| Wednesday,
February 27, 2008
Subject: How not to measure temperature -
Jerry,
I don't know if you've seen this or not, but I think
this guy is performing a very important service, by demonstrating "hardware
propaganda" in action.
He's documenting the *bogus* placement of official
temperature monitoring stations, which seem to be strategically located to
"prove" an increase in global temperature (or perhaps more correctly termed
"tamper-ature," given the apparent agenda).
Here are two examples:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/07/
25/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-24/
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/
02/14/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-51/
BTW this is the same guy who's got the chilling (in
both terms of the word) page on the sunspot situation, which reveals (for
the first time that I've seen) that the sun more or less "shut down" in
October '05:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/
PS: As I type this, the hourly news spot on the radio
just announced that it's the coldest winter, most snow cover, since
something like 1976, and, "there's no salt left in Michigan" (which is sort
of a shocker, given that Detroit sits over a *huge* salt mine).
In my part of the state (the "West Coast") the winter
has been beyond brutal, with no sign of letting up. Starting to get worried
about garden season; I'm thinking the ("standard") "Last Killing Frost" date
may be meaningless this year, which makes gardening (and farming!) a real
gamble...
I think I'm gonna go heavy in peas, "coles," and
potatoes, and real light on tomatoes, peppers, and summer squash.
Ron
But wait. There's more.
==
Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little
Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and
China is greater than at any time since 1966.
[...]
And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically
last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those
records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and
geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.
The ice is back.
Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in
Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only
recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this
time last year.
[...]
Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural
Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket."
Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin
advised people to "stock up on fur coats."
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council,
who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are
in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not
pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice
Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through
killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours
froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.
[...]
==
Throw another log on the fire ...
Jerry,
I'm glad the rad treatments aren't keeping you from
your walks. I wish I had your dedication to some physical activity. Maybe if
I had Larry Niven to walk with ...
I'm sure many will send you a link to this article:
"Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling"
(http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors
+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm) .
The subheadline is "Twelve-month long drop in world
temperatures wipes out a century of warming", and it reports a 0.65 to 0.75
degree C drop in global temperature (whatever that means) over the last
year.
It includes lines like "For all sources, it's the
single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down" and
"Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced
solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change
than man-made greenhouse gases."
The concluding paragraphs sound like they are right
out of Fallen Angels:
"Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more
damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees.
Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a
temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval
Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling
events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news."
Maybe burning food will be necessary ...
Regards, Richard Clark
Most of my morning walks are with Roberta,
who bullies me, thank God. She has help from Sable. If you own a Husky, you
WILL take daily walks. Between them my best girls keep me going. Niven comes
over a couple of times a week, and yes, that is a good way to reward
yourself for getting some exercise. Of course Sable goes mad when she sees
Larry, because she knows that we'll go up the hill, not just walk out on the
flats.
I only wish Mike Flynn lived near here.
And yes, I think we got some of it right in Fallen Angels.
==
How not to measure temperature, part 52
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/
how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-52-
another-ufa-sighted-in-arizona/
This stuff is downright spooky. They're about one
notch shy of erecting the temperature monitoring stations on top of bunsen
burners.
This stuff would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious.
They move the monitoring stations into the most
artificially hot locations imaginable -- and lo and behold, the charts spike
UP as soon as the readings come in - and *then*, they "adjust" their
seeekrit algorithms -- to make the bogus readings even *more* dramatic!
Then, they burn the heretics at the stake...
Snips:
[...]
Maybe it's that they were doing so well in the debate,
but recently have run very badly afoul of the fact-checkers. Therefore
fact-checkers must be demeaned and fact-checking itself must be prevented.
The very term gatekeeper in regards to scientific process is an
infuriating concept. A concept that is not only profoundly unscientific, but
outright insulting. And an affront to liberalism itself.
