Thursday, October 08, 2015

Federal Workers Earn 78% More Than Private Sector Employees, Study Shows

Federal compensation averaged $119,934 in 2014, which was 78 percent higher than the private-sector average of $67,246."


8 Oct 2015

Are we allowed to talk about the "income inequality" gap between employees of the federal government and the private sector? Because it's huge, it's been huge for a long time, and it's and getting worse.

According to a study of data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, conducted by the Cato Institute, compensation for federal workers is 78% higher on average than compensation for private sector employees.

"Federal civilian workers had an average wage of $84,153 in 2014, compared to an average in the private sector of $56,350," according to the Cato review. "The federal advantage in overall compensation (wages plus benefits) is even greater. Federal compensation averaged $119,934 in 2014, which was 78 percent higher than the private-sector average of $67,246."

To put this in perspective, the federal government has "the fourth highest paid workers in the United States, after utilities, mining, and the management of companies." The government pays better than information services, the financial sector, the insurance industry, and scientific industries. Federal compensation is more than double what the education industry receives, and over three times what retail workers make.

This would seem problematic in light of left-wing class warfare rhetoric. Compensation for the education industry is supposed to be the veritable benchmark of fairness. We are constantly told it's outrageous that various professions are paid more than teachers. How, then, can statists justify federal workers making over twice what the education industry pays?

In a similar vein, we're always lectured about the profound unfairness of highly-compensated private-sector employees making many times what the entry level workers are paid. How does that square with the federal government's employees making triple what retail workers earn?

How about the "self-interest" canard used to shut down so many valid arguments from people in the private sector? Liberals are always claiming the first dollar of private-sector financial interest taints every bit of testimony from their adversaries, a refrain that has been particularly loud in the "climate change" debate lately. What about the obvious self-interest of government employees in securing more money and influence for the titanic employer who rewards them so handsomely?

The income inequality between private-sector workers and government employees is getting worse, after merely "slowing" during the much-ballyhooed "federal pay freeze" from 2011 to 2013. The data shows that "wages rose 2.9 percent in the federal government in 2014, on average, compared to 1.7 percent in the private sector." The disparity became 2.8 percent to 1.3 percent when total benefits such as pension and health care were included.

Cato's deep dive into the numbers found rising federal compensation resulted from "legislated increases in general pay, increases in locality pay, expansions in benefits, and growth in the number of high-paid jobs as bureaucracies become more top-heavy," as well as automatic compensation adjustments that tended to "move federal workers into higher salary brackets regardless of performance."

Of course, the politics of unionized federal workers lobbying their own government machine for higher wages and benefits was an important factor as well.  The government's vast army of workers provide a great deal of muscle for the government's efforts to grow richer and more powerful. The Cato Institute observes that "members of Congress who have large numbers of federal workers in their districts often lead the efforts to expand pay and benefits."

Although the Cato study doesn't delve into it, another interesting subject would be the immense value of the connections developed by top-level federal employees. There are some departments where the revolving door between government employee and lobbyist spins madly, day after day. The value of the connections enjoyed by elected representatives is legendary, but they're not the only ones who depart Washington with Rolodexes worth big bucks to subsequent employers.

The study also anticipated the common objection that Uncle Sam must pay handsomely to attract the best and brightest by noting the federal budget is littered with "mundane bureaus where workers are paid highly for normal bureaucratic jobs." No one can claim with a straight face that the U.S. taxpayer should be billed for six-figure salaries to keep a labyrinth of redundant departments staffed with paper-pushers… but of course, when talk of budget restraint begins, that's never how the government workforce is presented to us. To hear Big Government acolytes talk, one would think federal bureaus are staffed with nothing but cops, soldiers, teachers, and firefighters.

Not only does government work have a level of job security almost unheard-of in the private sector, but the extremely low "quit rate" suggests federal employees are very well aware of how good they have it. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "the quit rate in the federal government is just one-quarter the quit rate in the private sector."

The Cato study raises an interesting point by asking if the notion of paying big federal salaries to attract the best and brightest would be a good idea, even if that did explain the stunning discrepancy between government and private compensation. Do we really want people passing up on productive private-sector careers to seek the high wages, amazing benefits, and incomparable job security of government employment?

Naturally, we do want good people working for the federal government. The gap between their compensation and the private sector has grown too large to politely ignore, especially in a time of private-sector wage stagnation, workforce collapse, and unsustainable public debt. Cato has a few suggestions for reversing the trend, including the end of defined-benefit pension plans, privatizing as many federal jobs as possible, and reforms to federal pay packages.

The end of public-employee unions would be another positive step; unfortunately, the most ambitious such plan presented in the current political season was offered by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who dropped out of the presidential race. Perhaps other candidates will take up the flag of public union reform.

Conservatives should labor to teach the public that the government is a "special interest," as surely as any corporation that lobbies it, and it is very much capable of "greed." Government employees are not uniquely greedy, mind you – they're mostly just people trying to do their jobs every day, and even with a 78% compensation advantage, they would naturally resist cutbacks as much as any private-sector employee. No one in Washington thought the feelings of private-sector employees about wage stagnation, job loss, and the conversion of full-time jobs into part-time work was relevant to the ambitious agenda of left-wing politicians. Let us be done with the mythology of "selfless public service," and deal as squarely with the bureaucracy as we would with any of the corporations it regulates.

The GOPe Plan If You Remove Donald Trump

Good article proving that the GOPe (Establishment Rs inside the beltway, not us voters in the heartland) is against us. It will be interesting to see if this writer's predictions pan out.

The GOPe Plan If You Remove Donald Trump….

