The “97%” and why the IPCC, NOAA and other climate data is lacking

A friend of mine recently commented on how two years of data shows a decided cooling trend.  We must be careful to remember the difference between weather, which is what occurs on any given day, week, month, year, and even 11-year sunspot cycle, and climate, which is what occurs over the long haul.
 
Furthermore, statistics being what it is, one or two data points mean nothing. Furthermore, the answer to the question, “How many data points are enough?” depends both on what you’re trying to measure and the nature of the data itself.
 
If you know you’re measuring a straight line, two data points are sufficient to describe the entire line.
 
If you know you’re measuring a parabola, and you know the parabola’s orientation (axis), two points are again sufficient. If you don’t know its orientation, you’ll need three points.
 
If you’re conducting an exit poll at a precinct, measuring whether people are voted for candidate A or Candidate B, and no write-ins were allowed, you need to pick a Confidence Level, say, 99%, a Confidence Interval, say, +/- 3 points, and the population size, say, 35,000 people in the precinct. The answer is a sample size of 653. However, that’s not all, as you need to ensure the respondents are randomly selected throughout the voting period.  The largely liberal news organizations failed to take this into account when they launched their glowing pro-Hillary polls in the 2016 election.
 
 
When you’re talking about climate, however, the samples for each location need to include temperature, humidity, pressure, precipitation types and amounts, cloud types and cloud cover, and solar irradiance on the ground for at least 24 times each day, multiplied by every day for decades — at least thirty years worth, but preferably about 300+, then, multiply times thousands of locations around the world. You also need to measure solar irradiance in space i.e. the Sun’s output, and we’ve had access to that information only over the last 40 years. Finally, we need to correlate the irradiance with sunspot activity and discount the effect of sunspot variability, which can last as much as a century.
 
In all, there’s at least 16 pieces of variable information to be recorded at least hourly at each location, along with at least 12 pieces of constant information for each location.
 
For each location, that comes to 140,160 pieces of variable information each year, times tens of thousands of locations.
 
The best locations for this information are airports. According to the Airports Council International (ACI) World Airport Traffic Report, there are currently 17,678 commercial airports in the world. Most of these report their current conditions to one of several database repositories.
 
The major problem with the IPCC reports, however, is that they’re approach is rather simplistic. They often don’t even know what information to ask because they’re largely tied to the weather model, rather than a physics model. There are a number of relevant variables of which they either completely discount or have never even heard.
 
Local and surrounding terrain features, for example, significantly impact the readings. These “anomalous terrain features” can be mathematically described with via a centroid location, elongation factor, distance, and direction. Winds blowing over a mountain range 200 miles upwind during humid weather are likely to experience more cooling due to cloud formation than they are during dry weather. Similarly, weather stations located near a body of water are affected quite differently when the winds are onshore vs offshore. Even absolutely identical air masses located 500 miles distant will arrive in Kansas bearing quite different properties on a perfectly clear day throughout the entire U.S. depending on whether the air mass traveled up from low-lying Texas, down from the northern latitude Dakotas, or west over mountainous Colorado.
 
The same is true for ocean data. “Mean oceanic surface temperature,” while a good metric, is woefully void of the entire story, as oceans have basins and mountain ranges, too, and even slight shifts in currents can vary “ocean weather” significantly.

Then there’s the mudstream media’s “97% of climatologists agree” meme.  It’s more than a meme, however, as pro-AGP (anthropogenic climate change) forces are now creating videos demonstrating how 97% of climatologists agree…

…while ignoring the reality that their agreement originates from a single errant paper that was picked up by mudstream media itself and spread like wildfire.
New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change in this YouTube video, below:

FYI, here’s the ear-tickeling but blitheringly idiot piece of PBS crap that started this conversation:

Replace the Electoral College with Popular Plus Half County

If the Dems writhe in agony over the Electoral College, just wait until they get a load of what I just proposed to my Congressional Representative for consideration by our predominantly Republican Congress!
 