They (not all, but most) are saying that those who
question are not nice. I am getting mightily tired of smiling back at them
and telling them we are nice. One of the things that stuck a blow that
sent me reeling was an answer to why pseudonyms are used: it is because the
brownshirt denialists will harass and physically threaten them and their
families if they reveal their identities. As if they were some sort of brave
partisans in Nazi-occupied Denmark during WWII. What face! What presumption!
I have been sticking to the very basic point that the
historical climate data has problems and needs to be checked. The response
is not, fine, check, you will find you are in error. It is that no
checking need be done, no checking should be done, and that any checking
that is done is and will be a lie and is to be discouraged on all levels.
With an implicit (or not so implicit), who do you think you are, anyway?
[...]
But this is getting worse than the game I was a part
of back in the 70s and 80s when arguing against the panics regarding
population and resource depletion. In those days there were those who
applied labels to the other side, but not even the extremists were talking
Population or Resource Nuremberg or seriously encouraging the jailing of
their opponents.
[...]
While I still do not think it will come to that, it is
finally beginning to dawn on me that there is an honest-to-God intellectual
war going on here, not a sometimes-impolite discussion among professional
peers and interested amateurs. One in which careers may be ended and lives
ruined.
[...]
Careers have been ended and lives ruined.
Greg Benford and I are working on an article that touches on modern academic
integrity.
==
GM exec stands by calling global warming a
"crock"
Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:08pm EST
<http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/reuters.com.dart/news/
globalcoverage/environment/article;type=featured_broker;
sz=170x40;articleID=USN2237297620080222;ord=9746?>
DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp
Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global
warming as a "total crock of s---," saying his views had no bearing on
GM's commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles.
Lutz, GM's outspoken product development
chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when
he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.
In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday,
Lutz said those "spewing virtual vitriol" at him for minimizing the
threat of climate change were "missing the big picture."
"What they should be doing in earnest is
forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is
doing that is ... hugely beneficial to the causes they so
enthusiastically claim to support," he said in a posting titled, "Talk
About a Crock."
GM, the largest U.S. automaker by sales and
market share, has been trying to change its image after taking years of
heat for relying too much on sales of large sport-utility vehicles like
the Hummer and not moving faster on fuel-saving hybrid technology.
"My thoughts on what has or hasn't been the
cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to
advance the cause of General Motors," he wrote.
Lutz said GM was continuing development of
the battery-powered, plug-in Chevy Volt and other alternatives to
traditional internal combustion engines.
GM is racing against Toyota Motor Corp to
be first to market a plug-in hybrid car that can be recharged at a
standard electric outlet.
Lutz has previously said GM made a mistake
by allowing Toyota to seize "the mantle of green respectability and
technology leadership" with its market-leading Prius hybrid.
A 40-year auto industry veteran who joined
GM earlier in the decade with a mandate to shake up its vehicle line-up,
Lutz is no stranger to controversy.
As part of a campaign against higher fuel
economy standards, Lutz wrote in a 2006 blog posting that forcing
automakers to sell smaller cars would be "like trying to address the
obesity problem in this country by forcing clothing manufacturers to
sell smaller, tighter sizes."
Automakers ended their opposition to higher
fuel standards in 2007 when it became clear that proposed changes would
become law with or without their support.
In December, President George W. Bush
signed a law mandating a 40 percent increase in fleetwide fuel economy
by 2020, the first substantial change in three decades.
==
'Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia,
Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.'
<http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289>
-- Roland Dobbins
And relevant:
Half of world to live in cities by end '08.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/
idUSN2635607520080226?feedType=RSS&feedName
=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true >
--- Roland Dobbins
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost
=========
TSA turnover
Dear Jerry:
The comment about the turnover at TSA can be easily
explained. These guys and girls are basically security guards and that is
one of the most boring jobs in the world. Take it from one who used to do
it. When I was a Captain, running 200 or so guards at 24 large corporate
accounts in the Chicago suburbs I got my full and complete share of post
time. I had five Lieutenants and a co-Captain, but when we ran out of guards
it was just me. So I got ninety hour weeks that year. I got hurt on that job
and moved over to sales, and was pretty effective because I knew what I was
talking about from first hand experience. I had to be able to work any post
but the nuclear power plant (I had no NRC clearance and my involvement came
because it was in my territory; it ran self-contained as a separate
enterprise.) Selling guard service is a low base salary and a small
commission, except the dollars on that last can be huge because the billings
are huge. Two percent of hundreds of thousands of dollars the first year
adds up.