Posted on October 7, 2015 by 

As the weeks go by it is becoming increasingly apparent that a profound disconnect exists amid a very large portion of the current year electorate regarding the goals and objectives of the apparatus we call the GOPe.

The group within the Republican party apparatus affectionately known as the "establishment", or GOPe, does not now – nor do they ever – consider the progressive side of the political continuum, Democrats, as their enemy.

The enemy of the GOPe is the conservative base within the republican party.

GOP primary 2

If the GOPe lose a presidential election to a progressive democrat nothing amid their sphere of consequence changes.  However, if the GOPe lose a presidential election to a conservative, independent, or constitutional republican – everything changes.

To understand how this evidences itself you need only travel to the most visible member of the Lee Attwater lineage, Karl Rove.  When you understand Rove's objectives toward fulfilling the goals and aspirations of the GOPe, you understand where the path leads.

Karl RoveEXAMPLE – In 2010 Christine O'Donnell won the Republican Primary Delaware Senate race, defeating GOPe candidateMike Castle.  Castle was a long-term House member of the GOPe network.   Castle's campaign was spearheaded by Karl Rove.

When O'Donnell defeated Castle, Rove was furious.   Democrat Chris Coons was now going to be O'Donnell's opponent in the November '10 general election.

Again, as previously stated, the GOPe would rather lose to a progressive democrat than a conservative vulgarian like O'Donnell.

As a consequence Karl Rove began immediately working to plant negative information in the media bloodstream.  Simultaneously the RNC apparatus instructed the Delaware Republican party to remove financial/logistical support for O'Donnell's general election race.

Former Delaware GOP Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell Attends Tea Party RallyThe Rove effort worked, O'Donnell was painted as a "Wiccan wing-nut" (remember "I'm not a witch"), and Chris Coons won the general election.

However, due to Tea Party diligence and a general uprising of the electorate around ObamaCare, there was a large number of conservative wins.  President Obama's mid-term "Shellacking", took place.

The House of Representatives flipped from Democrat control to Republican control.

The 2010 election outcome set up a post election lame-duck feeding frenzy of Democrat activity spurred by their massive losses.  In an effort to spend as much as possible before they lost the House of Reps, in December '10 a spending bill known as "The Massive Porkulous" was created.  All of the exiting Democrats voted in favor of it, along with, you guessed it, Republican MIKE CASTLE of Delaware.

Castle essentially had nothing to lose, and was able to evidence his inherent ideology.  Was he, at his core, a conservative; or was he a big government progressive?  Obviously, by voting for "Porkulous" Castle showed his ideological alignment.

This simple example shows what lies behind the mask of many members of congress who are in reality essentially the same as Democrats.  Or put another way, the GOPe.

mcconnell-cornynThe GOPe would rather lose to a like-minded progressive, than see a constitutional conservative take office.  If the GOPe lose to a Democrat, nothing changes; they are still around, only perhaps the minority party.  However, if the GOPe lose to a conservative they are most likely out of a job.

The Delaware example of Karl Rove in 2010 shows you the set up for future races in 2012 and what many people didn't understand at the time.  The GOPe worked earnestly to remove all possibilities of a 2012 vulgarian insurgency and retain their place at the trough.

This Delaware 2010 example also highlights the motives and intents behind what took place in 2014 in Virginia where the GOPe actively worked, through the same methods deployed against O'Donnell to remove Ken Cuccinelli.

Further evidence toward the severity within the GOPe approach was displayed in Mississippi with the railroading of Chris McDaniel.

In the Mississippi example the GOPe paid for racist attack ads against McDaniel to save GOPe member Senator Thad Cochran, the incumbent.  The GOPe even went as far as paying Democrats to vote in the 2nd primary for Cochran.   McDaniel won the majority of the Republican vote, but lost the overall primary because of Democrat votes (Mississippi is an open primary state).

Boehner McConnellAgain, this history is only re-visited because in 2015/2016 so many people just don't understand who the enemy is in the current primary race and candidate field.

The GOPe do not consider Democrats the enemy.

The GOPe consider conservatives the enemy.  Repeat this as many times as needed to understand what Karl Rove is doing right now.

Just like the GOPe have done in every race over the past three election cycles, Karl Rove is positioning every aspect of the primary board on behalf of the GOPe.  This means there are 3 essential enemies:  Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz.  The outliers are now irrelevant (Rand Paul, Rick Santorum).

The GOPe favorable candidate is Jeb Bush.

The GOPe primary tools, to achieve their candidate success, are players within their apparatus we have called "splitters":  Marco Rubio (FL), Carly Fiorina (VA), Mike Huckabee (AR), Chris Christie (NJ), Lindsey Graham (SC), George Pataki (NY), John Kasich (OH) and Jim Gilmore (VA).  All of these people are party loyalists, party insiders, and part of the larger republican party apparatus.

This 2015/16 strategy (Jeb Bush) is similar to what took place in 2011/12 (Mitt Romney).

Specifically, if you remove Donald Trump, Ben Carson becomes Herman Cain – Ted Cruz becomes Newt Gingrich and Jeb Bush replaces Mitt Romney.

The goal of the GOPe plan is to deliver that outcome.

However, HERE'S WHERE PEOPLE GET REALLY CONFUSED.  In order to get to the target position, Jeb winning, the primary enemies AND TOOLS will individually be eliminated using opposition research planted by Rove just like he did in Delaware against O'Donnell.

Regardless of who you hold up as your favorite candidate you must know Rove's opposition research in advance and be aware when/if it is deployed.

Everyone gets hung up arguing about Donald Trump….

