• http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Job growth since start of recession:
    http://tinyurl.com/3rbuube

  • MacG

    Zach, your tiny URL is broken.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Try this one:

    Private sector job growth:
    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/jobs.jpg

  • Charles Martel

    This month’s classic example of Zach’s penchant for letting other people’s work do his ‘splainin’ for him.

    Where are the data that support this chart? What is a the definition of a private-sector job as given by the Bureau of Labor?

    Deatils, details! My conceptual kingdom for a detail!

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles Martel: Where are the data that support this chart?

    It says right on the chart, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5/6/2011.
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/jec_05062011.pdf

  • abc

    What is remarkable about that video montage, which accurate reflects the vast majority of commentary in the television media, is that there was not a single credentialled economist quoted in the entire thing.  Instead, we see politicians, pundits and comedians, all lacking in economic training, but highly interested in putting a partisan or comedic spin on the issue.  Know-nothings duping other know-nothings with misinformation.  This is how democracy fails.

    This is not to say that Americans are feeling bad when they shouldn’t be.  The economy is very fragile and lots of people are still suffering.  But the onslaught of misleading statements and lack of intelligent solutions to the problem is as damning about our disfunctional democracy as it is depressing as an illustration of where this great country finds itself today.  And to try to blame the huge failings we currently see on a single policy or President is beyond dishonest.  It is just plain stupid.

    Sadly, stupidity (willful or otherwise) is what begets the problems in the first place.  Maybe folks here can start to post solutions rather than partisan nonsense from non-experts.  If you love your country, you might want to start with that…

  • Mike Devx

    That seems to me a really effective political attack ad against Obama!

    “The Do-Nothing President… and even when he Does Something, It Fails.”

    If I could get my family of Democrats up in Michigan to view it, I wonder what they would think.

  • Charles Martel

    Mike, come 2012 the amount of ammunition available to pummel NBOTUS with will be formidable. Starting with his disgraceful, unmanly bows to tyrants and ending with his jokes about the economy, the man is digging his own political grave.

  • Mike Devx

    The best news of all, Charles, is that Pennsylvania appears to have had enough of Obama.  He loses Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and I don’t see any electoral path to victory.  

    He’s got that billion dollar war chest, and a friendly MSM to provide cover and soothing stories, to try to tilt the playing field, though.  On the other hand, there’s evidence we’ve gone past the tipping point: Many people just don’t trust the MSM anymore.  They’re clued in.

    This is going to be one *amazing* presidential race.

  • Charles Martel

    I agree about the amazing part, Mike. The most crucial presidential election since 1860.

    Another looming nail in the coffin of Obama’s political career is the realization among many that not only are the media corrupt but the Democratic Party, once the defender of the working class, has now become the party of the rich and the parasitical. While the Pelosis and Feinsteins are off enjoying their cosseted lives, and their perk-consuming constituents are in the schools producing a generation of aliterates, real workers and producers are either coming over to the GOP or looking around frantically for old-fashioned Scoop Jackson Demos.

    I would love it if they stationed a stewardess at the entrance to the Oval Office the day after the 2012 election who would just smile and say to everybody entering and leaving, “Buh-bye!”

  • Moose

    Charles: “I would love it if they stationed a stewardess at the entrance to the Oval Office the day after the 2012 election who would just smile and say to everybody entering and leaving, “Buh-bye!”

    Charles, it’s FLIGHT ATTENDANT! Gawd, you knuckle-dragging Neanderthal! ;-)

  • Charles Martel

    Moose, the male stewardesses would lithp.

  • Charles Martel
  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles MartelNow for an analysis

    There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about the jobs numbers, but the Hederman and Sherk add little light. 

    The Obama Administration’s economic policy has been a total failure with its complete disregard for businesses and job creation in the private sector.

    That’s clearly not the case, as we can see from the graph already provided above. Employment dropped precipitously at the end of the Bush Administration, but reversed when Obama can into office, and the trend is now positive, albeit anemic. 
    http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/jobs.jpg

    The President responded to the recession with the stimulus, which massively expanded the size of government.

    The stimulus was a temporary measure spread over a number of years, not an expansion in the size of government. 

    Increased government spending displaces private-sector business investment.

    They reference Alesina et al. The basic idea is that government spending crowds out investment, which is correct — some of the time. Cutting deficits to free up capital to fuel the expansion was was the core idea behind the Clinton Administration’s successful economic program. Unfortunately, Alesina’s historical study doesn’t include the current situation which was a global economic shock with demand reduced virtually to zero. There’s plenty of capital, but it’s sitting on the sidelines. Alesina is right, though, that overindebtedness can threaten the recovery.

