The final mission of the NASA Space Shuttle ended when Atlantis rolled to a stop at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 21, 2011. The International Space Station is currently being serviced by the Soyuz and Progress spacecraft from Russia, with the latest delivery of crew and supplies coming on December 23, 2011. But this year could bring a resurgence of American space flight, albeit with a twist. The first private, commercial, delivery by the American company, SpaceX, is scheduled for February 7, 2012.

Dragon on Falcon 9, Photo: Mike Sheehan / SpaceX.

The International Space Station (ISS) is a joint project between the United States, Russia, Canada, Japan, and Europe to build and maintain a modular, inhabited structure in earth orbit. The ISS was designed not only as a research laboratory but also as a testing site for spacecraft systems and equipment. Currently, six astronauts are in residence conducting numerous experiments and observations.

When the space shuttles were retired, NASA was left with no American option to bring either people or supplies to the ISS; the follow-on projects had missed both cost and delivery milestones and were cancelled or significantly delayed. To compensate, NASA started the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) in 2006 to bring a free market solution and private industry on line. The second round of financing in 2008 went to SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation.

Orbital Sciences is an established space firm, having engaged in satellite delivery to orbit since 1990. They have delivered over 100 spacecraft for commercial, military and civil customers worldwide. Orbital provides a complete set of reliable, cost-effective small- and medium-class space and rocket systems products. Their satellites include geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) satellites for communications and broadcasting, low Earth orbit (LEO) spacecraft that perform remote sensing and scientific research, spacecraft used for national security missions, and planetary probes to explore deep space. Working alone and with Boeing, they have been especially valuable in military applications. However, a delivery vehicle for the ISS, with its added weight and docking requirements, is something new for them, and return is not part of their current plan.

SpaceX, on the other hand, is relatively new to the space arena entirely. Established in 2002 by Elon Musk , the founder of PayPal, they have developed new launch vehicles from the ground up. They launched their first successful Falcon 1 rocket in 2006, and a larger Falcon 9 rocket with Dragon module combination in 2010. Further, the Dragon module was returned to earth in typical NASA fashion, drogue chute into the Pacific. Their video brings with it the excitement and danger of space flight. NASA was enthusiastic about this success. Now SpaceX and Dragon are poised to rendezvous with the ISS.

Dragon Approaching ISS, (Simulation). Courtesy NASA

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. ]]> http://www.stoneforge.com/2012/02/02/into-space-again/feed/ 0 http://www.stoneforge.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-concerned-scientists/ http://www.stoneforge.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-concerned-scientists/#comments Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:32:30 +0000 Editor http://www.stoneforge.com/?p=4719 A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

A letter from distinguished scientists to the Wall Street Journal, see story.

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.  The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.  If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

In essence, this is similar to the previous resignation of Physicist Hal Lewis in October, 2010.  Dr. Lewis had complained to the APS about their political stance, and noted “the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.”

At a September political rally, the President of the Teamsters Union, James Hoffa, attacked the Tea Party with rather forceful language. Other than the coarseness of his words, the militaristic references were not dissimilar to other political discourse from all sides. However, is it fair to ask whether his Teamsters really follow up with violent behavior, is the meaning of the words different in this case?

First, Hoffa was speaking at a labor rally in Detroit for Barack Obama, candidate. This was not an introduction for a Presidential speech, but a warm-up at a political rally for the reelection of a staunch supporter of labor union leaders. Hoffa said, “We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: a war on workers. And you see it everywhere. It is the Tea Party. And you know, there’s only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They got a war, they got a war with us, and there’s only gonna be one winner. President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. … Everybody here has got to vote. If we go back, and we keep the eye on the prize, let’s take these son of a bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.”

In terms of heated rhetoric, this was not dissimilar to the rhetoric from Obama’s previous minister, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright, in profanity laced sermons, preached hatred of white America, and radical politics where violence was acceptable. Following criticism of Wright’s language, Obama said, “He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

Yet later Obama distanced himself from Wright. In contrast, Obama has refused to distance himself from the heated rhetoric of Hoffa. In fact, in his own speech 20 minutes later, Obama said that he was proud of Hoffa. Both Obama and Hoffa conveniently forget that many members of the Tea Party are union members as well.

But does any of this really matter? Words are just words, after all, unless they are followed up by actions. What actions do the Teamsters Union bosses encourage? One good reference should suffice.

However, one series of NLRB cases in 1999 stands out. The legal stipulation from these cases was published in 2003, and required the Teamster Union to cease and desist from certain violent activities as well as monitor that such restrictions were followed. (see below and the full stipulation).