So,..for the sake of this intellectual exercise remove Donald Trump from the equation – that's the current goal of Operation Hummingbird.  Just imagine Hummingbird was a resounding success and Trump is no longer in the race.

Based on current distribution (poll internals) perhaps it would look similar to this:

Estimated poll distributions with Trump removed

Estimated poll distributions with Trump removed

That's the absolute dream of the GOPe road map.

The above outcome is exactly what the designers (Rovian GOPe party planners) in 2014 had in mind for October 2015.  You can move some of the percentages around, take a few from Paul – give em to Cruz etc., but for the sake of argument this is roughly what could be reasonably considered and projected given current polling support, sans Trump.

Now, re-engage with Karl Rove and the GOPe scheme.  Remember, opposition research is used on your own party members (the enemy fist, the tools when needed) and is useless for the general election.  Democrats don't need to destroy any of these candidates, the GOPe will do that part.  The media is the delivery tool.

This is where the oppo-research (like Delaware '10, Mississippi, Virginia and Kentucky '14, etc.) comes into play.

If that image above was the outcome between now and in January of 2016, Jeb Bushwould be guaranteed a victory.  Wall Street would be thrilled right now – everything would be going according to plan.

Candidate Jeb Bush attends Chamber of Commerce dinner with Fox's Rupert Murdoch and Valerie Jarrett (December 2014)

Candidate Jeb Bush attends Chamber of Commerce dinner with Fox's Rupert Murdoch and Valerie Jarrett (December 2014)

As the primary dates close in:  One-by-one Karl Rove dumps chum in the media stream.  Only at first he he remains focused on the enemy, the non-GOPe:  Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and to a lesser extent Rand Paul – essentially the modified targets of the original "splitter strategy" as it was drawn up in 2014 with projected names.

Ben Carson is painted as a religious zealot with attachments to some whacky ideas and ideologies.  Fox news would be beating him up, not propping him up.  The Muslim Comments would be ruining him.  Attacks on his intellect and comparisons to him sitting across the table from Vladimir Putin etc. Isolate, Ridicule, Marginalize. He'd be gone in four days, tops.  Carson becomes Herman Cain

Then Ted Cruz.  The polarizing loner without friends in the Senate.  An island unto himself.  A snake oil salesman etc.  Unelectable in the general with absolutely horrific polling numbers against Hillary/Biden/Sanders.  Draw out attention to preachy Glenn Beck and David Barton who are connected to his dad Raphael Cruz.  Just go look at right-wing watch for a litany of opportunities for media to do the same number on him they did in 2013.  Only exponentially worse.   Cruz becomes Newt Gingrich.

Tamp down Rubio by slipping in the Norman Braman hiring Marco Rubio's wife story, and attach all of the cloudy vested financial interests – and you've got a worked up media gleefully tearing down a shaky house of cards.

$117,000,000 worth of protective wagons circling Jeb Bush at all times with plenty of Wall Street money flowing in to back it up if needed…..

♦ February 2016 – Iowa, then New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.  Bush holding solid #2 or #3 positions just like planned.

March 1st through March 15th all (by RNC/GOPe rule changes) proportional assigned primary races with the top three vote-getters in each congressional district splitting one electoral vote each.

March 1st – Texas: 155 Delegates (Open Primary) Alabama: 50 Delegates (Open Primary) Tennessee: 58 Delegates (Open Primary) Vermont: 16 Delegates (Open Primary) Arkansas: 40 Delegates (Open Primary) Georgia: 76 Delegates (Independents and Republicans) Massachusetts: 42 Delegates (Independents and Republicans) Oklahoma: 43 Delegates (Closed Primary) Virginia: 49 Delegates (Open Primary)

March 5th – Louisiana Primary: 46 Delegates (Closed Primary)

March 8th – Michigan: 59 Delegates (Closed Primary) Idaho: 32 Delegates (Caucus/Convention – Closed) Mississippi: 39 Delegates (Open Primary)

March 13th 2016 – Puerto Rico: 23 Delegates (Open Primary)

That's 14 states (including PR) in 13 days.   Top three finishers in each congressional district gets one delegate, and bonus delegates distributed to top finishers statewide.

Who do you think is winning given the field as it sits, in this fictional exercise without Trump?   Attacks Ads still ongoing…. and who still has gas (money) to go into March 15th?

March 15th – ♦ North Carolina: 72 delegates – proportional assignment per stateparty rule change last week – (Independents and Republicans)  ♦ Florida: 99 Delegates (Winner Take All) Closed Primary – ♦ Ohio: 66 Delegates (Winner take all) Independents and Republicans ♦ Illinois: 69 Delegates (Proportional) Open Primary

Jeb Bush pedigreeThat's how this plan was designed to roll out.

Remove Donald Trump and the GOPe road map gets right back on track.

Remove Donald Trump in 2015 and Ben Carson becomes Hermain Cain, Ted Cruz becomes Newt Gingrich and Jeb Bush becomes Mitt Romney from 2012.

It's all by design.  All of it.