Instead of an electoral college, I propose we shift to a mix of the popular vote combined with county representation, with each county having a proportionate share, not of the popular vote, but of the population of American Citizens.
 
Here’s how this would work:
 
There are 3,007 counties in the U.S. The United States is estimated to have a population of 327,589,916 as of April 23, 2018, making it the third most populous country in the world (1). That’s 108,942 votes per county, so half that comes to 54,471 votes.
 
In addition to however many popular votes are given directly to the candidates, whatever candidate a county’s popular votes favor would also receive an additional 54,471 votes.
 
I call it Popular plus Half County, but you can call it Half-Baked, if you’d like.
 
The primary benefit is that it would greatly encourage people to get out and vote in order to minimize the effect of the county votes.
 
The secondary benefit is that like the Electoral College, it would wrest control of our nation from the largely homogeneous but largely ignorant people congregating in mega-cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York, people who usually decide issues based on what they can get out of it instead of what’s good for the nation as a whole. Only more so. In fact, it would largely undermine their vote. The Demoncrap vote. The liberal vote. The ignorant vote.
 
It’s actually a litmus test. You see, if a Democrat or liberal reads this, their heads have probably exploded by now. If they haven’t, and they’ve read this far, then perhaps there’s hope for them, yet.
 
(1) “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 – 2016 Population Estimates”. U.S. Census Bureau.

Assault Rifle vs Assault Weapon vs Semi-Automatic Firearm

Despite years of intensive effort on the part of firearms experts to train mainstream media on even the most basic firearms terminology, they still screw it up.  Constantly.  Just this morning, for example, The Chicago Tribune ran headlines which read:

Texas shooting suspect’s choice of guns complicates debate over assault rifles

“Assault rifles?”  Seriously?  I wasn’t aware there was any “debate over assault rifles.”  In fact, there’s no such debate because only two assault rifles have ever been used in a mass shooting in the U.S., both of which occurred last century.

An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.  Selective fire means the capability of a weapon to be adjusted to fire in semi-automatic, burst mode, and/or fully automatic firing mode.  “Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986” (Source).  This includes assault rifles, machine guns, and sub-machine guns.

Neither the AR-15 nor any of its many variants, is an “assault rifle.”

I think what the idiots at the Chicago Tribune were trying to say is, “assault weapon.”  The problem with that term, however, is that it’s not even real.  It’s a made-up term, lacking any concrete definition that isn’t already covered by widely-used industry-standard definitions.  In fact, the individual who made it up was trying to get around the fact that he could not knowing call the Colt AR-15 an “assault rifle” because the Colt AR-15 is not an assault rifle at all.  It’s a semi-automatic rifle, period.

Semi-automatic rifles are not “assault rifles.”  They’re certainly not “assault weapons,” as that term holds no standing whatsoever in the industry.

There is NO DIFFERENCE between a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle and friendly-looking semi-automatic rifle.  Both are just semi-automatic rifles.  The idea of banning so-called “assault weapons” is ludicrous as NO SUCH FIREARM EXISTS.

 

On LLCs and Self-Insuring

The question was:  “Can you LLC yourself as an insurance company then only insure yourself?”

DISCLAIMER: IANAL! (I am not a lawyer!) However, my undergrad was in Finance, INSURANCE, and Business Law, so there’s some education and a lot of experience in what I’ve said, below:

While you can, you’d not only have to go through state licensing requirements (expensive!), but you’d also have to carry assets to back up your insurance limits. And pay taxes on net income.

Definitely go with an LLC. By definition, an LLC — Limited Liability Company — A limited liability company (LLC) is the United States-specific form of a private limited company. It is a business structure that combines the pass-through taxation of a partnership or sole proprietorship with the limited liability of a corporation.[1][2] An LLC is not a corporation in and of itself; it is a legal form of a company that provides limited liability to its owners in many jurisdictions. LLCs are well-known for the flexibility that they provide to business owners; depending on the situation, an LLC may elect to use corporate tax rules instead of being treated as a partnership.