Just the verbs are enough to conjure up nefarious activities of union thugs: brandishing weapons, threatening to kill, damaging, disabling, endangering, impeding, battering, assaulting, spitting on, etc.. Note that in order that the union to be required to cease and desist, they must have engaged in such activities. And these are the union thugs that Obama coddles and supports.

So, this is the difference between the militaristic language that many use in the political arena, and the language of James Hoffa; he means it literally. His thugs really do engage in violent activities. This is not an incitement of others, but an unvarnished promise of known Teamster thugery. And we now have a President who threatens others by association.

Ah, the dreaded value-added tax (VAT). The typical socialist response to taxation: hide an enormous sales tax from public view, burden all small business with increased administrative costs, create 100,000 new unproductive public jobs to regulate it, and build an onerous barrier for innovation. VAT is also a nice regressive tax to increase poverty as well as dependence on the state handouts.

Democrats in Washington are, once again, considering a national VAT as a means to raise revenue, ahem …taxes. Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said, “"There is a growing awareness of the need for fundamental tax reform. I think a VAT and a high-end income tax have got to be on the table.” Yet, the National Retail Federation, testifying before Congress and citing a 2010 Ernst and Young study, said that a VAT would cause a loss of 850,000 jobs in the first year alone, and severely reduce both the GDP and retail spending.

There also appears to be considerable confusion about VAT. Quite simply, it is a tax levied at every stage of the production of a product or service but is not shown to the consumer as extra cost.(1) Every entity involved in production is taxed according to their value added, and must account, in detail, to government auditors. Sound complicated? The VAT is an accountant’s dream.

The VAT is widely used in socialist countries, and is especially ubiquitous in the Europe Union. Yet some believe that the VAT is not a socialist concept; that socialism is when government owns business. Further, they believe that the VAT would reduce administrative costs and bring simplicity to taxation. Nothing could be further from the facts.

Socialism is, among others things, the control of production in a planned economic system. Government ownership of business is the most draconian form of socialism, but certainly not the only means of controlling production. The VAT is an indirect means of controlling production through the size and variation of tax rates, and, as such, is very much a socialist concept.

The VAT is an enormous sales tax, but it is hidden from the consumer; the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer each pay a portion and pass it on the consumer as an increase in price, not as a visible tax. There is no feedback to the consumer, and therefore no check on government’s ability to raise rates. In the European Union, the VAT is required of all member states and is between 15% and 25%. Can you imagine the public response to a 20% national sales tax in this country? The proper check and balance of government action, absent in socialism, is a very important concept and one on which our country was founded.

The VAT adds a considerable burden to businesses, especially small business where the cost of compliance does not scale. As a small businessman, I can say that a VAT would double my administrative costs because I would be forced to hire an accountant to process the necessary forms. I would not be able to afford the time or accounting software myself. Even large firms would be burdened, because the national VAT would not, and could not, remove state and local sales taxes. Those other governments must be served as well.

The VAT also would create over 100,000 new government jobs to administer the tax, all of them unproductive jobs that add nothing to the well-being of our nation. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would not increase one iota; it actually would decrease due to the decreased economic activity as well as the administrative burden on business.

The Government Accounting Office (GAO) prepared a report for Congress in 1993 on the VAT. Their estimate of staffing for a simple VAT was over 30,000 man years per year, mostly in auditing the accounts of business. (They did not estimate the costs and manpower for business of such audits.) They also reported that the government offices responsible for the VAT implementation (IRS, Customs, and the Federal Reserve System) had indicated that this staffing was grossly underestimated. And this was for a simple, all inclusive, single rate VAT, implanted at the federal level. When has the federal government ever done taxation simply?

The VAT would also create a barrier to innovation in two ways. First, although patent applications are usually zero-rated (0% VAT), patent attorneys are not. And patent attorneys account for most of the cost of patents. Second, research costs are also taxable when they are apportioned to the initial product costs. Research becomes the equivalent of raw material; the tax is not recoverable. In both cases that extra 20% adds up for small business, especially those just starting out. A VAT is an extra barrier to entry in any innovative market.

Finally, the VAT is regressive, in that is it raises prices for everyone on all products including those least able to pay. Some countries currently offset this by zero-rating products (0% VAT) like food or shelter, but this does not accomplish the socialist ideal of wealth redistribution. To compensate for this, most socialist implementations use either a tax credit or a transfer payment (or both) to low income individuals. Naturally, this makes low income individuals increasingly dependent on the government for their sustenance. The higher the tax, the more politically dependent this class of people becomes, without any real increase in income.

