Here is a thread where you can discuss anything you like. For example, Canadian health care policies.
More like this
An open thread where you can discuss anything you like. Especially Canadian health care and the Israel Palestine conflict.
Psychology buffs are probably familiar with the Implicit Association Test. In laboratory experiments testing for racial prejudice, subjects are timed in their matching of positive and negative words with either white or black faces. In these tests, whites overwhelmingly react more positively to…
Government scientists play essential roles in our country's top public health achievements. From food-safety improvements to tobacco cessation, we rely on them to warn us of health risks, identify solutions, and create standards that promote public health. The Trump administration puts our health…
I would hope not, but in fact there seems to be no effective mechanism in place to keep in check a not insignificant number of Google engineers who have full access to everyone's gMail contents and other private information. And, there is always David Barksdale.
David Barksdale was one such…
Are the septics switching to "it will cost too much to stop climate change" now that the science is overwhelming? Examples:
George F. Will
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3672506/site/newsweek/
We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this. The activity is economic growth, the wealth-creation that makes possible improved well-being--better nutrition, medicine, education, etc. How much reduction of such social goods are we willing to accept by slowing economic activity in order to (try to) regulate the planet's climate?
Debra J. Saunders
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/06/EDGC7N76…
It's one thing to argue that, if there is even a chance global warming is man-made, Americans should cut back when you think you will have to make minor lifestyle changes. It's another thing to make that argument when your job, your industry, your car, your home -- electricity itself -- may be at stake. Then you want a more honest debate.
Of course neither author presents any evidence to support their economic claims.
Man.
Canadian health care policies.
What's up with that?
Trying to tell "us" something, Tim :-)
Are you actually under the impression that somehow the climate can be prevented from changing? "Stasis" is an option?
Come on.
So what to you suggest n_g_s? Just ignoring the problem? We can't prevent climate from changing, but we can reduce the changes caused by our behaviour, which goes a long way.
I blame you, ben. I always stay on-topic. ;)
Surprise, surprise! POLL: Only 13 Percent Of Congressional Republicans Believe In Man-Made Global Warming
Joe,
That is indeed a surprise. I would have put it about 3%.
Tim Dunlop nails the Oz wingnut neo-denialist approach. Check it out.
Please, everyone, stay on topic :-)
Wanted: military doctors for Afghanistan
Some Thoughts on our Health Insurance Mess
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/chesser4.html
The "problem" of a warmer, wetter, CO2-fertilized environment?
Well, I seriously doubt that it "goes a long way", but I'd be more than happy to see my tax dollars not frittered away on direct and indirect subsidies to the big Oil and Gas companies.
Wouldn't that be a good "first step"? NOT encouraging CO2 emissions? Yet you never hear about this "less-government" approach from all the Big-Government AGW proponents. It's because their agenda is not about the environment, it's about growing Big Government.
Also, we could end the subsidies for paper recycling. Less paper recycling means more trees will have to be grown to produce the same amount of paper. More trees means more CO2 sucked out of the atmosphere. Again, it means less-government (less taxpayer subsidies), but who wants to talk about that when the true agenda is increasing government.
KUD-ZU KUD-ZU KUD-ZU KUD-ZU!
The new Green Revolution.
The Cash Crop of the 21st Century.
The Food of the Future.
In America, some of that is being done .
I don't know much about other nations, but in America, proponents of GHG emissions reductions have also been proponents of ending subsidies of USA fossil fuel use.
That doesn't seem especially helpful; any carbon that gets taken up into trees during growth eventually ends up back in the atmosphere during decay. The paper that's being recycled keeps its carbon from ending up back in the atmosphere; if paper gets thrown out, it ends up decaying and contributing its carbon back to the air. It's a zero-sum game no matter how you play it, unless you make a lot of paper and then store it. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, it's based on my admittedly basic understanding of the processes involved.)
Davis you are correct in what you say but have omitted one key factor. The amount of energy required to "pulp" the wood i.e. separate the lignin from the cellulose is huge. This energy expense is saved when using recycled paper.
Incidentally, this same process gets completely omitted from the arguments put forward by the cellulose to ethanol proponents. Hydrolyzing pure cellulose either chemically or enzymatically is easy and is not the major stumbling block that the proponents always suggest when they say "if we can only reduce the costs of our enzymes by a factor of five our ethanol will be economic". This is untrue since it was shown over 20 years ago that acid hydrolysis (under carefully controlled conditions) was the best way to go.
