Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

False Armageddon

Earth 2100 from ABC

Print This Post Print This Post

Forging The 97% Consensus

polar-bears-mate-at-berlin-zoo

James Taylor from Forbes, Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims

Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.

Also read

Also from James Taylor, Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them

The Myth of the Climate Change ’97%’

The Crumbling Climate-Change Consensus

 

The rebuttal

HKO

given the huge complexity that is the issue of far distant climate predictions, the variable sources that influence climate, the limitations of climate (or any other) models, and the politicization of the debate I can not understand how such a high consensus would be real- it is most likely a classical case study in the misuse of statistics and should be used as an example of statistical manipulation in every class.

Print This Post Print This Post

Currency Manipulation

US and Chinese currencies

from the editors of the Wall Street Journal, Emerging Market Rip Tide:

The destabilizing effect of QE threatens global growth at a moment when none of the major economies is firing on all cylinders. By encouraging overinvestment in developing countries, it may have created new deflationary pressures. China built massive steel-making capacity that will now drive down the global price and lead to protectionist pressure in the U.S. This dislocation and wasted investment should make policy makers reconsider their faith in the power of monetary policy to stimulate growth, and put the emphasis back on pro-market reforms.

There has often been a tension between the Fed’s roles as regulator of the U.S. domestic economy and custodian of the world’s reserve currency. The QE era shows what happens when it ignores the latter responsibility. Bond-buying allowed the U.S. to pump up asset values, even as it has failed to stimulate the real economy.

U.S. presidential candidates have been quick to jump on China’s recent small devaluation as proof of currency manipulation aimed at stealing American jobs. The irony is that the Federal Reserve has been guilty of the biggest currency whipsaw the world has ever seen. And it has beggared its neighbors in the process.

Print This Post Print This Post

Snark

paglia19bk19

from David Daley in Salon, Camille Paglia takes on Jon Stewart, Trump, Sanders: “Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that’s simply not true!”

excerpt:

I think Stewart’s show demonstrated the decline and vacuity of contemporary comedy. I cannot stand that smug, snarky, superior tone. I hated the fact that young people were getting their news through that filter of sophomoric snark.  Comedy, to me, is one of the major modern genres, and the big influences on my generation were Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl. Then Joan Rivers had an enormous impact on me–she’s one of my major role models.  It’s the old caustic, confrontational style of Jewish comedy. It was Jewish comedians who turned stand-up from the old gag-meister shtick of vaudeville into a biting analysis of current social issues, and they really pushed the envelope.  Lenny Bruce used stand-up to produce gasps and silence from the audience. And that’s my standard–a comedy of personal risk.  And by that standard, I’m sorry, but Jon Stewart is not a major figure. He’s certainly a highly successful T.V. personality, but I think he has debased political discourse.  I find nothing incisive in his work.  As for his influence, if he helped produce the hackneyed polarization of moral liberals versus evil conservatives, then he’s partly at fault for the political stalemate in the United States.

Print This Post Print This Post

Logic and Wisdom