Providing essential products with zero-rating (0% VAT) has another deleterious side effect: an extreme sensitivity to recession. The elasticity of revenue and revenue collection to bad economies is very non-linear.(2) Government revenue decreases faster than the economy, leaving government to borrow in the worst of times. (This effect is not dissimilar to over taxation of high incomes as several states, such as California, have found recently.)

As a tax idea for the U.S., the value-added tax appeared as a European transplant during hard economic times. For instance, at the start of World War II, Paul Studenski, a Russian émigré, wrote one of the most cogent papers on the VAT in 1940.(2) In it, he described the rational for such a tax:

Government would be treated as an agent of production in private enterprise, just as the entrepreneur, the lender of capital, management, and labor. It would share in the earnings of the enterprise together with the other agents of production, in proportion to its contribution thereto and, moreover, would share in them at the same time as they do.

This is the basis for much of the early socialist involvement in the control of production, as a first step toward total planning of economic activity. That is, society has created the market for business use, and government should be compensated for the maintenance of that market. This argument is fallacious, ignoring as it does the true origins of wealth involved in capitalism and risk taking.(3) Entrepreneurs create markets and only in a free society. Further they maintain them through their agency; government tends to distort and destroy markets through regulatory interference.

Ah, the dreaded value-added tax.

1. For instance, a producer of raw materials pays tax on all sales. The manufacturer, who buys the raw material and produces a product, pays tax on all sales, but recovers the tax paid on raw materials. The distributor, who buys from the manufacturer, pays tax on all sales, but recovers the tax paid to the manufacturer. The retailer, who buys from the distributor, pays tax on all sales, but recovers the tax paid to the distributor. The consumer pays the price charged by the retailer, but never sees the tax as a separate charge. That’s four times the accounting for the same tax revenue as a sales tax, even in this simple example.
2. Cemile Sancak, Ricardo Velloso, and Jing Xing, “Tax Revenue Response to the Business Cycle”, IMF Working Paper, 2009
3. Paul Studenski, "Toward a Theory of Business Taxation," Journal of Political Economy 48, no. 5 (1940), 646
4. Eric D. Beinhocker, “The Origin of Wealth”, Harvard Business School Press, 2006

Bank failures are now a common occurrence. The federal government has even forced many larger banks to simulate tough times. And, for some banks, these simulations have indicated the need for more capital to be set aside to further reduce risk (the risk of being taken over by the government). So, rather than lend these funds as mortgages, or commercial loans, banks now hold onto their extra capital out of fear. Banks are now hard on the outside, but soft and chewy on the inside.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), an independent agency of the federal government, monitors all U.S. banks. It acts as the receiver for many failed banks, before passing them onto an acquiring bank. The acquiring bank gets most of the assets and the liabilities of the failed bank, as well as the backing of the Federal Government to cover all losses. The government covers not only your savings up to a limit (currently up to $250,000 per depositor), but also losses on the relevant loans through a discounted sale. In fact, the acquiring bank makes money on the deal (else why would they do it?).

Up until 2008, bank failures were fairly infrequent. But then the financial crisis took its toll, and failures peaked at over 10 per month. So why were all these banks failing?

The public information on bank failures released to the press by the FDIC gives very little information as to cause. Consider a bank recently closed in Florida, the LandMark Bank of Florida.

“On Friday, July 22, 2011, LandMark Bank of Florida, Sarasota, FL was closed by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was named Receiver. …As of March 31, 2011, … LandMark Bank of Florida had total assets of $275.0 million and total deposits of $246.7 million. In addition to assuming all of the deposits of [LandMark], American Momentum Bank agreed to purchase essentially all of their assets. ”

According to the Investigative Reporting Workshop, LandMark Bank had $47,435,000 in total troubled assets, but only $11,716,000 in Reserves. Troubled assets include loans unpaid for over 90 days; people stopped paying. This example is in Florida, but other states with significant problems include Georgia and Illinois. In contrast, Connecticut has not had a bank closure since 2002.

Earlier this year, the FDIC said that 884 of their financially insured banks were troubled, that is, had very low capital cushions against risk. That’s 12% of all banks. So many banks had insufficient capital, that the FDIC required the largest banks to simulate the failure of part of their portfolios in various ways. This led to an estimate of the necessary extra capital for each institution to cover this expanded estimation of risk.