Nanny, I'm in full agreement with that article by Joel Chesser that you linked to.
In Washington, we have a particular network of MD's who WILL NOT bill insurance. Out of pocket only. They charge less, and make more money doing it. Then you just get catastrophic coverage which costs significantly less than full coverage (imagine having a third party pay your grocery bills, while you just pay a premium).
I forgot to mention the second part: Bury paper waste instead of recycling it.
That locks away the CO2 from decay underground.
Re: Doctors in the Canadian Military
Maybe we (Canada) should try to hire all the doctors who are currently driving cabs...
Landfills generate methane.
My city trucks its waste 100 miles because there is no longer any land available for landfills nearby. We began aggressively recycling in my city to reduce the cost of processing garbage.
And someone above mentioned that turning wood into paper takes more energy than recycling it.
Like most libertarians, n_g_s takes a very simplistic view of the world...
Interesting point about cutting emissions of GHGs n_g_s makes. Strange why he things "big government AGW proponents" aren't interested in such things. It's our anti-government conservative administration which has been working overtime to avoid taking such steps the last six years.
See: the Kyoto protocol, recent Global Warming laws passed in California, and Nancy Pelosi.
!!!
The Bush Administration has grown government to unheard of levels, more so that Clinton or even Carter. Bush has used his veto exactly ONCE, and has otherwise approved of every expansion of government that Congress has passed his way. Farm bills, Homeland Security, foreign wars, Education, Transportation, it's all build-up, build-up, build-up to the detriment of our individual liberty.
Please try and take a honest look at what is going on around you.
That's right ngs. My links aren't for you; they're for people whose minds can be changed.
nanny
"The Bush Administration has grown government to unheard of levels..."
So how many times did you vote for Bush nanny? Let me guess. 4
Maybe if you weren't such a gullible twit, the country wouldn't be so screwed up.
With a name like Nanny Government Sucks, you think I'm a Bush supporter?
ngs:
Restore a Rational Tax Rate on Petroleum Production Act of 2007
Jim,
The "it's too expensive to mitigate against global warming" frame is starting to get some steam. We no doubt will have to engage in some adaptation, and there will be a big push for adaptation from some of the usual suspects. For more information, see also Roger Pielke Jr.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/00…
NGS: "Well, I seriously doubt that it "goes a long way", but I'd be more than happy to see my tax dollars not frittered away on direct and indirect subsidies to the big Oil and Gas companies.
Wouldn't that be a good "first step"? NOT encouraging CO2 emissions? Yet you never hear about this "less-government" approach from all the Big-Government AGW proponents."
Actually you've been hearing it from repeatedly for the past couple of years, you just choose to keep ignoring it.
"Also, we could end the subsidies for paper recycling. Less paper recycling means more trees will have to be grown to produce the same amount of paper. More trees means more CO2 sucked out of the atmosphere."
And more energy spent in harvesting trees and producing paper.
Incidentaly, while the North america and European paper industries like to keep telling peopel how most of the wood produced in those continents coem from plantations, they keep neglectign to mention that they are alos major importers of wood pulp and paper from South America and Asia.
NGD: "I forgot to mention the second part: Bury paper waste instead of recycling it.
That locks away the CO2 from decay underground."
You really don;t know anything about any of the environmental sciences, do you?
waht do you think happens to paper and most other organic waste when buried?
It decomposes anaerobically and produces methane - which is abotu 400 times as effective as CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
llewelly - The bill shifts tax dollars around from Big Oil subsidies to "Clean Energy" subsidies. Unfortunately, The "Clean Energy" subsidies aren't going to do a whit of good. When you subsidize, you get sloth and little innovation. Just look at the Oil and Gas industry. "Clean Energy" markets need to struggle and compete in our cut throat free society so the best technologies will win and we'll know they are good because the companies producing them will still be around, thriving and profiting. The 13 billion belongs back in our free society in the form of accross-the-board tax cuts that will stimulate investment in new tech, and will encourage entrepeneurs to get that great new clean energy idea to market.
Mithrandir - Thanks for the link. The bill is a tax increase on Big Oil. What's left out is the tax reduction for the rest of us. If there's a tax inequity in the law, it should be fixed, but why is it always in the direction of INCREASING taxes overall? That is Big Government growth. The bill could have reduced taxes for everyone to the rate that Big Oil was payinig, or could have evened out tax rates to a median level by increasing Big Oil taxes, reducing for the rest of us. Either of those two options at it would gain my support.