♦  Reference and Resources – (links to internal MSM references are contained within prior outlines): RNC Rule Changes   RNC Rule Battles

  1. ♦ Following The Money
  2. ♦ The GOPe Roadmap
  3. ♦ The Roles of The Players – "The Splitters"
  4. ♦ How each candidate is aligned in the Roadmap
  5. ♦ Arrow #1 Trump Hits The Super-PACs – The GOPe Achilles Heel
  6. ♦ Arrow #2 Trump Hits Bush – Inside The Wall Street Fortress
  7. ♦ Arrow #3 Trump Cuts Off Rubio/Bush switch – The GOPe Switch
  8. ♦ The Rick Perry Tripwire Exposed – DC Super-Pac
  9. ♦ Jeb Bush Super-Pac Will immediately spend $10 Million
  10. ♦ Proving there is only one political party in Washington DC
  11. ♦ Why Support Trump – Part One (The GOPe Ruse)
  12. ♦ Why Support Trump – Part Two (Stop being played)
  13. ♦ Why Support Trump – Part Three (Intellectual Details)
  14. ♦ How To Defeat the GOPe Road Map
  15. ♦ Current Polling Exposes – the Ohio, Florida, Texas, Virginia, New York Splitters
  16. ♦ Florida Polling Exposes – Donald Trump defeating Jeb's Florida Strategy
  17. ♦ Rush Limbaugh Discusses/Affirms – The "splitter strategy"
  18. ♦ The Biden Paradox – Trump Winning Means Clinton Must Be Removed
  19. ♦ Salem Media Communications (GOPe Media Arm) Launches Attack
  20. ♦ Open Letter To GOPe – The Conservative Frustration
  21. ♦ Why The GOPe Will Never Stop Attacking Donald Trump

Stand with Rand

The state is a band -
a dealt ugly hand,
of waist in the sand.

Chose the best brand
not one that is bland,
not one that is tanned
with hope in quicksand.

A brand that is manned
with peaches in hand,
logic is scanned,
emotion is banned.

Thinking is spanned,
but not with your gland,
across all the land.

Vote for glib Rand,
fix our homeland,
oh that would be grand!

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

Stand with Rand

Cool poster

Monday, October 05, 2015

Vintage clips of just how wrong Bernanke was

For the kids, some vintage clips of just how wrong Bernanke was. cc @cnbc


Sunday, October 04, 2015

Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove The Null Hypothesis Of AGW?

Did James Hansen Unwittingly Prove The Null Hypothesis Of AGW? | Watts Up With That?

Posted by Guest Blogger
Guest Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is central to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. If incorrect, failure of this assumption alone should guarantee rejection of the hypothesis. In proper scientific procedure if the hypothesis is rejected the null hypothesis is considered. In this case, the null hypothesis is that CO2 is not causing global warming. The IPCC never considered the null hypothesis. Ironically and unwittingly, James Hansen proved the null hypothesis in his first major attempt to push his agenda that CO2 is causing global warming or climate change.


The first IPCC Report appeared in 1990, but the more orchestrated push of the AGW hypothesis occurred with the 1995 Report. Four years later an Antarctic ice core record produced by Petit et al., was published in Nature. The article included a graphic that juxtaposed temperature, CO2, methane, and insolation (Figure 1).

Figure 1

It appeared to provide support for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. It looked like temperature increase preceded CO2 increase. I recall one of the authors, Jean Jouzel, warning in an interview not to rush to judgment. He noted it was 420,000 years plotted on a 10 cm long graph, complicated by a 70-year smoothing average that masked much detail. He was prescient. AGW advocates ignored the warning and used the graph as support for their hypothesis. It effectively became the forerunner to the 'hockey stick' in grabbing media and public attention.

However, in proper scientific tradition Hubertus Fischer, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography was already questioning the cause and effect relationship with a 1999 paper. In 2001, Manfred Mudelsee published another paper that challenged the relationship in Quaternary Science Review.

Lowell Stott followed with a 2007 paper in Science titled, Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming. Sherwood and Craig Idso maintain the best website on all issues related to CO2. They provide a list of papers that yield further evidence that the relationship is opposite to the IPCC assumption. None of this ever received mainstream media attention.

Failed predictions, which began with the 1990 IPCC Report, were one of the first signs of problems. Instead of revisiting the assumptions and science of their hypothesis they made the first political adjustment by creating projections to replace predictions. They compounded their duplicity by allowing the media and public to believe they were predictions. Hansen et al,

produced a forerunner of the projection scenarios in 1988, the same year he appeared before the US Senate committee to kick-start the entire AGW deception. Figure 2 shows the original graph from that article.

Figure 2

In an incisive article on Hansen's model Anthony Watts provided a modified version of Figure 2 with actual temperatures added (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Hansen et al, postulated three scenarios,

A: increase in CO2 emissions by 1.5% per year

B: constant increase in CO2 emissions after 2000

C: No increase in CO2 emissions after 2000

Naturally, the mainstream media focused on the temperature projections of scenario A. Some of us knew Scenarios A and B were unrealistic, and now we know how wrong they were. I had many discussions in the 1990s with Canadian ice core expert Fritz Koerner about his Arctic Island cores. He told me they showed temperature increasing before CO2. In retrospect, scenario C is more interesting and more telling.

Hansen presents it as the ideal scenario. He is telling political leaders and media what will happen if humans stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Salvation! Temperatures will stop increasing. Ironically, this is equivalent to running the model as if CO2 was not causing warming. In doing so, it effectively presents the null hypothesis to the AGW hypothesis. It shows what would happen if CO2 was not the cause of warming. It approximates reality.

Figure 4 shows similar scenario projections from the IPCC AR4 2007 Report overlain with actual CO2 increases. The difference with Hansen is in the low scenario. The IPCC say in AR4,

Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans.

Figure 4

Figure 4 appears to show that the "Best" and "High" projections are primarily a function of the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. Even the "Low" projection diverges from the actual temperature trend shown for the surface (HadCrut) and satellite (UAH) records. Besides confirming the null hypothesis the results show that the IPCC claim of continued increase because of slow ocean response is also incorrect.