The airport security at the time was detailed to the
airlines themselves and their attitude was to comply at the lowest cost
possible. Also not to have anyone who would actually do anything and upset
the passengers. Publishing is not the only business to be compromised by the
marketing department. A few minimum wage outfits like Argenbright soon
captured the business nationwide and the regular companies that had things
like hiring standards and mandatory training and field supervision were shut
out. They paid minimum wage, did no training and hoped for the best. In
Security, like everywhere else, you get what you pay for and what this paid
for was the events on 9/11. The terrorists slipped through what passed for
security at the airports. No one noticed or cared about who was getting on
those planes. By comparison, 16 security officers died at the WTC, standing
their ground with the cops and the firemen. Six high level security
directors making six figure salaries also died, trying to get their people
out. One of them was Rick Rescorla, of Morgan Stanley, who had, over the
objections of WTC management, held periodic evacuation drills for their
employees, making them use the stairs. He was one of just four people out of
800 of their employees who died there. (Further details can be found in "The
Heart of a Soldier" by James Stewart.)
By comparison with what was there before, TSA is a
hundred times better and more effective because it does provide a career
path, but a lot of people come into the business for a short time as an
economic refuge. I had Ph.Ds who couldn't get any other job working for me,
and that's not rare. Turnover in the Security Guard business in Chicago when
I was there was about 300% a year. For most at the lowest levels it is a
job, not a career. TSA at least provides a career path for those that want
one. And they train people, which the private contractors did not.
I dislike all of the new rules as much as you do, but
I comply because the job is tough enough. Those periodic news stories where
someone slips something by the screeners are easy meat; entirely
predictable. Try this; stare at your television for a hour straight and tell
me how many times you break eye contact. Then try it for four hours or eight
hours with a ten minute break every two. That's what the screener have to
do. You'll find it not so easy to do.
TSA turnover is not going to go down. It's not that
great a job and most people can't do it well anyway. It only looks easy.
Sincerely,
Francis Hamit
==
And in a less serious vein:
Alternate Explanation for Revolving Door...
Possibly instead of rapid turnover at TSA, maybe only
43,000 of the 110,000 are actually working....
Charles Brumbelow
==
Revolving Door
"Very disturbing, if true. An organization losing more
than 40% of its workforce each year is in lots of trouble."
Depends on the organization.
I worked for a fast-food stand at the mall my senior
year of high-school - the first six months I was there we had 80% turn-over.
The organization was fine as long as the manager knew her job and could
school new-hires.
Organizations can adapt to that turn-over - but the
high cost to train replacements does disturb me. What is so damned expensive
about teaching screeners to look for bad stuff?
I suspect most of the turn-over involves jobs that are
seemingly as simple as serving good tasting food to people. Which is to say
that the job itself is simple but the task is not.
Working security is mind-numbing - I did my share of
that in the Marines and even Marine Corps NCOs are hard pressed to keep
junior enlisted from having their fun when they think no one is looking (and
even when they might be). We worked hard, we played hard and on occasion got
the two mixed up.
So .. low paying, mind-numbing but complex work. I'm
surprised the turnover rate is not higher.
-- Brian Dunbar
System Administrator Liftport -
The Space Elevator Company
==========
Universal Health Care
Jerry, you wrote, "It should be obvious that if you
give away a valuable good for free, the demand will be infinite. There is no
end to the amount of "health care" that can be absorbed at a price point of
zero. In my case, I would have loved to have consultations at UCSF and UCLA
was well as Kaiser, and there is a commercial firm that offered me a
discount to have a look at my records; but I can't afford all that. I am
quite happy with Kaiser, I do have free consultation with some of my readers
who are physicians, and things seem to be going well. My point, though, is
that there's not much limit to how much health care I can absorb at need."