NGS: See: the Kyoto protocol
Nanny, have you READ the Kyoto Protocol?
I suggest you take a look, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised by the absence of "Godless Asiatic hordes will eat your baby" provisions.
Tradeable permits, the many mechanism proposed by Kyoto, have bene proven again and again to be the msot economically efficient MARKET-BASED way to reduce pollution.
NGS: "THe Bush Administration has grown government to unheard of levels, more so that Clinton or even Carter. Bush has used his veto exactly ONCE, and has otherwise approved of every expansion of government that Congress has passed his way. Farm bills, Homeland Security, foreign wars, Education, Transportation, it's all build-up, build-up, build-up to the detriment of our individual liberty."
Yes and every bit of it is framed and justified by the exact sort of anti-government rhetoric you spout at every opportunity.
Oh and I din't see many libertarians prepared ot criticise Bush until Iraq went south -but I do remember plenty of them buying his horseshit abotu how cuttign taxes would balance the budget.
How's that working out for you?
(Before responding be sure to consider: a. "off-budget" emergency spending; b. the impact of inflation on effective real tax rates and c. the fact that very year the Bush administration starts out with a hugely inflated estimate of the deficit then when the real deficit is lower claim this as progress in cutting the deficit.
Jim": "Are the septics switching to "it will cost too much to stop climate change" now that the science is overwhelming?"
Yes, if anyone cares to look back throguh the archives here I predicted this a couple of years back.
Next: "Whatever policy my corporate masters pay me to shill next will help prevent global warming"
"Bombing the Iranians will reduce their capacity to export oil, thereby encoruaging the transition ot alternative fuels"
"Mandatory sterilisation of welfare recipients will slow population growth thereby reducing global warming"
"Sure if we ban this chemical fewer people will die of cancer- but think of the additional greenhouse gases they'd release."
I find it hilarious that Tim Lambert's sarcastic remark about people who cause threads here to take a hard right turn into the warp gate to unrelated topics has driven this post to the scienceblogs top 5.
Trying not to turn this into an all Nanny-bashing thread but this is what's known as a "target-rich environment".
NGS: "When you subsidize, you get sloth and little innovation."
Right that's why the high tariffs on manufacturd imports in 19th century America prevented Tom Edison from ever inventing anything.
Tell me, Nanny, how do you explain the rapid expansion in solar and wind capacity in recent eyars and the rapid rate of technological development in those areas?
(To clarify, I'm not a huge fan of government subisidies and agree they often do more harm than good. However, I'm also not a huge fan of grandiose overstatements based on blind ideology.)
I you really think that the volumes of rules and regulations in the Kyoto protocol can lead to a free-society system of trade, then I've got a nice place in New Orleans behind a government-maintained levee to sell you. Did you think NAFTA was about free trade as well? These are government-managed schemes that will fail because they do not take human nature into account, as free society trade does.
News Flash: The republicans are a bunch of lying, deceitful bastards.
Are you kidding? How about:
http://www.truthaboutwar.org
Anything from Harry Browne's archives:
http://www.harrybrowne.com/
Also anything from http://www.lewrockwell.com/
When was Iraq ever "North"?
No libertarian was fooled by Bush's feeble tax reductions. Please provide a reference for your outrageous claim.
"the volumes of rules and regulations in the Kyoto protocol"
Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you have never actually read the Kyoto Protocol.
Tell me do you consider the United States sulphur dioxide emission-trading system a "free-society system of trade" (whatever the hell that means)?
I'm also fascinated by the idea that NAFTA "will fail", because you know a decade of economic growth and declining unemployment in all three signatories doesn't exactly spell "failure" to me.
"No libertarian was fooled by Bush's feeble tax reductions. Please provide a reference for your outrageous claim."
So no libertarian believes that cutting tax rates will increase government revenue?
Sure about that?
I guess the Mises Institute aren't libertarians.
http://www.mises.org/story/1142
And neither is the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4379
I just can't help myself:
NGS :"The "problem" of a warmer, wetter, CO2-fertilized environment?"
Further proof that there's no piece of propaganda so nonsensical NAGS won't seize on it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060412204831.htm
"Higher Carbon Dioxide, Lack Of Nitrogen Limit Plant Growth
Science Daily -- Earth's plant life will not be able to "store" excess carbon from rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels as well as scientists once thought because plants likely cannot get enough nutrients, such as nitrogen, when there are higher levels of carbon dioxide, according to scientists publishing in this week's issue of the journal Nature."