Hansen limited his research and climate models to human causes of climate change. He produced two projections that argued CO2 would continue to increase. In doing so, he predetermined the outcome. He confirmed his hypothesis that continued human production would cause global warming, but only in the models. However, apparently driven by his political agenda, he had to convince politicians that a reduction in CO2 output would solve the problem. To do this, he ran his model to show what happens with no CO2 increase. It produced a curve that fits the actual temperature trend in the intervening 27 years. This is the result you expect if you accept the null hypothesis that CO2 from any source is not causing global warming. Thanks, Jim, enjoy your retirement.

About these ads

Rate this:
      76 Votes
Share this:

October 3, 2015236 Replies
« Previous
Next »
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name *
Email *

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.
Latitude on October 3, 2015 at 8:14 am
For the past 20 years… just ain't working as planned

ferdberple on October 3, 2015 at 8:44 am
What is surprising to me is that so many people accept that there is a "greenhouse" effect caused by GHG, even among skeptics. 50 years ago we were taught in school that real greenhouses warmed via blocking of outgoing IR by the glass. This is the same mechanism postulated for CO2 — blocking outgoing IR.

However, we now know that this initial explanation for the "greenhouse" effect in real greenhouses was wrong. A greenhouse warms up even without blocking outgoing IR. Instead, we now know that the greenhouse effect is a result of reduced convection.

Thus, we should be going back to the original theory of GHG and CO2, because if we got the original explanation wrong for real greenhouses, then quite likely we have got the greenhouse explanation wrong for the atmosphere as well.

This is especially true given the universal failure of climate models to correctly predict the current rate of warming given the rapid increase in industrial CO2. In any other branch of science, this failure would be strong evidence that the theory is fundamentally wrong.

markstoval on October 3, 2015 at 9:59 am
"What is surprising to me is that so many people accept that there is a "greenhouse" effect caused by GHG, even among skeptics."

Yes indeed. In spite of all observation and all theory, we have "skeptics" who believe the James Hansen drivel. Oh my my. Someday the CO2 warms the planet myth will be laughed at by all, but I doubt I'll live to see it — there is a whole lot of money and fame in not understanding the truth.

Chris on October 3, 2015 at 11:27 am
No, the initial explanation of the greenhouse effect is correct. Dr, Roy Spencer has written on this multiple times, the post that most directly talks about actual greenhouses is here:

hockeyschtick on October 3, 2015 at 11:52 am
"the initial explanation of the greenhouse effect is correct"

No, it's not. What happens when you open a window on the top of a greenhouse to allow convection?

The temperature equalizes with outside, thus disproving IR backradiation has anything to do with a real greenhouse.

The real explanation of the "greenhouse effect" (gravito-thermal) has been known since the 1823 Poisson relation, and confirmed by giants of physics including Helmholtz, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, etc.

Ferdinand Engelbeen on October 3, 2015 at 11:54 am

That CO2 absorbs parts of the outgoing IR was not only theoretically and practically proven by Tyndall many years ago quite accurately, see the image at Wiki, it is actually measured by satellites in the IR spectrum where CO2 is active.

If that has much effect or is overwhelmed by other effects like the water/vapor/clouds feedback, as Willis figured out, is a different matter. Al we can say for sure this moment is that the effect is way smaller than expected from the climate models, which all fail to show reality…

But you can't say that there is no effect at all, even if what is measured is by far within the noise around the null hypothesis…

ralfellis on October 3, 2015 at 12:18 pm
ferdberple October 3, 2015 at 8:44 am
What is surprising to me is that so many people accept that there is a "greenhouse" effect caused by GHG, even among skept

Watch "Conspiracy Theory Rock By Robert Smigel" on YouTube

first - Zero Hedge | On a long enough timeline the survival rate for ...
The Media-Opoly: Cancelled, From Saturday Night, It's Conspiracy Theory Rock!
Tyler DurdenOct 3, 2015

A day after we ran "Meet Your "Independent" Media, America", in which we showed how prime time entertainment like 60 Minutes is strategically and voluntarily "planted" with propaganda trolls and "concerns" thus crushing any "unbiased" credibility mainstream US media may have, we dug into the archives to bring you "Conspiracy Theory Rock."

This cartoon created by SNL cartoonist Robert Smigel in 1998 ran once in a "TV Funhouse" segment, and has been since removed from all subsequent airings of the Saturday Night Live episodes. As a reminder, 90% of US media is currently controlled by 6 corporations: General Electric, News Corp., Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS...

... whose shareholders vastly overlap.

Michaels claimed the edit was done because it "wasn't funny."

Well, it's funny now because for once the propaganda facade of the mainstream media cracked from within, and the result was this critique of corporate media ownership, including then NBC's ownership by General Electric/Westinghouse, and how only the stuff the owners deem appropriate is distributed for general consumption.

We doubt the current parent of NBC (and CNBC), Comcast, would play it either.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Netanyahu Scolds UN With Dramatic Moment of Silence


Thursday at the United Nations in New York City in the middle of a speech to the body's general assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood silent for almost a minute to emphasizes the "utter silence" of "the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here" in the face of Iran's threats to destroy Israel.

