndrome-study-pentagon/22855927/

There is no way Putin managed to make it as a successful KGB agent for years with Aspergers or any other functional disability.

If anything, Putin is paranoid that someone is out to get him, but on the other hand, there probably are many people out to get him. Shying away from physical contact like that would be something a prudent person in his situation might do.


reader cynholt said...

The brilliant Stephen F Cohen's latest interview on how the Neocon warmongers are setting us on the road to WWIII with this madness:

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts/tues-12715-hr-2-jbs-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton-professor-emeritus-author-soviet-fates

One thing is certain, if parties changed places with pro-Russian government in Kiev and pro-western rebels in Donbass, we'd be reading all over the news about a bloody regime killing its own people.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Excellent interview, Cynthia, I just listened to the whole thing.


reader scooby said...

You're right, but among the European colonial powers it could be argued that the Belgians were worst and the Spanish no better.


reader Gordon said...

What you say is true, but doesn't refute what I said at all. The US is no role model when it comes to behavior, prisons etc, but Saudi Arabia is at least several orders of magnitude worse.
And, of course, Shannon saw the word, Zionist, heard the bell, started salivating, and fav'ed your post:)


reader robaustin said...

Lubos,
I think it was Roy Spencer that did a study of UHI and found that the greatest rate of change of UHI occurs in small population areas, rural to hamlet, hamlet to village etc. Determining theoretical UHI of such a location from satellite measured light emissions is doubtful.


reader robaustin said...

It seems a bit facile to attribute the difference between the satellite records and surface records as deriving from they being "different things". When averaged over the globe, one might not be surprised to see a temperature offset between the two but a temperature divergence over the period of the satellite record is a little more difficult to wave away with the claim of the records being two different things.


reader MyRightPenguin said...

It would be an understatement to say I am disappointed with Lubos immediately jumping to ad homs while at the same time not bothering with attention to detail. Poor show.


reader Walter Starck said...

A most important consideration that is being missed in this matter is that ethical science would demand clear explicit disclosure of why, what and how for any such "adjustment" to data. Hypothetical suggestions as to why such adjustment might be needed are not sufficient. Specific details are required. That widespread undeclared adjustments have been made is in itself poor science. That no detailed explanation has then been offered when this has been requested is simply unacceptable. Scientific ethics demands that any such unsupported claims or studies should be
withdrawn.

The claim that such data manipulation is in accord with "world's best practice" is to effectively admit that climate science is blatantly corrupt and so too must be anyone who then continues to claim scientific authority knowing it is based on such corrupt practice.


reader tushdi said...

Zeke And Mosher Say This Is All Good http://wp.me/pPrQ9-vTx


reader Luboš Motl said...

Sorry, again, I expect some actual arguments showing that the newer version is worse. Goddard gave no such arguments. He just assumes these things.


reader Luboš Motl said...

You're completely wrong, Rob Austin. In realistic theories and models, these quantities behave differently.


In the pro-global-warming models, the temperature trends near the surface and in the mid troposphere differ by a factor of 2 - in the wrong direction, by the way, because the climate models predict that the troposphere warming (seen by satellites) should be *faster*. But it's enough to see that the assumption that these two things should be the same up to a constant offset is very unlikely or dumb, to be precise.


The difference may be smaller for surface vs lower troposphere but lower troposphere is still not the same thing. Moreover, the satellites can't see into the polar regions etc.


You must know some physics to have qualified opinions about all these matters which is why your opinions are not qualified. You are just randomly spitting assertions "hoping" that may be right but there is nothing of substance to back them up.


reader Luboš Motl said...

There are thousands of weather stations in the world and those who maintain them do not have some stellar jobs. They shouldn't even be classified as climate scientists, they are just record keepers. Making fixes like that is a routine part of their work, like adding more salt to bread for bakers. It is totally silly to expect each adjustment in a weather station to become a top story in the media.


What Mosher and others have listed are types of adjustments that are actually happening and represent a significant part of the adjustments. Tons of these adjustments are absolutely logical and sound and justifiable. There may be adjustments that are just wrong, just like a baker may sometimes bake a bread that is not edible.


But if you want to discuss a particular adjustment, you must say which of them it is, and even if you do, to expect that the record keeper is obliged to discuss with you is as naive as the idea that a baker will discuss about milligrams of salt with random consumers all the time. The world just couldn't work like that.