But what do these "scientists" know? They obviously haven't accepted The Market into their heart as The One True God.
As to the "warmer" bit, tell me NGS have you ever noticed what proportion of the world's population lives in the tropics? Probably not given the truly monstrous parochialism displayed by so many American libertarians.
"Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, **in two years time**, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there's another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I'm all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc.
"One caveat: Because I don't think it's right to bet on such serious matters for personal gain, if I win, I'll donate the money to the USO. He can give it to the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or whatever his favorite charity is."
-Jonah Goldberg, demonstrating how his understanding of foreign affairs surpasses that of Juan Cole, National Review, Feb. 8, 2005 (**two years ago**).
Juan Cole's response:
"I cannot tell you how this paragraph hit me in the gut. I was nearly immobilized by disgust and grief. This man really does see Iraqis as playthings. He is proposing a wager on the backs of Iraqis. Millions of Iraqis are going through winter with insufficient heating oil. They are jobless. The innocent 250,000 Fallujans are homeless. Imagine what $1000 means to them. And here we have an prominent American media star, a man who sets opinion on the Sunday afternoon talking heads shows, betting on them as though they are greyhounds in a race. They are not human beings to him, but political playthings on which to be wagered."
"That sounds like a rejection to me."
"Juan Cole in our little spat, was cross with me for criticizing him (entirelly accurately) for his interpretation of the Iraqi elections."
"As a matter of intellectual honesty, I'm perfectly willing to admit that, had Cole had the courage to accept the wager, he would have won and I would have made good on it. But, since he didn't, I won't be jumping through hoops for this crowd beyond this post."
-Goldberg demonstrating how he has modified his axioms to reflect his grievous misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq, as well as his deep understanding of whether that situation is more important, or the fact of Cole having not taken him up on the bet.
Ian, I see no mention of "how cutting taxes would balance the budget" at either of the two links you provided.
Care to try again?
NGS =- not in so many wrods, no.
how's this:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6432
More than a dozen highly regarded studies have shown that the amount of income reported by those facing the highest marginal tax rates is extremely sensitive to changes in those tax rates. This is measured by the "elasticity" (responsiveness) of taxable income.
Harvard's Martin Feldstein pioneered this research and much more. It is a professional scandal that he has not been awarded the Nobel Prize. In a new paper on "The Effect of Taxes on Efficiency and Growth" from the National Bureau of Economic Research, which he heads, Feldstein recaps his estimate that "the elasticity of income with respect to one-minus-the-marginal-tax rate is about one." If so, cutting someone's marginal tax from 40 percent to 30 percent would typically result in about 16 percent more income being reported. With 16 percent more income and a 10 percent lower tax rates, revenues would certainly not go down. Even if the elasticity is half that large (0.50), any loss of revenue would be modest at best and arguably offset by improved economic performance.
Two Treasury Department economists, Robert Carroll and Warren Hrung, wrote in The American Economic Review last year as though everyone agreed that the elasticity of reported income was much lower than one, closer to 0.40. But that figure is near the bottom of the range of 14 estimates surveyed by the Congressional Budget Office. Wojciech Kopczuk of Columbia University has an estimate of 0.53. The two studies reporting a lower 0.40 estimate found the response much higher at higher incomes. Jon Gruber and Emmanuel Saez estimated the elasticity rose to 0.56 at incomes above $100,000. Saez has a separate estimate of 0.63 among the top 1 percent of taxpayers.
What all this means is that cutting the top tax rate in half has resulted in much more income being reported and taxed in every country that tried it -- the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and India, for example. Some mistakenly imagined that proved the rich suddenly became richer when U.S. tax rates fell from 1986 to 1988. What it actually proved was that the rich reported more taxable income when tax rates on an extra dollar became more reasonable. These facts are not seriously in dispute regardless what portion of this widely observed "Laffer Curve" phenomenon was due to a change in actual income (a supply-side effect) or to a change in the proportion reported to tax collectors.
I guess the Libertarian Party aren't libertarians either:
"... we are far onto the declining side of the Laffer Curve, so raising taxes further will actually decrease revenue by depressing the economy."
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/printer_714.shtml
I think what we have here is a category error.
NGS KNOWS that libertarians are invariable correct and are the sole voices for justice and truth.