Netanyahu said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I have long said that the greatest danger facing our world is the coupling of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. I am gravely concerned that the nuclear deal with Iran will prove to be the marriage certificate of that holy union. I know that well-intentioned people sincerely believe that this is the best way to block Iran's path to the bomb, but one of history's most important, yet least learned lessons is this, the best intentions don't prevent the worst outcomes. The vast majority of Israelis believe that this nuclear deal with Iran is a very bad deal. What makes matters even worse is that we see a world celebrating this bad deal—rushing to embrace and do business with a regime openly committed to our destruction. Last week the major general of the Iran's army proclaimed this, quote, 'We will annihilate Israel for sure. We are glad that we are in the forefront of executing the supreme leader's order to the destroy Israel,' end quote. And as for the supreme leader, himself—a few days after the nuke nuclear deal was announced, he released his latest book. Here it is. It is a 400-page creed planning to destroy the state of Israel. Last month, Khomeini once again made the genocidal intentions clear before Iran's top clerical body, the assembly of experts. He spoke about Israel—home to over 6 million Jews. He pledged, quote, 'There will be no Israel in 25 years.' end quote. Seventy years after the murder of 6 million Jews, Iran's rulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence."

Netanyahu then stood silent for almost a minute.

He continued, "Perhaps you can understand why Israel is not joining you in celebrating this deal. If Iran's rulers were working to destroy your countries, perhaps you'd be less enthusiastic the about the deal. If Iran's terror proxies were firing thousands of rockets at your cities, perhaps you'd be more measured in your praise. If this deal were unleashing a nuclear arms race in your neighborhood, perhaps you'd be more reluctant to celebrate. But don't think that Iran is only a danger to Israel. Besides Iran's aggression in the Middle East and the terror around the world, Iran is also building intercontinental ballistic missiles whose sole purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. And now, remember this, Iran already has missiles that can reach Israel, and so the intercontinental missiles that the Iran is building, they are not meant for us, but they are meant for you, for Europe, for America, for raining down mass destruction, anytime, anywhere."

"Ladies and gentlemen, it is not easy to oppose something that is embraced by the greatest powers in the world, believe me, it would be far easier to the remain silent. But throughout our history, the Jewish people have learned the heavy price of silence. And as the prime minister of the Jewish state—as someone who knows that history, I refuse to be silent. I'll say it again—the days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. Not being passive, but it means speak up about those danger, and we have, we are, we will. Not being passive also means defending ourselves against those dangers. We have, we are, and we will. Israel not allow Iran to break in, sneak in or to walk into the nuclear weapons club. I know that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is Israel's being determined to protect itself from those who seek our destruction. For in every generation, there were those who rose up to destroy our people. In antiquity we faced destruction from the ancient empires of Babylon and Rome, and in the Middle Ages we faced inquisition and expulsion, and in modern times we faced the Holocaust, and yet the Jewish people have persevered, and now another regime has surfaced swearing to destroy Israel. That the regime would be wise to consider this, I stand here today representing Israel, a country 67 years young, but the nation state of the people nearly 4,000 years old. Yet, the empires of Babylon and Rome are not represented in this hall of nations, and neither is the thousand year Reich, those seemingly invisible empires are long gone, but Israel lives. The people of Israel live."

Pennsylvania AG Kathleen Kane (D) is getting indicted AGAIN.

Does this woman even understand what an Attorney General does? Seriously, the point of the job is to help fight crime.  Not commit crime.

Anyway, it's yet another perjury charge, and this is the really entertaining bit: "[t]he new charge Thursday stems from evidence found during an execution of a search warrant at her office Sept. 17."  You see: despite the fact that AG Kathleen Kane has been indicted, indulged in public conspiracy theorizing, and recently had her law license revoked… well, the Pennsylvania Democrat refuses to resign. She's still the Attorney General for Pennsylvania, because by God they're going to have to drag Kathleen Kane out in chains before she gives up that job.

Although that might change.  More from the Action News article:

An affidavit filed by a county detective said Kane has repeatedly said, directly and through her lawyers, that she did not swear to keep secret the 2009 grand jury information about a former head of the NAACP in Philadelphia.

But the district attorney's office said her signed oath was recovered during a search of her Harrisburg offices on Sept. 17, contradicting her claims that no such document existed.

…and that's the new perjury charge. And can you wait to hear how Democratic Pennsylvanian AG Kathleen Kane will try to explain away those treacherous papers with the awkward signatures all over them? – Because I cannot wait.  I assume that it will be epic; I dare even hope that it will profane. But, really, the prosecutors have got AG Kane dead in the water on this one. Someone should explain this to her.

Preferably, somebody with a valid law license, of course.

Moe Lane (crosspost) PS: For those following at home: the original article mentions Kathleen Kane's political affiliation (Democrat) once and somehow forgot to ask other Pennsylvanian Democratic officials how they felt about the fact that they have a Democratic Attorney General under indictment for multiple perjury charges.  Funny how that works, huh?

Watch "Hillary Supporters Like Trump's Tax Plan" on YouTube

This is actually pretty funny

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

The ‘RICO 20 letter’ to Obama asking for prosecution of climate skeptics disappears from Shukla’s IGES website

What is up with that? Free Speech, hey, good enough for liberals, but not the rest of us, apparently.
I'm a skeptic of Global Warming!

The 'RICO 20 letter' to Obama asking for prosecution of climate skeptics disappears from Shukla's IGES website amid financial concerns

Uh, oh…It's about to become more about the people behind the letter, than the letter itself.

Source: Google search results

Now all we need is a steamy potboiler novel and some internal investigations and it could be Rajenda Pachauri all over again.

The big story at Climate Audit this week (see Shukla's Gold) is about the twenty authors of the letter demanding that climate skeptics be put on trial, and in particular the man pushing the letter, Jagadish Shukla, seems to be getting quite prosperous with all that Koch Brothers money Oil Money public money he gets sent his way. Steve McIntyre writes:

In 2001, the earliest year thus far publicly available, in 2001, in addition to his university salary (not yet available, but presumably about $125,000), Shukla and his wife received a further $214,496  in compensation from IGES (Shukla -$128,796; Anne Shukla – $85,700).  Their combined compensation from IGES doubled over the next two years to approximately $400,000 (additional to Shukla's university salary of say $130,000), for combined compensation of about $530,000 by 2004.