Statistical methods may be used to show that the quality of the record is better than you indicate.


reader Orson OLSON said...

Now, now, Lubos! Philadelphia was the SECOND biggest English speaking city in the world in that day. And Mr Franklin found it quite congenial. Enough so that he co-founded the American Philosophical Society, the first and oldest learned society in the US. How's dem (backward) apples?


reader Orson OLSON said...

"The US didn't even have an army worthy of the name before being dragged into this mess." Indeed, in 1939, Belgium had a larger army than the US did.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Orson, I admire the founding fathers, and spent quite some time in museums dedicated to them and their work.


The French help was still helpful, perhaps essential.


It is not clear to me what provoked you to write that comment but my other point was that it was a sensible attitude to say that Philadelphia and other cities should have simply obeyed the laws of the British Empire which wasn't that bad.


Gibson made a sensible quotation before he was dragged into the battles... "Are you sure that it is an improvement if one faraway tyrant is replaced by thousands of nearby tyrants?" Or something like that.


Very true, there is nothing unavoidably wrong about a country's being large. After all, even the U.S. is pretty large and the D.C. is far from Seattle and other places.


reader Orson OLSON said...

Of course, no one wants to mention that Eastern Ukraine was not suffering violent deaths by the (undisputed) thousands, before Mr Putin showed up in Crimea. Fancy the coincidence! Who could have imagined that? Not the Georgians or the Chechins, or the Afghans?

But even before the Crimea was on people's radar last year, Marcel Van Herpen wrote "Putin's Wars: The Rise of Russia's New Imperialism." Van Herpen makes "case that Putin’s regime emulates an established Russian paradigm in which empire building and despotic rule are mutually reinforcing." (Amazon.com decription.)Who could have imagined that?

"Van Herpen's sources are almost exclusively Russian and many are actually official government documents or written by Putin or his assistants." Huh? You mean it's not all US propaganda? But actually planned in the East? In Russia? Who could have thought?


reader Orson OLSON said...

Why are "tons" of adjustments "logical and sound and justifiable" the one estimate of the margin of error is these measurement is +-1.2C degrees? (Source: Stanford nuclear chemist Pat Frank.) And while this argument may still stand in principle, the fact that Phil Jones at the CRU admitted in October 2009 that he doesn't have the original data? Only the adjusted "improved data?" And the fact that no one can actually, you know, independently check what "adjustments" were done and how they were done amount to saying "Trust us! We're scientists?"
And therefore the underlying problem of "original data is missing" really transcends whatever legitimate adjustment might be made? I'm just sayin'.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear Orson, your comments have nothing to do with the point and with my remarks.


Every measurement has some margin of error. There are indeed many individual measurements whose margin of error may separately be 1 or 1.2 deg C. But it is still true that adjustments, at least those from the described types, get one closer to the actual values and reduce the error margin.


If there are no super-original raw data with all the required information, one can't be sure that the adjustments were right but one can't be sure that they were wrong, either.


Statistically, it is possible to exclude the hypothesis that something was seriously distorted at a large fraction of the stations so that it would matter.


reader Luboš Motl said...

Orson, you are a complete nutcase if this is how you see the facts of Ukraine in 2014.


Putin's main role was that he was asked, by anxious people of Crimea, to reunify the peninsula with Russia, which Russia did, and while doing so, he saved thousands of lives in Crimea that would surely be ending these days just like they do in Donbass.


All these 5,000-50,000 deaths and the destruction of 1/3 of the Ukrainian economy and lots of infrastructure is an achievement of people like you - you have lots and lots of blood on your hands - who have really forced the coup on Ukraine.


reader Michael said...

Okay, it must have been my mistake that my comment did not show.

It was not meant as a joke, and yes the proposal does demand that the air is 100+ times denser. It does not matter that the air was less dense further back, only that it was more dense in the dinosaur era. I know it sounds ludicrous but if you can suspend disbelief for a moment, there really is something interesting here. I thought about the problems with having a "bird" as tall as a giraffe and animals that are 100 + tons some years ago. Conditions must have been very very different, and really the thick atmosphere solution seems the only plausible possibility. It turned out that a guy named David Esker had already done loads of work and he has a website where he presents his solution to the paradoxes around the dinosaurs. His site is optimized for non-physicists I guess - its very detailed - but its actually really nice how super simple, yet powerful his arguments are. Here he explains flight


http://dinosaurtheory.com/flight.html


beautifully, with high-school math.