He appears to accept that the Bush tax cuts have not increased government revenue. He just can't make the logical leap to accepting that fellow libertarians could actually disagree with him.
Ian, here's what you said:
I disputed this and asked you for references.
So far, you have provided nothing that shows that any libertarians believed that Bush could balance the budget with his feeble tax cut.
(of course, that's because Libertarians know that Bush never stopped spending like a drunken sailor)
Are Libertarians in favor of tax cuts? Sure. But it takes much more than that if you want to have a balanced budget.
I didn't refer to how "Bush could balance the budget with his feeble tax cut" I referred to the delusion, shared by Bush and many if not most libertarians that cutting tax rates increases government revenue other than in very rare and specific circumstances.
By endlessly recycling one of the most pernicious pieces of nonsense in the public discourse since the days of the Third Reich, libertarians helped Bush get away with this act of economic vandalism.
Yes, you did.
Did JFK also help Bush "get away" with this as well? He proposed tax cuts as a way to increase tax revenues back in the early 60's.
Where is your evidence of "ecomonic vandalism" because of the Bush tax cuts? Doesn't Bush's lack of spending restraint also play a role?
NGS - I have already quoted what I said initially and the original post is still there, rephrasing it to suit your argument won't change that no matter how often you try it.
"He proposed tax cuts as a way to increase tax revenues back in the early 60's."
Remember than bit in there about "rare circumstances"? The top marginal tax rate in the US in the early 60's was (from memory) in excess of 80%. That's a pretty "rare circumstance" in the world today.
The typical libertarian critique of Bush's tax cut is basicly "well of course just ONE bucket of kerosene won;t stop that housefire you need about a dozen more."
Of course, Bush's irresponsible spending policies are a major contributor to to the US deficits - but so are his tax cuts.
It's going to take both a multi-year period of spending restraint and higher taxes to correct the US budget deficit.
Read up on the last twenty years or so of Australian economic history - we went from large deficits and a high and rapidly growing public debt to a position where the government has eliminated its net debt entirely and can now
deliver significant tax cuts whilst continuing to run surpluses (which are being invested against future pension liabilities and which means we can probably weather a future recession without accumulating significant new debt).
But we did it by both cutting spending and maintaining income tax rates well above those in the US until such time as the debt was paid off.
While we're discussing economic history perhaps you can tell me why if, as your mate from the Libertarian Party says, the US is still "onto the declining side of the Laffer curve" the tax rate increases under Bush the Elder and Clinton didn't result in a decline in tax revenue.
Ian, you are just arguing your strawman for post after post. Your original post on this subject was about balancing the budget and you've yet to go back to that.
But impact on the budget of the spending increases far outweighs the impact of his paltry tax cuts.
Well, anyone can tell you that enough of a reduction in spending will balance the budget, regardless of how much income tax you take in. There's not necessarily a need to raise taxes at all if you don't mind parting with a bloated, inefficient, corrupt government bureaucracy or two.
"But impact on the budget of the spending increases far outweighs the impact of his paltry tax cuts."
Prove it - and while you're at it strip out the spending on interest payments on the higher national debt attributable to his tax cuts.
"Well, anyone can tell you that enough of a reduction in spending will balance the budget, regardless of how much income tax you take in. There's not necessarily a need to raise taxes at all if you don't mind parting with a bloated, inefficient, corrupt government bureaucracy or two."
Riiight- I'm sure you easily nominate $200 billion in cuts to the US federal budget.
You also omit to consider the impact on the economy of throwing millions of public servants (oops sorry "inefficient corrupt government bureaucrats") out of work - damn those police, firemen and ambulance drivers they've been grinding Bill Gates down long enough
but I'm sure the abolition of unemployment insurance and the minimum wages and the reintroduction of workhouses and debtor's prisons will clear that right up.
Since this is an open thread, im going to take the opportunity to ask a naive question or two on the topic of climate change and all that stuff. Hopefully someone will help me out a little. (I think i've confused myself by looking at too many graphs and figures. I need some feedback)
Simple question: How many W/m2 is needed to warm the the Earth by 0.6+oC?
My understanding is that I can calculate this via the stephan-boltzmann equation. Being mathematically challenged i eventually figured out how to use this equation.
So...using the google calculator I can figure out how many watts the earth needs to warm to its current temperature...I think.