Shukla's university salary increased dramatically over the decade reaching $250,866 by 2013 and $314,000 by 2014.  (In this latter year, Shukla was paid much more than Ed Wegman, a George Mason professor of similar seniority). Meanwhile, despite the apparent transition of IGES to George Mason, the income of the Shuklas from IGES continued to increase, reaching $547,000 by 2013.  Combined with Shukla's university salary,  the total compensation of Shukla and his wife exceeded $800,000 in both 2013 and 2014.  In addition, as noted above, Shukla's daughter continued to be employed by IGES in 2014; IGES also distributed $100,000 from its climate grant revenue to support an educational charity in India which Shukla had founded.

But it seems Shukla doesn't like people looking into that, because the letter seems to have been disappeared from the IGES website. I've confirmed this over 24 hours and several search techniques. What was once visible to search engines, is no more:

The original link that no longer works:

The letter survives on the Wayback Machine here:

And here is the letter as a single image, with page 1 and 2 combined from the PDF:

Bishop Hill notes:

You can imagine the horror on the signatories' faces when they realised that some very determined people were about to take a close interest in their financial arrangements and those of their colleagues at IGES.

I'm not sure taking the letter down is going to help much though.

The Streisand effect has been unleashed Mr. Shukla, enjoy the ride.

h/t to Russell Cook

Ludwig Von Mises: Hero Of Liberty

Ludwig Von Mises: Hero Of Liberty


September 29 marks the 134th anniversary of the birth of Ludwig von Mises, a renowned leader in the "Austrian School" of economics. Mises made many important contributions to technical economics, but he also was a champion of individual liberty. It is because of this dual focus in his work that so many revere Mises to this day.

Mises's most important contribution to economics was his critique of socialism, which he first published in 1920. Even many professional economists at that time thought that socialism might suffer from problems of corruption and incentives, but that it surely could work "in theory."

However, Mises demonstrated that because a socialist government would monopolize ownership of important factors of production — such as factories, raw materials, and farmland — there would be no genuine market prices for these inputs. Therefore, even after the fact, it would be impossible for the socialist central planners to tell whether or not their orders made economic sense. They would see the benefits of their production plans — so many cars, diapers, apple pies, and so on — but they would have no way of judging the costs.

Such difficulties pose no problem for a society that embraces private property and the use of money. Here, thousands of individuals own the various parcels of land, deposits of crude oil, and shares in major corporations. They buy and sell them moment to moment on organized exchanges, and in the process they generate prices that accountants can rely on when reckoning profit-and-loss statements. Although such bookkeeping strikes the typical socialist as useless, this mental device is essential to provide feedback to entrepreneurs. They need to know whether or not their ventures are making good use of scarce resources. In effect, profits are a green light telling them, "the consumers approve!" while losses are the market's way of saying, "You need to change something, fast."


Don't Miss Out on Social Selling: The Nitty Gritty of Social Sales
Microsoft Dynamics

Getting Talented Employees to Stick Around: Show Their Total Compensation Statement
Sponsored Links by
Here we see the link between technical economics and Mises's concern for human welfare. Mises didn't study the mechanics of a capitalist society simply out of intellectual curiosity, the way a physicist might investigate how the sun generates solar flares. No, Mises recognized that human society itself rests on a foundation of private property and the rule of law. Only to the degree that individual rights are respected would people enjoy access to the life-enhancing benefits of a division-of-labor economy, in which some people focus on growing food while others specialize in building houses. In a world of self-sufficiency, individuals could not reap the advantages of cooperation and output would plummet.

To give another example of Mises's blend of technical economics with a passion for liberty, consider the realm of monetary policy. Here Mises was a champion of the classical gold standard, under which governments had to redeem their national paper currencies (the dollar, franc, pound, and so on) against definite weights of gold. The usual "economic" case for such a system is that it restrains inflation and allows people to plan their affairs with confidence, knowing that the government won't debase the currency in five years.

Mises, however, went beyond this argument. He claimed that the classical gold standard should be respected as faithfully as a bill of rights. In other words, the people needed to be protected from arbitrary government interference with their money, just as surely as they needed protection from government meddling with free speech or the exercise of religion.

Ludwig von Mises was a genius in the realm of economic theory, but he was also a passionate advocate of human freedom. He devoted his career not only to the development economic science, but also to teaching its core lessons to the broader public. To this day, those who strive for liberty should read the classic works of this benefactor of humanity.

Robert P. Murphy is a Research Fellow with Independent Institute and Research Assistant Professor with the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University. His new book Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action crystallizes the key insights of Mises's greatest treatise.

2015-09-30 07:21 snowden

He joined Twitter yesterday, and already has almost a million followers, not including the NSA of course.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Joe Biden's 4-hour game of Rock/Paper/Scissors Solitaire ends in a draw

Rudolf E. Havenstein (@RudyHavenstein) tweeted:
SPORTS: Joe Biden's 4-hour game of Rock/Paper/Scissors Solitaire ends in a draw.

New VW CEO says cars affected by emissions-rigging scandal to be refitted

What will Bill do if his wife is indicted?


Run, Joe, run

Celebrated Clinton watcher Edward Klein reveals in a new book that the Obama White House sees Hillary Clinton faltering in the email scandal, possibly even facing federal charges, but President Obama is noncommittal on a pardon for his former top diplomat.

What's more, Obama aides are pushing Vice President Joe Biden to run, feeling that he is the best alternative to Clinton if her polls continue to plummet and more Americans find her untrustworthy.