The benefit is that unlike a sole proprietorship or partnership, where your own and your partner’s assets are on the line in case of a civil suit, with an LLC, provided you as the owner/operator/principal, or employee have done your due diligence to operate within the law, a civil lawsuit is limited to going after the assets of the company, and not yours, personally.

There’s nothing wrong with an LLC self-insuring. Just raise your deductibles to a sizeable fraction (a third? a fifth?) of your total assets.
That way, you’re carrying a part of those assets yourself, without paying insurance for them at all, which will greatly lower your premiums.

The part of insurance that remains is your safety net to keep you from being completely wiped out in case of catastrophe.

I have rich friends who typically carry either very high deductibles ($10k to $50k) on collision and liability, but they still carry insurance on the rest, and for good reason: The insurance company’s lawyers can go to bat for them if they need it.

Totally self-insuring isn’t recommended as you really don’t want to have to hire a lawyer for tens of thousands of dollars to defend you in a claim, and you really don’t want to be your own lawyer!

DISCLAIMER: IANAL! (I am not a lawyer!) However, my undergrad was in Finance, INSURANCE, and Business Law, so there’s some education and a lot of experience in what I’ve said, above.

Good luck

Piers Morgan’s Blitheringly Idiotic Gun Ban Drive

Piers Morgan has a passion for banning firearms.  His most frequently cited statistic is that the United Kingdom’s firearms murder rate dropped from thousands annually all the way down to the double digits (less than 100).  Sounds terrific, right?  Let’s ban all firearms now, right?

How Piers Morgan LIES
(click for full-size)

Well, not so fast.  You see, Piers Morgan lies.  He lies to you by using the term, “firearms murder rate,” “gun murders,” or “murders by firearms.”  He intentionally (possibly just stupidly) ignores murders which occur as the result of violent crime.  Speaking of which…

Piers Morgan fails to mention the fact that the UK’s violent crime rate more than tripled after they banned nearly all private ownership of firearms.  Apparently, a disarmed citizenry is far more susceptible to the other violent crimes of rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  Furthermore, since most murders are a result of violent crime at its worst, when their violent crime rate tripled, so did their non-firearms murder rate.

Put simply, the U.K. reduced their firearms murder rate but increased their non-firearms murder rate.

THE QUESTION:  Did the overall effect of the UK gun ban result in fewer murders overall or did the resulting tripling of the UK’s violent crime rate actually lead to more murders overall?  A related question involves how that would translate to gun bans here in the United States.  Would gun bans actually save lives, or would it cause violent crime — including murders related to violent crime, to rise?

To answer that question, I consulted with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.  UCR “has been the starting place for law enforcement executives, students of criminal justice, researchers, members of the media, and the public at large seeking information on crime in the nation. The program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet the need for reliable uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics” (Source).

Specifically, I examined their vaunted Table 1:  Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 1997-2016.  This table provides both the raw numbers as well as the rate per 100,000 inhabitants for all violent crimes as well as the breakdown into murders, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.  It also provides the raw numbers and rates for non-violent property crimes, including burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.

To be continued…

Bill Cosby was LYNCHED by Public Opinion and Cognitive Bias

Today’s Headlines:  “Bill Cosby’s wife says Andrea Constand lied.”
Camille Olivia Cosby (née Hanks; born March 20, 1944) is an American television producer, author and philanthropist.
 
Putting aside for the moment that she’s the wife of comedian Bill Cosby,  she’s also quite an accomplished lady in her own right, and while acknowledging the fact that he cheated on her, she has repeatedly and vehemently denied he’s any sort of rapist: “The man I met, and fell in love with, and whom I continue to love, is the man you all knew through his work. He is a kind man… and a wonderful husband, father and friend.”
 
I agree with her.
 
“In the statement posted to her husband’s official social media accounts, Camille Cosby said that Andrea Constand’s testimony during the trial “was unsupported by any evidence and riddled with innumerable, dishonest contradictions.” “
 
I agree with that, as well, along with her call for a “criminal investigation of the Montgomery County District attorney, who she said tried her husband solely for career advancement.”
 