The simulations involve a statistical evaluation of the overall failure rate for the FDIC, as well as bank stress tests for each institution. The statistical evaluation at the bank level included possible negative scenarios, and required each bank to detail its capital plans. Unfortunately, the statistical analysis forced on the banks was poorly designed with historical data and erroneous statistical assumptions, in other words, poor modeling.

The results showed that some of the largest banks needed significantly more capital. For instance, Bank of America needed $33.0 Billion in additional capital. And that type of result has caused fear in the banking industry, especially with unguarded talk of nationalization, that is a socialist takeover of banks. William Dudley, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said, “Going into the spring of 2009, there was a prevailing view that several of the largest banks would have to be nationalized.”

Banks, even smaller ones, started to withhold capital from the market, but needed a place to put it. So the Federal Reserve offered to borrow this excess capital at a low, but safe, interest rate, 0.25%. In fact, the loans to the Federal Reserve are so safe, that the risk of normal bank activity may be too high. Because of the unstable labor market and economic climate, mortgages and commercial loans may be lower yielding, in net, than this safe haven.

The net result: about $1.6 Trillion was taken out of the market place starting with the financial crisis in 2008 and continuing to this day. Banks stopped loaning money, and have been hoarding it instead out of fear of the federal government. And this has drastically affected both the mortgage market and commercial loans as can be seen from the total market picture given by Investigative Reporting Workshop.

Note that bank lending has declined by about $0.8 Trillion, but that is less than is currently stored in the Federal Reserve. Single family mortgages are down 13.5% over the period of the financial crisis and the continuing recession. The lack of mortgage money reduces worker mobility.

But where did the rest of the $0.8 Trillion in the Federal Reserve account come from? Perhaps that amount is the buffer that banks keep to be able to meet their flow of business, but 10% seems a lot. Possibly some of these funds come from investors who view the Federal Reserve as safer than U.S. Treasury bonds (no threatened default). In any event, the Excess Reserves account has become an interesting place to park capital while the global economy suffers.  And that doesn’t include capital lost to risky loans and other foibles.

Of course, on July 12 2010, Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, said. “Making credit accessible to sound small businesses is crucial to our economic recovery and so should be front and center among our current policy challenges.” Ah, but don’t forget the stress tests mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which was signed into law on July 21, 2010. Try to imagine a statement and action, juxtaposed in time, yet so contrary in their import. Actions speak louder than words.

The other day, I heard someone refer to the Tea Party as terrorists, giving voice to that liberal progressive mantra (supposedly from Vice President Joe Biden). Because terrorists are, by definition, those who frighten others and cause fear, I wondered who could create such havoc among liberals. They turn out to be a little bit of everybody, and a lot of somebody.

First, of course, it pays to know how many Tea Party supporters exist; there is no register of such. According to a Gallup poll, fully 28% of U.S. adults self-identify as Tea Party supporters. According to Rasmussen, 21% of U.S. voters are members of the Tea Party, with another 11% having friends or relatives who are involved. Given the margin of error in such polls, the Tea Party, with their supporters, seems to be approximately one quarter of all Americans, a sizable group. If these be terrorists, then they probably cause fear by sheer number.

These polls contrast sharply with a New York Times/CBS poll that listed only an 18% response for Tea Party support. However, the NYT was careful not to list its sampling techniques, so the honesty of such a poll is questionable.

Understanding the Tea Party goals is not straightforward, because they have no single spokesman. However, they seem to have a common thread: fiscal prudence. They believe in reduced government spending along with no tax increases. They believe in reduced government intervention in the economy, either through legislative policy or onerous regulation. They believe in restoring the government of the constitution. This message comes through load and clear in the Contract from America, a representative expression of their ideals.

So who is the Tea Party? According to the Gallup poll, the Tea Party crosses mainstream America. They know no age group, nor education level, nor employment status. However, they tend to be middle class and working class but not, so much, low income. In other words, the Tea Party consists of the tax paying class, minus the liberals.

Now, fully 46% of American households don’t pay any income tax this year, so there isn’t much reason for these people to support the Tea Party, is there? However, many of these people make more than enough income to fall outside Medicaid. And they fall in that group who must buy health insurance in a few years whether they want to or not. You don’t suppose that self-interest…

One other group deserves mention, public sector employees. They comprise about 12% of all employment and depend upon government for their sustenance, at least some extent. Yet, no poll seems to have studied their support for the Tea Party, or the lack thereof.