    Subsequently, the President pressed his health care bill through Congress despite widespread popular resistance.

    This illustrates the essentially political, not analytical nature of Hederman and Sherk’s analysis. 

  • Charles Martel

    Zach, I’m sorry—have you run across the statistics that show the federal government has not grown since 2009? I can’t for the life of me find any. If you can, please pass them on. Thanks!

  • jj

    Are ordinary voters catching on?
     
    Probably not.  You have two right here who can’t figure it out.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Z still isn’t certified as an American yet. Let alone anything else.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles Martel: I’m sorry—have you run across the statistics that show the federal government has not grown since 2009? 

    Other than the stimulus, which is temporary, most of the increases have been in mandatory entitlements and social safety net expenditures related to the recession. For instance, from 2008 to 2009, outlays for mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security, etc.) jumped from $1595 billion to $2093 billion.

  • Charles Martel

    “Other than the stimulus, which is temporary, most of the increases have been in mandatory entitlements and social safety net expenditures related to the recession. For instance, from 2008 to 2009, outlays for mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security, etc.) jumped from $1595 billion to $2093 billion.”

    Could you explain this in a little more detail? For instance:

    —What were the increases that you did not include under the description “most?”

    —What caused mandatory entitlement expenditures to jump 31% in just one year when those programs had nothing to do with the stimulus or Keynesian-style money pumping? Or are you hiding the “social safety net” expenditures—whatever they are—in that figure?

    —Since the “social safety net” expenditures are related to the recession, have they now stopped in view of the fact that it “officially ended” in June 2009?

    Thank you.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Bush proposed a FY2009 budget of $3.1 trillion. With the recession, receipts plummeted, leaving the U.S. with a trillion dollar deficit. For comparison, the FY2001 proposed budget was $1.9 trillion, with structural surpluses. Most of the increased spending wasn’t due to any so-called expansion of the federal government under Obama. Some was due to the unfunded expansion of Medicare. Some due to increased military spending. Much of it was due to demographic changes in entitlement programs. 

    The only major new spending in the Obama Administration so far has been the stimulus, which is temporary. That peaked at $210 billion in 2010, with $236 billion in additional spending over the next eight years. Most of the provisions of the health care reform bill haven’t even been implemented yet, and the bill leaves most of the heavy lifting to the states and private insurance companies while reducing government spending overall. 

    Charles MartelOr are you hiding the “social safety net” expenditures—whatever they are—in that figure?

    Much of it is under Income Security. Take a look at page 10 of this CBO report.
    http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

    From 2008 to 2009, Social Security increased $66 billion, Medicare and Medicaid increased $92.5 billion, Income Security increased $90 billion, and there was another $246 billion in a variety of other programs, such as Food Stamps, Child Nutrition and Health, Supplemental Security for the Disabled, Veterans assistance, etc.

    Charles Martel—Since the “social safety net” expenditures are related to the recession, have they now stopped in view of the fact that it “officially ended” in June 2009?

    The GDP recession ended, but not the employment and poverty recessions, which are ongoing. 

    But let’s try to ask the question a different way. What has the Obama Administration done that has significantly increased the size of the federal government? Can you point to a program, and its costs over the last year?

  • abc

    Now I have a better working theory on why so much confirmation bias prevails on this site and in many other places where debates such as this occur.  The following is a brilliant piece of insight that links such behavior to evolutionary theory:

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/06/social-investment-vs-search-for-the-truth/