Anyone who understands supply and demand has to agree
with that statement. Price inversely affects demand so dividing by a price
of zero gives you infinite demand. I submit, however, that there are more
factors at play that will control demand. If price is not a consideration
then inconvenience will be what controls demand. It is inconvenient to have
to wait 2 weeks to get an appointment to see a doctor for a sore throat so
patients will only go to see the doctor when the sore throat becomes
something that is far worse. An increase in the number of scarlet fever
cases will therefore result.
Poor service will also make a visit to the doctor more
inconvenient. I currently have an HMO because I hate forms. I am happy to
see the doctors on their list so long as I don't have to deal with the miles
of Blue Cross of Virginia red tape my parents had to go through when I was a
child. That red tape will come back with a vengeance under Universal Health
Care and I still will only be able to see doctors on the approved list. The
staff will also become overworked, underpaid, and highly obnoxious. Just
thing DMV.
Wasted time is also an inconvenience. Under my present
HMO, I sit in my doctor's waiting room at most an hour. It's a good thing
too because that office has four doctors and the waiting room is small.
Under UHC, the number of doctors will have to decrease or the size of the
waiting room increase in order to seat the influx of people, though the
above listed factors may diminish the demand somewhat.
So, no cost UHC will allow more people to see a doctor
- good thing, IMHO. No cost will drive up demand for health care - bad
thing, IMHO. Increased demand will also allow for increased inconvenience -
bad thing, IMHO.
Instead of creating a bureaucratic nightmare of a
health system, why not teach children better while encouraging them to
become doctors and nurses? Part of the increased education can be in how to
better take care of themselves and how to use over the counter medications
properly so they know how to prevent diseases and they won't have to see a
doctor every time they get a cough. Increased reading skills will allow them
to read power tool instruction manuals better so injuries will be prevented.
Just sending Roberta 1% of the money proposed for UHC for one year so she
could supply each child with her program would do a lot more than all of the
money spent on UHC combined. She would also be one VERY wealthy woman and
you might then be able to afford becoming Emperor.
An increase in the number of children becoming doctors
will drive the price down. If insurance companies have 100 doctors in an
area they have to pay a lot more to get 20 of them to work for them than if
the number in the area became 500 and they still only need 20. That supply
and demand thing again.
Tort reform to drive down the number of silly lawsuits
would help lower the price of seeing a doctor also. How about requiring that
the punitive damages not be a part of the settlement figure used by the
lawyer in calculating how much they are owed? How about not paying punitive
damages to the injured party but instead giving it to a charity that deals
with a similar issue? For example, if a doctor is sued for a cancer-related
issue punitive award money should go to a cancer-related charity.
In short, how about lowering, not eliminating, price
to let more people have access to quality care instead of doing away with
price while also doing away with quality?
Braxton S. Cook
If it were left to me, I would increase
supply of non-physician practitioners. But then if it were left to me I
would entirely revamp the public education system in this country to
emphasize practical skills in addition to intellectualization. And that is a
large enough topic that I don't intend to get into it here.
As to your legalities, the punitive
damages are what cause the lawyers to take the case. Otherwise there would
be none. And that's the problem. Punitive damages are FINES and
CONFISCATIONS, but they are settled by civil, not criminal rules of evidence
and jury action; and that can be a real problem. But that too is another
topic of vast dimension.
==========
The Universal Health Care
Experiment in Canada
Dr Pournelle:
I can't speak for how the Universal Health Care system
works in the rest of Canada, but I can tell you how things work in Alberta.
For the better part of the last seventy years or so,
Alberta has been rigidly conservative, in one form or another, in its
government. The reason behind this is simple: the vast majority of the
voting power is in the hands of the farmers, who distrust the Liberals and
absolutely despise the New Democrats.