I type into the google calculator: 5.67*10^-8*288^4 (the constant * temp in kelvins ^4)
This gives approx 390 watts (so thats 240 coming in from the sun & 150 watts for the Greenhouse effect) warming the surface to about 15oC when in equillibrium. This heat is removed from the surface via radiation, convection and latent heat transfer. Higher in the atmosphere you have 240 coming in from the sun and 240 radiating out. I think thats the basics of earths energy budget.
Now if i turn up the heat somehow by pumping in some more watts, the earth will eventually respond and elevate to higher and higher temperatures until a situation is reached where energy in watts coming in equals watts going out. When the earth reaches this state its said to be in equillibrium.
The earth has warmed by about 0.6 - 0.7oC. So if I do this with the SB equation:
5.67*10^-8*288.6^4 (just adding 0.6 to earths temperature in Kelvins)
I get (from memory) approx 393.3 W/m2. The difference being 3.3 W/m2 for an increase in temperature of 0.6oC (about 3.9 W/m2 for a 0.7oC increase).
A point of confusion comes for me when i view attribution graphs (see figure spm-2 in AR4 SPM). Those graphs where you have c02 responsible for 1.5 W/m2, solar responsible for 0.3 W/m2, and aerosols responsible for a negative forcing of about -2 W/m2 (?) etc. These graphs then usually give a net forcing of about 1.7 W/m2 (postive forcings minus negative forcings). But anyway 1.7 W/m2 isnt enough to warm things by 0.6 degrees according to my calculations. There is a missing 2 watts (we need 3.3+ watts atleast). Im assuming my maths above using the SB equation is correct and that this missing 2 watts is accounted for by feedbacks (water vapour,clouds,albedo..and god knows what else) that arnt for some reason included in these types of graphs. Or maybe im completely wrong. I've certainly managed to confuse myself. Help and corrections would be appreciated. I need some feedback on this stuff. Anyone???
just to clarify things, The SB equation is:
5.67 X 10^-8 X 288^4
I left out the multiplication signs above
Craig: there are two problems with your work. First, the SB equation is not valid since there is an albedo effect with Earth (i.e. Earth does not absorb all that reaches it).
In addition there are feedback mechanisms that complicate the whole process (i.e. reduction in albedo as climate changes, increased greenhouse effect as absolute humidity rises, etc.)
Finally, there are significant and different lag times for the processes involved.
All in all, as the necromancers keep reminding us, it is a very complex system. That is what makes it so interesting.
Possibly Tim has a response to these charges made against him:
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/
Inaccurately attacking people many, many dozens of times
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/namecalling.htm
Doctoring evidence
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/lambert.htm
Refusing to let another academic, Jim Purtilo, post anything on Wikipedia
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/details.htm
Spam till you're blue in the face if I care. Meh.
xxxx,
Why should Tim bother? Here's a list of Professor Purtilo's references:
xrlq.com
fumento.com
patterico.com
*and* he gives Tim Blair his own page! Referencing Bolt and Lapkin!
Fair and Balanced?
Nice researching there poptrot, I think I'll settle for your comment as an end to the matter myself.
poptrot and frankis, you may have missed it but there are many professors and others on the list that Tim has also attacked as sockpuppets when they were not.
http://doubletap.cs.umd.edu/WikipediaStudy/namecalling.htm
you take a few of the sources who you claim are not trustworthy and ignore all these other claims. Is Professor Purtilo untrustworthy? What about the professor at Washington University named Michale Gordinier? What about the professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill? What about the professor at North Carolina State? What about others such as Chad Baus who caught Tim making up false claims about information? All that just from one of the pages that Purtilo has put together.
Yes, Purtilo is untrustworthy. For example, he claimed that I frequently accused Ann Coulter of using sock puppets. How requently did I do that xxxx? Purtilo repeatedly wrote deceitful edit summaries, claiming that he was making minor changes when he was scrubbing the criticism of Lott from the article.
And how did he know, for example, that 66.92.151.249 was Jeff Koch? Purtilo has never provided a satisfactory answer to this. Why don't you put these questions to Purtilo and get back to answer with an answer xxxx?
I googled "Jeff Koch" and this is the first thing that was on the list: http://jeffkoch.com/. He is in DC (one of these guys is apparently Koch http://www.jeffkoch.com/images/small_BF1.jpg). I can't find any other Jeff Koch's in DC. Did you checked yourself if this guy exists and might put the material up on wikipedia?It might be something to do before you accuse Purtilo of being untrustworthy. or before YOU accuse people of not being who they claim to be? If Purtilo just pulled this name out of the telephone book, it would be very easy for you to catch him on this and put the whole thing to rest. You would have really nailed purtilo if Koch never put up a post on Lott on wkipedia. Have you checked in it is possible that this Koch in DC could have made the posts?