Also consider the fact that fast dinosaurs are two-legged. Exactly if you to push your way through something with resistance you weight is transferred to the hind legs and the typical dinosaur shape suddenly makes perfect sense.


He also explain argue why he finds tidal effects to be the primary cause for earths internal heat (it explains why the moon is geologically dead since it is locked in resonance (I don't think he uses this example though)). And also that a thick atmosphere with strong greenhouse effect makes it more plausible that the temperature differences between the poles and the equator where smaller back then. (With greenery on Antartica and stuff like that, yes I know one has to consider the movement of the plates and so, but still)


I am pretty sure you won't be disappointed if you check his site. It would be very fast for you anyway. Perhaps he would even be interested in doing a guest-blog? I think it could be fun, since dinosaurs are a funny subject that captivated many as children.


reader Michael said...

Okay, it must have been my mistake that my comment did not show.

It was not meant as a joke, and yes the proposal does demand that the air is 100+ times denser. It does not matter that the air was less dense further back, only that it was more dense in the dinosaur era. I know it sounds ludicrous but if you can suspend disbelief for a moment, there really is something interesting here. I thought about the problems with having a "bird" as tall as a giraffe and animals that are 100 + tons some years ago. Conditions must have been very very different, and really the thick atmosphere solution seems the only plausible possibility. It turned out that a guy named David Esker had already done loads of work and he has a website where he presents his solution to the paradoxes around the dinosaurs. His site is optimized for non-physicists I guess - so its very detailed - but its actually really nice how super simple, yet powerful his arguments are. Here he explains flight

http://dinosaurtheory.com/flig...

beautifully, with high-school math.

Also consider the fact that fast dinosaurs are two-legged. Exactly if you to push your way through something with resistance you weight is transferred to the hind legs and the typical dinosaur shape suddenly makes perfect sense.

He also explain argue why he finds tidal effects to be the primary cause for earths internal heat (it explains why the moon is geologically dead since it is locked in resonance (I don't
think he uses this example though)).


And also that a thick atmosphere with strong greenhouse effect makes it more plausible that the temperature differences between the poles and the equator where smaller back then. (With greenery on Antartica and stuff like that, yes I know one has to consider the movement of the plates and so, but still)

I am pretty sure you won't be disappointed if you check his site. It would be very fast for you anyway. Perhaps he would even be interested in doing a guest-blog? I think it could be fun, since dinosaurs are a funny subject that captivated many as children.


reader Michael said...

I can't seem to post this comment to you?:

Okay, it must have been my mistake that my comment did not show.

It was not meant as a joke, and yes the proposal does demand that the air is 100+ times denser. It does not matter that the air was less dense further back, only that it was more dense in the dinosaur era. I know it sounds ludicrous but if you can suspend disbelief for a moment, there really is something interesting here. I thought about the problems with having a "bird" as tall as a giraffe and animals that are 100 + tons some years ago. Conditions must have been very very different, and really the thick atmosphere solution seems the only plausible possibility. It turned out that a guy named David Esker had already done loads of work and he has a website where he presents his solution to the paradoxes around the dinosaurs. His site is optimized for non-physicists I guess - its very detailed - but its actually really nice how super simple, yet powerful his arguments are. Here he explains flight

http://dinosaurtheory.com/flig...

beautifully, with high-school math.

Also consider the fact that fast dinosaurs are two-legged. Exactly if you try to push your way through something with resistance your weight is transferred to the hind legs and the typical dinosaur shape suddenly makes perfect sense.

He also explain argue why he finds tidal effects from the moon to be the primary cause for earths internal heat (conversely it explains why the moon is geologically dead since it is locked in resonance (I don't think he uses this example though)). And also that a thick atmosphere with strong greenhouse effect makes it more plausible that the temperature differences between the poles and the equator where smaller back then. (With greenery on Antartica and stuff like that, yes I know one has to consider the movement of the plates and so, but still)

I am pretty sure you won't be disappointed if you check his site. It would be very fast for you anyway. Perhaps he would even be interested in doing a guest-blog? I think it could be fun, since dinosaurs are a funny subject that captivated many as children and there are some real issues here that need some resolution.