    Only when you understand the quirks of the mind can you get past them…

    As for the economic analysis of Obama spending, there have been no major and voluntary increases in spending other than the stimulus bill.  The rest of the deficits relate to programs that would authomatically have gone up no matter who is President and, in all likelihood, no matter which party controlled Congress.  They required no new legislation.  Zach has shown some of the data to support this, but a cursory examination of budgetary spending at the US Treasury website makes this amply clear.  And although the recession ended and employment losses have slowed then reversed–all under Obama–the rate of recovery is unsatisfactory to Americans despite the fact that such a recovery mirrors what we experienced in prior deep recessions and depressions.  Further complicating matters is the continued erosion of middle class jobs as companies chase lower cost labor and underserved markets abroad, causing relative wealth to shift from labor to capital (workers to stock-owning executives and investors) at an accelerated pace.  Only higher taxes and a greater commitment to income preservation for the middle class (c.f., the German model) will reverse this, in my opinion.  And a great start would be upping infrastructure investments, which tend to favor local companies anyway and tend to entire labor-intensive projects.  Obama should be doing much more to address employment, but politically he keeps giving into the least common denominator of ignorance and political blackmail, as this ad exemplifies.The comments by people here salivating over a “great” election in 2012 proves that they are rooting against rapid economic recovery to get Obama out.  This is terrible thinking, but it prevails amongst many conservatives.  They actually hope their fellow Americans continue to suffer so they can have their ideology win out in the next Presidential election, although that ideology has proven itself to be a major cause of the crisis causing pain in the first place.  Of course, they will direct ad hominem arguments at me to rationalize such anticipatory celebration of an Obama ouster.  Ignorance.  Selfishness.  Denial.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Now I have a better working theory on why so much confirmation bias prevails on this site and in many other places where debates such as this occur.  The following is a brilliant piece of insight that links such behavior to evolutionary theory:

    It’s not “I have a better working theory”, it is “I found someone else’s theory”.

    Only when you understand the quirks of the mind can you get past them…

    You might want to start with yourself on that little homework assignment.

  • Charles Martel

    abc repeats the classic mistake that Marxists and Objectivists make, namely that man is only an economic creature. Given that the one place he feels comfortable in (or as his writing about almost any other topic has shown us, competent) is economics, that makes sense.

    So I’m not surprised that he avoids talking about the other grave matters here that make so many on this site abhor Obama. Shall we list a few and then watch as abc pretends they are not worthy to discuss?:

    —His bowing to tyrants

    —His disgraceful, boorish mistreatment of Benjamin Netanyahu

    —His classless public scolding of SCOTUS at the SOTU

    —His entanglement in a new war with no clear rationle or objectives

    —His approval of Eric Holder’s creation of a racist Department of Justice

    —The deliberate surrender of American global leadership and the rise of assertive thugocracies like Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China

    —His appointment of “czars” to bypass Congress

    —His profligate personal habits, including overly casual use of the perks of office

    —His lack of manners and a sense of decorum

    —His previous, never disavowed association with Communists and fellow travelers: Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett

    —His granting of Obamacare waivers to allies who understand the program’s terrible costs and consequences

    —His refusal to publish his college transcripts

    —His reluctance to honor America on days of national remembrance

    Most likely, from abc’s sneery roost, these are matters that only Little People with little minds fret over. But his rhetoric tells me that the thing he fears most, the deposing of elitists like him in the 2012 election, has him already preparing himself for it: See how he blames the American people—and us here—for not responding to his brilliant mind, CV and nostrums.

  • suek

    Here’s an interesting article…

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/10/when-government-jumps-the-shark/

    By the way…it’s no wonder the Dems don’t understand the recession…apparently Pelosi’s wealth has increased by 62% over the last year. 62% ! Wonder who advises her on investments. You don’t suppose she _might_ have had some insider info???

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Of course she has insider info. She writes the laws that corporations often hire espionage spies to get advanced intel on, in order to inform their investment and business strategies. Why does she need to get insider information? She writes all the laws that is put into effect! She doesn’t need to “find out”, because the moment she’s out of the chambers, she can just contact her mutual fund boyos and tell them to invest or not invest depending on how the bill is doing.

    This is why power mad freaks are willing to invest decades of their life in politics. Cause it pays, Suek. It pays very well .Far better than what their “nominal wage” pays out.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles Martel: abc repeats the classic mistake that Marxists and Objectivists make, namely that man is only an economic creature. Given that the one place he feels comfortable in (or as his writing about almost any other topic has shown us, competent) is economics, that makes sense.

    The thread is about economics. Discussing economics doesn’t mean that economics is the only thing of importance. 

  • abc

    Y, unlike you, I rely on other experts for theories to make sense of the world.  Apparently, you have worked it all out yourself, which is remarkable–doing what millions of humans took thousands of years to figure out…all on your own, without any help.  Kudos.  I’m not that smart.

  • Charles Martel

    “I’m not that smart.”

    Thank you, non-existent Sky Fairy, there is hope yet!

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Exactly, you’re not that smart. When stuff comes to your “mind” from other people, you should attribute it to other people. You shouldn’t attribute it to yourself until you’ve mastered “their” theories enough to talk about it without referring back to “other people’s theories”.
     
    So it is not “I have a better working theory”, A. Try to remember that. For once.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Don’t make the Sky God angry, Martel. There will be hell to pay. Ontop of Obama’s debt, I mean.