It is COMMON for DA’s to press on while knowing an individual is innocent, and sometimes they win with the full knowledge that they just sent an innocent person to jail. That’s so beyond the normal of most people that we can’t even believe it’s true, but it is, and two assistant DA’s I know have confirmed it, one without any remorse and the other while stating he was switching to defense law.
 
When I asked him, “Why?” he said, “sadly, DA’s are rewarded by career advancement mostly on the basis of convictions and NOT the accuracy of those convictions.”
 
Now it makes sense: They’re in it for the money.
 
This trial should never have gone forth as there was never anything to try. One person writing a few lines in a book is what resulted in dozens magically appearing out of nowhere as long as 50 — FIFTY — years after the alleged event took place. Even the most recent event was alleged to have taken place more than a DECADE before the individual ever bothered mentioning it to ANYONE, much less stepping forward.
 
Why? Because Bill Cosby is worth well over $100 Million. Some reports put that as high as $400 Million. Regardless of any criminal conviction, a successful civil lawsuit would set the accusers up for life, but with a criminal conviction, the outcome of a civil lawsuit is guaranteed. Whether she even goes after Cosby in a civil suit is immaterial: The accuser has already received book offers galore worth millions.
 
Again, FOLLOW THE MONEY. The Bible says the love of money is the root of many evils, and I don’t see ANYTHING virtuous or righteous in the lives of Cosby’s accusers. All I see are clear sins that point to a love of money.
 
As to all of you who jumped on the anti-Cosby bandwagon, congratulations — you allowed emotion, fear, and prejudice to carry you away. Perhaps you never got over OJ’s acquittal years ago.  Perhaps you can’t separate this “Bill” from the former president who kept sticking his dick in a certain White House intern.  I’m sure these were factors in the jury’s — er, the SECOND jury’s — decision. When convicting a person for a capital or other infamous crime, I am of the opinion that a hung jury should never be considered a “mistrial,” but rather, a failure to convict. That is, after all, why Denver remains a no open carry locale despite the fact that all of Colorado is an open carry state. They had a hung jury.
 

This entire debacle is not justice. It’s a TRAVESTY of justice, and those of you who self-righteously jumped on that bandwagon nodding your bobble-heads after the ill-gotten conviction should be ASHAMED of yourselves.  Camille says you’re no better than lynch mobs, and I agree with her on this point, too.

If you think you know her husband better than she she does after 50 years of living with him?  If so, you’re a SPECIAL kind of stupid.

Friday the 13th – US UK and France Bombed Assyria

In deference to all Demoncraps, most of who will no doubt attempt to either spin things out of control or claim certain events never happened, I’ve included the following links from Friday, April 13, 2018, the first set of which are solely from CNN:

US, France, and UK strike Syria’s chemical weapons program

British Ministry of Defense:  “Let these united actions send a clear message to the regime”

France’s president says a red line had been crossed after chemical weapon attack

A look at the missile used in the strikes

This photo shows the moment France’s president ordered the strike

McCain applauds Trump’s decision — but calls for a comprehensive strategy

Mattis:  Right now, tonight’s strike is “a one-time shot”

Schumer warns Trump administration to “be careful” to avoid a greater war in Syria

At least one US Navy warship based in Red Sea was used in strike

Russian ambassador to US warns of “consequences” after strikes on Syria

Mattis:  US used “double” amount of weapons in strike

The legal authority Trump is using to order these strikes

US “specifically identified” targets to avoid Russian forces

British Ministry of Defense:  “Let these united actions send a clear message to the regime”

Fox News

Trump announces US military strikes in Syria

“To Iran and to Russia I ask, what kind of nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children,” Trump said.

“The nations of the world can be judged by the friends that they keep,” he continued. “Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or continue with civilized nations.”

The US actions came as part of an allied front against heinous actions taken against innocent women and children:

French President Emmanuel Macron said the operation was targeting the “clandestine chemical arsenal” in Syria.

British Prime Minister Theresa May also issued a statement: “This evening I have authorized British armed forces to conduct coordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use,” May said.