Is Gordinier made up? I googled him and found this (http://www.olin.wustl.edu/faculty/FacultyBio.cfm?UserName=gordinier). You still have Gordinier as being claimed to be a sockpuppet on Wikipedia! What evidence do you have to back up your claim? When asked about this before on wikipedia you did not even provide an explanation. Are the other people made up? I spent some time reading the links on Purtilo's pages and what about this Chad Baus? He seems upset upset with your claims about him. I googled Chad Baus Ohio and came up with someone nameed Chad baus who is Vice Chairman Buckeye Firearms Association.
Your sigle knock on Purtilo seems pretty trivial. By the way, it took me just a few minutes of googling to get this information. What information
4x, you seem to have totally missed the point. Purtilo identified 66.92.151.249 as Jeff Koch. You can't do this by Googling Jeff Koch. All he had was 66.92.151.249. How did he go from an IP address to a name?
I wouldn't know about sock puppets, but it's no secret that Coulter has made use of more than one sock drawer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nellie-b/will-ann-coulter-be-prose_b_1574…
what difference does it make for how Purtilo knew who Koch was? Suppose Koch worte Purtilo an email after seeing that he had posted on the wikipedia discussion (Baus says that is how he got in touch with Purtilo). Where does that explain that Koch was a sock puppet? how does it say that your claims were accurate? is koch a sock puppet or is he not? You claim he is. There is a Koch in DC. Have you any information on this guy that leads you to believe that he would not be involved in these posts?
4x, stop spamming my comments. I don't think anyone ever said that Koch was a sock puppet. Not only did Purtilo know who 66.92.151.249, he also knew who sniper1 and henry1776. All these people just happened to start editing Wikipedia at the same time and they all happened to make the same edits.
Why don't you spam Purtilo until he offers an explanation for this?
And who are you anyway?
*[A post by JF Beck's sockpuppet has been deleted]*
Mr Lambert,
You removed a comment posted by BBgun claiming it was an act of sock puppetry by me. Please link the comment to me and explain how a comment by BBgun is an act of sock puppetry when I have not commented in this or any other Deltoid thread for weeks. I refer you to the Wikipedia page on sock puppetry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
The real reason you removed BBgun's comment (fortunately I saw and copied it before you deleted it) is because it posed a question you choose not to answer. If you are unable to support the stuff you post at your science blog perhaps you should consider another hobby.
Why do you make a big deal out of it when you remove one of my comments when other comments are removed without notice?
20:26 AWDT
You are on moderation, Mr Beck. You are not allowed to post under a different name to bypass moderation. It doesn't matter that you haven't posted under the JF Beck name here for a while. You've acquired an unenviable reputation and people tend to ignore you -- you are not going to be able to ditch the JF Beck baggage by coming back as "BBGun".
xxxx wrote:
"Suppose Koch worte (sic) Purtilo an email after seeing that he had posted on the wikipedia discussion."
Yes, suppose, suppose. But how would we know for sure?
Ding! Ding!: purtilo@cs.umd.edu
Get back to us and let us know what he says.
*[More JF Beck sock puppetry deleted. ]*
Don't know or care who xxxx is, or BBGun. People do not ignore JF Beck, they just read and comment as they see fit. People react to alarmist, quasi scientists,(I believe that you have some sort of qualification in the computer programming area, which does not qualify you as a scientist in the disciplines of physics, chemistry or meteorology) like you because you are extremely offensive to any human being capable of rational thought. Questioning unproven and unsustantiated predictions of the effect of the new "pollutant", carbon dioxide is apparently heresy in your view. My view is that you are a disgraceful charlatan who should be stripped of the title of Australian of the Year.
newham wrote "My view is that you are a disgraceful charlatan who should be stripped of the title of Australian of the Year."
Does this mean that Tim Lambert is actually a sockpuppet of Tim Flannery?
Mr Lambert writes: "Here is a thread where you can discuss anything you like."
Obviously not, since two comments have been deleted. What about the comments made them inappropriate, other than that they were supposedly posted by me?
Mr Lambert writes: "A post by JF Beck's sockpuppet has been deleted"
You have a fixation on sock puppetry. The comment you removed was not posted by me. Even had I posted it, posting under an assumed name is not sock puppetry.