Edward Klein's latest book.
Describing a White House scene between top advisor Valerie Jarrett, and Michelle and Barack Obama, Klein in his new "Unlikable: The Problem With Hillary" writes that Jarrett is leading the Biden effort.

"I'm trying to light a fire under Joe," writes Klein, quoting "sources who spoke to Jarrett" about the situation. "Joe's loyal. He'll listen to you and take your advice," Klein says Jarrett told Obama.

The book, from Regnery Publishing, said that the Obamas are obsessed with the Clintons and Hillary's email scandal, though they don't like the former first family.

In fact, Klein, a former New York Times editor, wrote that Obama told Jarrett, "I can't get behind that woman and I refuse to spend time with Bill."

There may be new reasons for the feud. On NBC, Clinton split with Obama on Syria and then said that she and Bill want to "take the White House back."

Klein's previous book describing an Obama-Clinton feud.
Past accounts of Clinton troubles uncovered by Klein have been denied by the Clinton team. He has written two other books on Hillary Clinton, "The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President," and "Blood Feud: The Clintons Vs. The Obamas."

In "Unlikable," out this week, Klein writes that Obama felt that Hillary Clinton was "dumb, dumb, dumb" for setting up a private email server in her New York home's basement. On pages 224-225:

"It's all her own fault," he [Obama] repeated over and over, according to sources who spoke to Jarrett. "Bill should have advised her better. He should have made her goddamn behave, follow the rules."

"There's nothing we can do now about any of this," Jarrett said. "It's going to be in the hands of the Justice Department. You can't be seen to interfere. It's gone way too far."

Barack plopped down in a chair and let out a sigh.

"Dumb, dumb, dumb," he said. "Just goddamned dumb."

Jarrett disagreed.

"It's not dumb," she said. "It's arrogance. The Clintons think the rules don't apply to them. Bill's even said so in exactly those words."

Then, Klein adds, Jarrett raised the possibility of granting presidential pardon to Clinton if she ends up facing criminal charges for allegedly mishandling classified information.

"But Obama was non-committal on the subject of a presidential pardon," reports Klein.

Monday, September 28, 2015

A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

I am a global warming skeptic - big time-  come and get me 0bama.

Scientists have many important roles to play in preparations for the upcoming UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris. Some are working hard to clarify uncertainties in the science, others on developing and evaluating alternative climate policies.

One group of climate scientists is trying a different approach. Dismayed by what they see as a lack of progress on the implementation of climate policies that they support, these 20 scientists sent a letter to the White House calling for their political opponents to be investigated by the government.

In particular, they are voicing their support of a proposal by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) for a RICO investigation of fossil fuel corporations and their supporters, who the scientists allege have deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, with the consequence of forestalling America's response to reducing carbon emissions.

RICO, short for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, is a federal law enacted in 1970 as a crime-fighting tool for use against the Mafia. It includes prison sentences of up to 20 years and seizure of financial assets for those found guilty of  such "racketeering."

What these 20 scientists have done with their letter is the worst kind of irresponsible advocacy. Attempts by powerful people to silence other scientists, especially in this brutal fashion, is a recipe for stifling scientific progress and for making poor policies.

Senator Whitehouse singled out one climate scientist, Willie Soon, a solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who argues that changes in solar radiation, rather than carbon emissions, are the major force behind global warming.

Seven other climate scientists were the targets of a recent McCarthyite 'witch hunt' by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.). I was one of the seven. Rep. Grijalva indicated that I was investigated because of my recent Congressional testimony summarizing peer-reviewed research indicating that the magnitude and impacts of expected warming could be less than generally believed.

None of the Grijalva 7 was found to have engaged in wrongdoing of any sort, yet there have been significant career consequences for some.

 The demand by Senator Whitehouse and the 20 climate scientists for legal persecution of people whose research on science and policy they disagree with represents a new low in the politicization of science.

The role of these 20 scientists is particularly troubling.  The consequence of this persecution, intended or not, is to make pariahs of scientists who are doing exactly what we expect of researchers: to critically evaluate evidence and publish that work in the scientific literature.

Minority perspectives have an important and respected role to play in advancing science, as a mean for testing ideas and pushing the knowledge frontier forward. While President Obama bows to no one in attacking climate 'deniers', he recently made an important statement in a town hall meeting at the University in Iowa on the importance of challenging received knowledge in a university setting:

"Because there was this space where you could interact with people who didn't agree with you and had different backgrounds from you … I started testing my own assumptions, and sometimes I changed my mind," he said. "Sometimes I realized, maybe I've been too narrow-minded; maybe I didn't take this into account; maybe I should see this person's perspective. That's what college, in part, is all about."

That's even more what real science is about. It is important for scientists to engage the public and to work with policy makers to assess the impacts and unintended consequences of policy options. However, it has become 'fashionable' for academic scientists to advocate for certain political outcomes, without having much understanding of the policy process, economics, or the ethics of such advocacy.

What these 20 scientists have done with their letter is the worst kind of irresponsible advocacy. Attempts by powerful people to silence other scientists, especially in this brutal fashion, is a recipe for stifling scientific progress and for making poor policies.

Climate policy has been limited by an overly narrow set of narratives and policy options. Expanding the frameworks for thinking about climate change and climate policy can lead to developing a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from it.

That is how democracy is supposed to work. We search for solutions that can garner a critical mass of support. We don't try to criminalize our political opponents, and especially should not try to criminalize scientists who have a different view.

Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and President of Climate Forecast Applications Network. Follow
Judith Curry on twitter @curryja.