In short summary, the Tea Party is comprised of the tax paying class with the obvious adjustments for self-interest, about 25% of all Americans. Self-identified liberals comprise about 21%, so the Tea Party outnumbers liberals. No wonder liberal progressives are terrorized. And the Tea Party is still growing…

Last year, a thief approached me and strongly suggested that I give him $100: a rather brazen thief engaged in wealth redistribution. Because I only had $50 on me at the time, I prayed he would take that and leave well enough alone. He thanked me in the spirit of compromise and left quickly.

At Christmas, the thief was back, and wanted $1000 for the poor. Apparently thieves are always insolvent. I compromised again, and went to the bank to withdraw the $500 that he indicated was enough. I was beginning to think that this compromise was really extortion, but his threats were real enough.

Just last week, the thief returned yet again, and wanted $10,000 for medical expenses (whose he did not say). I tried to complain to the local authorities, but found that the thief had been there before me with appropriate bribes. So, with yet one more compromise, he agreed to take $5000; I borrowed it against the declining value of my home.

However, when I returned to pay his demands, I found a second thief arguing with the first; both wanted my money. The compromise would now have to be $7,000. They had checked on the value of my home and thought I could afford it.

Thinking that this could not go on for much longer, I plotted the size of these demands over time, and saw, to my dismay, that the next compromise would reduce me to poverty. The thieves told me not worry; in poverty, the government would give me the money to pay them.

I decided to put names to their faces, so I snuck a picture of them with my phone. Then, using good facial recognition software, I looked to pin them down. (There’s an app for that.) They turned out to be members of the Congress of the United States of America. No wonder the local authorities would do nothing!

In order to gauge what their next demand would look like, I found a compilation of their spending habits. Currently, they are spending about $30,000 per household per year, so my paltry contribution hasn’t matched their appetite for wealth redistribution yet.

Maybe they borrow as well. You never know. Even thieves might be able to get a line of credit, especially if they haven’t been sent to jail yet. And, boy, does that look really rotten; the congressional debt is growing exponentially.

So my compromises don’t look so good. Continual compromise to a moving target is downright ludicrous. So anytime you hear one of these thieves suggesting compromise, understand that the word is a euphemism for programmed stealing, and commonly called extortion. And, from the chart, you can see that the thieves are everywhere, and of all political stripes.

A pox on both their houses.

Reverse English is a billards shot whereby side spin is imparted to the cue ball to cause to carom off a cushion in a slightly backward direction. However, it is also the misuse of words to cause their meaning to be the opposite of the normally intended meaning. Part of reading the news is the discovery that some politicians use the side spin of reverse English to harpoon their opponents. (What, you’ve never called a cue stick a harpoon?)

Statement: My opponent needs to act like an adult. Translation: My opponent needs to act like a child so I can bully him.

Statement: The administrative leader of this organization makes too much money. Translation: The employees of this organization make too much money, and I’m trying to deflect attention from that fact.

Statement: With this action, we are saving a lot of money. Translation: We are already spending a lot more, so reducing it a bit doesn’t hurt.

If you can read the news with this sort of filter, the actions of politicians, and the press, become much more understandable. In fact, reverse English can’t be used without the complicity of the press. Always, when reading the news, ask yourself what the reporter has left out. Invariably that’s how story bias is built in. How often does a reporter question the integrity of a statement by presenting conflicting facts? How often does a reporter question the integrity of statements at all? Accurate translation of such statements requires awareness that such translation is necessary.

Statement: My opponent is racist. Translation: I’m bigoted so my opponent must be.

Frequently, politicians will ascribe a negative trait to an opponent that they themselves possess. In essence, they know the trait so well that they see it in others as a reflection. They are presenting a mirror image of themselves.

How can anyone arrive at this translation accurately? Sometimes previous actions of the speaker can be used, but usually the only approach is to look at which person has the most to gain from such purposeful distortion. For instance, racism can be an integral part of affirmative action. Someone who has benefited from affirmative action can hardly use, or have others use in support, a reciprocal reference to racism. The translation is obvious at that point.

This type of reverse English isn’t limited to racism. Such statements can include references to corruption, infidelity, political partisanship, and a host of other traits. Be wary of such characterizations without documented evidence.

Statement: My opponent’s legislative ideas would harm [whoever]. Translation: My own legislation already harms [whoever], and I’m trying to deflect attention from that fact.

This reverse English is used so frequently that news stories that contain it should come with a legal warning about brainwashing: “Statements in this story may harm your mental acuity.” If you see this type of statement, expect to see it repeated often. Repetition, provided by the complicit press, supplies the controlled indoctrination or, at the very least, confusion necessary to your attitude adjustment.