Mr Lambert writes: "You are on moderation, Mr Beck. You are not allowed to post under a different name to bypass moderation."
Everyone is allowed to post under any name they choose. If you then choose to delete these comments, that's up to you, although I'm surprised Scienceblogs.com is happy with you removing comments just because you don't want to address the points raised. It says volumes about you that you can write in all seriousness, "You are not allowed..."
Mr Lambert writes: "You've acquired an unenviable reputation and people tend to ignore you -- you are not going to be able to ditch the JF Beck baggage by coming back as "BBGun""
It's hard to believe someone with your slimy reputation would have the gall to comment on anyone's reputation. You ignore me because I've caught literally hundreds of your errors and misrepresentations; when these are pointed out to you, you run and hide - you're the only blogger I know who brags about bouncing links as a way to avoid discussion. In the past you have wildly accused me of abusing your readers (delicate little flowers they must be) and now accuse me of a new Lambert defined category of ultra-heinous sock puppetry. Jeez, the diversionary lengths you go to are truly amazing.
Anyway, here's the question you refused to answer at On Line Opinion: "Does your hearsay evidence, that global warming induced sea level change is forcing Tuvaluans to flee to New Zealand, constitute proof of this being the case? 'Yes' or 'No'. If yes, do you accept the accounts of alien 'abductees'as proof that aliens are visiting earth?"
23:05 AWDT
Shorter J F Beck:
"TIM LAMBERT IS A BIG FAT POOPYHEAD! *spamspamspamspamspam*"
J F Beck's sockpuppets:
"What he said. Also, I am not a sockpuppet. No sir. *spamspamspamspamspam*"
Upon being called on his crap:
"CENSORSHIP! DODGING! NAME-CALLING! HURF BLURF DURRRRR!!!"
I nominate JF Beck for Illiterate, Innumerate Troll of the Year. I have literally hundreds of pieces of supporting evidence which this margin is too small to contain, plus I believe Graham Young thinks very highly of him.
to Craig:
Bravo for tackling the math and physics. You're on the right track, and the first follow-up points in the right direction, that Earth's effective overall emissivity is not full black-body, and the system is non-linear. I'm taking a course on this right now so the ideas are fairly fresh in my mind (if not fully baked?) Non-blackbody S-B radiation is given by
F = (epsilon)x(sigma)x T^4
where epsilon is the emissivity, 0 <= e <= 1, with 1 for blackbody. Broad estimates of the emissivities for the parts of the earth system: land, ocean, opaque clouds: e ~= 1.0; clear air e ~=0.4 to 0.8 (varies with humidity); cirrus clouds e ~0.2. [LDD Harvey, _Global Warming: The Hard Science_ Essex, Pearson Ed. 2000, p.38]
An estimate of the "instantaneous" radiative forcing for 2xC02 is 4.0-4.5 W m^-2 [Cess et al. 1993 Uncertainties in carbon dioxide radiative forcing in atmospheric general circulation models. Science, 253, p.888-892.] This is for the inherent component prior to working in the feedbacks.
The atmosphere can be treated as a "two-box" system, with the stratosphere in the top box, and the troposphere and surface together in the lower box. The surface exchanges latent and sensible heat readily with the troposphere. Adding CO2 causes the troposphere to intercept more outgoing surface IR (at roughly blackbody rates) and thus warms the (surface+troposphere) while cooling the stratosphere (that much less surface IR reaches the stratosphere). You can approximate the total emission of the planet as the blackbody radiation from the top of the atmosphere. Since the troposphere has cooled slightly due to rising CO2 concentration, its contribution to the overall emission to space is slightly reduced.
The planet is likely not in radiative equilibrium currently, mostly because the oceans are responding slowly to the change (both by absorbing some of the CO2, and by warming and mixing downward). So there is more warming still "in the pipeline."
The estimates of climate sensitivity in the IPCC reports are for an "equilibrium response" to doubling CO2, but such an equilibrium could require a century or more.
Other important non-linearities include temperature-water vapour feedback (warmer air can hold more water molecules-> more GHE), and feedbacks from changing surface albedo as snow and ice melt back.
Whew - that's just a thumbnail sketch of a few of the issues. No wonder this course is making my head spin.
Aussies, Four Corners will be airing a Canadian documentary on "The Denial Machine" this evening.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s1854517.htm