  • abc

    More from Barry Ritzholz on the real disconnect from reality:

    News Flash: The Emperor Has No Clothes


    By Barry Ritholtz – June 17th, 2011, 7:15AM

    Fareed Zakaria has reached the terribly obvious and long overdue conclusion that the right wing in the US is a fantasy-based denier of reality.
    Whoopee.
    After years of globally embarrassing foolishness, a cowed and cowardly media is belatedly showing signs of speaking Truth to Power.
    For his observation that the earth is round, serious people are showering Zakaria with effusive praise. While the reality based observations are long overdue, it is embarrassing that we feel so compelled to applaud it. People seem to be forgetting: This is what media is supposed to do. The role of the press is to point out the absurdities of the powerful, afflict the comfortable, reveal what those in Power want to keep hidden.
    Of course, that has taken a back seat to much more important events, such as Anthony Weiner’s junk shot, Michael Jackson’s untimely death, and an especially close American Idol final.
    Bread & Circuses, anyone?
    What does it say about our damaged US democracy and its wounded 4th Estate (aka corporate media) that merely making an obvious assertion is news? Is it an event when an essential element of a functional democracy actually has the bravado to tell a significant political movement that “No, the earth is not flat.”
    The right wing has long embraced magical thinking. You can see it across a spectrum of thought: It is a short hop from believing that  Supply Side Tax Cuts are self funding to all other manner of nonsense. From denying Evolution to managing Health Care costs to Global Warming, it is a continuum. Making no-plan invasions of other countries is the natural progression of such magical thinking. If your beliefs are righteousness enough, then the outcome is assured by a munificent deity.
    As a personal belief system, that may be fine, but as government philosophy, it makes for horrific policy decisions.
    The Retreat from Empiricism has been detailed over the years, but not by the mainstream media. It has been the alternative press — websites, blogs, critics outside of the mainstream — who have stated the obvious for many, many years. Somehow, the Media missed nearly all of it. It wasn’t until after the Katrina disaster that the scales fell from Press’ eyes. Suddenly, in the middle of George W. Bush’ second term, the Press found their voice. Years after 9/11, after the national terror alert was manipulated for political purposes, long after the Nation was lied into a war of choice through dishonest and deceptive means at great cost in blood and treasure, did the Media found its voice.
    Heckuva job there, Press corps . . .   (see http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/ for links and sources)

    This echoes what Fareed Zakaria has published in Time magazine this week, which is another excellent read–very damning for conservatives…

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077943,00.html

    Of course, I have been harping on this fantasy narrative for some time, and complaining about how the press isn’t doing for to force people who engage in it to acknowledge their irrationality.  This could be an exercise in futuility, but much in this country’s future rides on it, so it is worth the effort.  Kudos to Ritzholz and Zakaria for making the effort.

  • abc

    A question one should always be asking oneself…

    Seeking the Truth — Or Obscuring It?
     