The ruling conservatives decided some years ago that
contrary to popular belief Universal Health Care is not free, nor should it
be regarded as such. So they instituted a system in which every single
Albertan over the age of 18 is required to pay health care premiums, in
other words health insurance premiums paid directly to the government, in
order to receive health care. If you don't have this coverage then you will
still receive treatment, but your health care provider is going to make you
pay for it up front.
All well and good, but the idea of Universal Health
Care in Canada has been around for a long time, and the consequences of this
are entirely predictable to anyone who understands both the Iron Law and
simple reality: people have become so used to the idea of having this great
boon that they take advantage of every chance they get. As a result, a lot
of clinic and ER waiting rooms are clogged with people who go and see their
doctors every time they get a minor sniffle. And with each passing year the
lineups only get worse.
The system works reasonably well, as long as all
you're after is basic care. However, physicians are so strapped for time
that you're lucky if you can get ten minutes with your doctor before he's
trying to scurry out for the next patient. Assembly line medicine at its
best, that's our Alberta.
The system breaks down somewhat if you require a major
procedure. Doctors have to jump through so many hoops just to get the damn
thing scheduled because the system requires that they prove, beyond any
shadow of a doubt, that you actually need it that by the time you have a
date set you find that it's between six months and a year in the future. So,
first you have to wait and endure an endless battery of tests, some of which
are absolutely useless but have to be included anyway, because your doctor
is required to present evidence just like a lawyer at a trial, and then you
have to wait some more because there's either so much demand for your
procedure that the providers are overwhelmed, or there's relatively little
demand but also relatively few providers who are also overwhelmed.
I remember when I was growing up my parents were able
to actually sit down and have a conversation with our family doctor when we
went to see him. We were friends, and treated as such. That stopped being
the case a lot of years ago. Last time I went to see my GP, about four years
ago, I spent an hour in the waiting room for five minutes of his time. No
pleasantries, just down to business.
Universal Health Care is a wonderful idea, in
principle. But it ain't free and your mileage will vary.
Best of luck with your health issues and I look
forward to reading your next novel.
-- Michael J A Tyzuk, CDOSB
Tarnished Knight
Scotsman With Nae Trews
And see below
==========
Subject: The Famous Picture
JEP wrote on 02/25/08: "I believe I recall seeing
Herbert Hoover in an Sioux feather head dress..."
The one I remember was Calvin Coolidge (Hoover was a
good guess!). Here he is, and doesn't he look splendid? Quite a headdress.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2004/11/coolidge.jpg
Someone in 1960 handed John F. Kennedy an Indian war
bonnet, but he had the sense to hold it at arms' length for the photo op.
The staffer who first suggested, "Try it on, Senator!"
is likely not in the running for a first floor, corner office, even if
things work out in the campaign.
It is getting interesting out there.
Petronius
========
Subject: re: The Universal
Health Care Experiment in Canada
This is a different view point to
Mr. Tyzuk's on health care in Alberta.
I've lived in Alberta all my life and I've yet to meet
a Canadian impoverished by medical expenses. As an independent consultant
I've traveled in the US a great deal and I've met a number of high income
(easily six figures) people who have suffered an accident or some
debilitating disease that their coverage didn't pay for and are now spending
large portions of their incomes to pay the medical bills.
As far as seeing my doctor goes, I sometimes have to
wait up to 90 minutes before he appears. This is the price I am willing to
pay for a doctor that will spend time with me and treat me like a family
friend. I recently spent 45 minutes in the examining room with him. I
understand that if I want a doctor who will spend time with me I have to be
patient while he spends time with other people. Perhaps Mr. Tyzuk' needs to
find another doctor.
While I was working in Maine a couple of years ago I
had to go to the emergency room. The wait there was about two hours,
approximately the same amount of time I'd have had to wait with a similar
problem in Alberta.
As far as the waiting time for major procedures goes,
Albertans can still avail themselves of the expensive medical services of
the US and other countries, they haven't lost any access by being covered by
Alberta Health Care.
Tim B
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Wednesday
|