In this type of statement, the only way to arrive at an accurate translation is to actually read the original legislation and collect any data available. Of course, the press should be trusted to do this for you, but experience has shown that such detailed analysis is beyond them. For instance, the current federal healthcare law contains explicit language which allows rationing and denial of service for Medicare recipients, so expect any proposed changes to that law to be denigrated accordingly.

Statement: We should invest in education. Translation: We should support the jobs and high compensation for teachers.

This is one of the most blatant forms of reverse English because it seems to offer something we want, better education. However, it is frequently used to maintain the status quo, or even worse, featherbed the educational organizations. More compensation for teachers has never led to better education; look at the data on educational standards for our states compared to student costs. The level of educational expectations is totally uncorrelated to cost.

And, again, this type of reverse English is not limited to education, but is also used to refer to any government project such as construction or maintenance of public works. If we change the verb, invest, to bailout, it was even used to describe the blatant theft of General Motors from the stock and bond holders. Unions are frequently the recipients of such largess, but, on local levels, developers may also step up to the trough.

Apparently, there is no cure for reverse English; such speakers will always put side spin on their statements. Frequently, political groups will script a reverse English response, so that multiple sources will say the same thing. Beware such scripted politicians. Look instead for the spontaneous responses.

Frequently, the unexpected question is the only way to overcome reverse English. That’s why some politicians require all questions be submitted in advance.

We should invest in our politicians.

For those of us who like numbers, picking apart past predictions by experts is sheer fun. In 1975, the world was cooling from peak temperatures in the 1940s. The predictions of climate scientists were cataclysmic: a new ice age was upon us. Sure feels like it today. Have you ever considered melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot?

Several articles, both popular and scientific, were published in the 1970s which showed the global temperatures had peaked and headed downward. I’m going to pick on just one, the Newsweek article on The Cooling World from April 25, 1975, as shown here. Newsweek, of course, still sees nothing wrong with this kind of reporting; the scientists are to blame.[1]

The Cooling World

There are ominous signs that the weather patterns have begun to change dramatically, and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

Newsweek Temperature Data

The shortage of food was to occur as early as 1985. Remember it? (The main shortage of food today is in third world countries because we are burning biomass.)

If this introduction sounds familiar, it should. The story projects changes in weather patterns derived from climate change. No data is given to substantiate that claim is given. This is eerily similar to the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)[2] where severe changes in weather are also predicted, but from global warming, not cooling. (Remember, models aren’t data.)

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. … Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states.

Meteorologists study the atmosphere and focus on weather processes and forecasting, in contrast with climatology.[3] Here, as elsewhere, the intermixing of the two disciplines is done without distinction.

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-1972. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 per cent between 1964 and 1972.

But on to the only significant data quoted in the article: the drop in the measured global temperature. The data appears to come from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, but is referenced from the Met Office Hadley Center in the United Kingdom[4]. They have been keeping world-wide temperature data since 1850.

Global Temperature Data Comparison

So what does the same data look like today? A plot of the Newsweek data against the Hadley yearly global temperature data of today shows quite a difference. (The offset of temperature is normalized to 1884.)

Remember, this is the same data, just being reported 35 years later. So ask yourself, would you draw the same conclusion from the Hadley data today that Newsweek drew from it 35 years ago.

Extremes: Meteorologists think that they can predict the short-term results of the return to norm of the last century. … an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases

Wow. Just think about that. If global cooling can cause all that, just think what global warming can do. We must be on the cusp of just the right temperature. Or maybe climate science is not all it’s cracked up to be.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for climate change, or even to allay its effects. … The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

And climatologists demand that government must act. Where have we heard that chorus before? Maybe we should melt the ice caps as suggested, or stockpile food. Ah, but we can’t stockpile food anymore; we burn biomass for inefficient fuel. And I guess that the polar bears weren’t a concern in those days. Amazing how political bedfellows can change the scientific message.

All in all, junk science is still junk science. The ice man cometh, but NOAA still exists. And reporters still can’t tell the difference.

[1] Remember Global Cooling?, Newsweek, Oct 23, 2006

[2] IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report

[3] Wikipedia, Meteorologists

[4] Met Office Hadley Center, there are all sorts of temperature data here. The main combination data set, land and sea, is HadCRUT3 which is gridded data, but yearly and monthly averages are also here. Gridded data is extrapolated data from widely spread measurements.

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. ]]> http://www.stoneforge.com/2011/01/17/global-warming-is-cool-2/feed/ 0