    By Barry Ritholtz – August 20th, 2010, 8:49AM
    Over the past few weeks, I have posted on an eclectic assortment of items. That is keeping with the blog’s sub-title: Macro Perspectives on Capital Markets, Economy, Technology, and Digital Media. A few of you have commented (here and here) or emailed about this recently.
    I want to take a few moments to explain the thought process behind what appears to be a random collection of posts, but actually, is not. Instead, it is part of a broader process that ranges across a variety of disciplines, interests, methodologies.
    The broader mission of what I try to do is seek the Truth.
    I define “the Truth” as being in accord with objective reality. Philosophers have argued we can never achieve that degree of perfection, so to me it means getting as close as possible to the Truth as any slightly cleverer, pants-wearing monkey can.
    I do this for three reasons: The first is that I am interested in it intellectually. I am aware that our individual universes are mere constructs of a sophisticated cognitive process, the evolutionary apex of this planet. I am also all too aware it is filled with flaws and biases and error. So few people seem to understand what objective reality is that it is a rarified space to even get near, much less inhabit.
    This means venturing far and wide in search of “enlightenment.” No one discipline has a monopoly on the Truth, and very often a brilliant insight from one field can be applied in another. Hence, Behavioral economics, music, neurophysiology, methods of data-depiction (aka chart porn), market history, even automotive innovations all part of the cross-discipline process.
    The second reason is professional: Fund managers whose universe deviate from reality eventually come to major losses, under-performance, and professional ruin. The most public version of this was Bill Miller: His failure to understand the derivative situation, creaky Housing edifice, and the artifice of the 2002-07 finance rally led his fund to load up on banks, GSEs, investment houses — and ruined an incredible record. There are many other examples, but this one is the most acute. Note there is a distinction between those who play probabilities that do not play out, and those whose world view is so flawed as to make losses all but inevitable.
    I believe in Variant Perspective as an investment thesis: Identify where most of the investing public is objectively wrong; determine what the best approximation to reality is; factor in timing, and invest accordingly. Value investors do this when they buy undervalued stocks; they are saying the public is wrong (the variance) about the lack of worth of an issue; short sellers do this as well, explicitly stating the opposite — that the variance is the public overvaluing a stock, and making their bets.
    One of the surprising things this blog has taught me is how long it takes Reality to go viral. There are entrenched interests opposed to the Truth; they release their grip on their subjective fantasies very, very slowly.
    When people said that Housing never falls in price, that is an example of entrenched interests pushing their false view of the world. Some argued that sub-prime mortgages were such a small part of the economy, they could never have much of an impact. That was not an error, or a difference of opinion, mind you, but a cognitive failure on their part to hypothesize a probable or likely outcome. Years passed before the Truth became known.
    The inverted Yield Curve as an omen of impending recession? Dismissed as different this time (inviting our criticism). Erroneous discussions of how cheap home builders were, how expensive tech stocks were, how low inflation was, and how high employment were all subjects of discussions here as alt.universe fantasies. It took years before the Truth became widely accepted — and even that required a massive global crisis.
    There are 100s of such examples. Some people claim that nobody forecast a possible housing/derivative/market collapse (a blatant lie to obscure their own failures). When the CRA or Fannie/Freddie are blamed for the economic crisis, I recognize this as false, a blatant attempt to obscure, rather than reveal the Truth. Arguments talking up or down the economy usually have a specific agenda apart from the objective reality of the situation.
    Which leads us to our headline: Seeking the Truth — Or Obscuring It?
    I have explained my motivations as a truth seeker. It is intellectually stimulating, and it can be profitable. The major investment houses have, for the most part, abandoned it as part of their model. I should be thankful they left that market niche open to smaller, nimble firms (like mine).
    But what motivates people to pursue a narrative that is blatantly false, misleading or intellectually dishonest? Typically, it meets a powerful group’s specific agenda. There is a embedded interest amongst the entrenched to preserve the status quo. The thought process seems to be “Hey, its working for us, let’s not mess up a good thing.”
    Said another way, look at what it is they are selling.
    We see this in a variety of areas: Politics are notorious for disregarding the Truth. Political objectives are to win votes, control public monies, amass power and influence. The Truth is an obvious casualty in this process.
    Amongst corporate interests, the Truth can get in the way of sales, earnings reports, and profitability, impacting careers, stocks prices and of course bonuses. Regulation reduced profits. Impacting the debate to achieve a desired outcome is worth billions, even if the consequences to society costs trillions.
    Even academia is suffers from this error prone tendency to obscure the Truth when it contradicts a long held theory or belief system. Look no further than the Efficient Market Hypothesis, and the way it was applied in real world discussions of policy, and self-regulation. Then consider the tortured route it took to go from the intellectual standard of academic capital market explanations to a partially discredited, somewhat outmoded belief system.
    I initially mentioned three reasons. The third is simply that we live in a society where decision-making takes place with less and less reverence for the Truth, with terrible consequences. Those people who seek to obscure the Truth for personal gain do an enormous disservice to our nation. Public policy is made based on false pronouncements, monies are allocated based upon misleading arguments, laws are made, taxes levied, policy executed. The lives of 100s of millions of people is significantly impacted by our public policy.
    When the entire edifice rests on falsehoods, mistruths, faulty assumptions, false premises, future  outcomes, as we have seen over the past few years, can be horrific. History teaches us that eventually, the Truth will reveal itself. When that happens, there can be terrible consequences: Economies collapse, wars occur, empires crumble, millions die.
    Whenever I read a major policy piece, newspaper article, or OpEd, I ask the following question: Is this person a truth seeker, or a truth obscurer? When you see nasty posts that dissect/shred/fisk these, it is because I was not happy with the answer to that question.
    Are you a truth seeker, or a truth obscurer?

  • Charles Martel

    Whoa, abc is taking chapter and verse from Zach’s book and is now pumping second-hand thoughts into the room as examples of his higher-order thinking.

    “From denying Evolution to managing Health Care costs to Global Warming, it is a continuum. Making no-plan invasions of other countries is the natural progression of such magical thinking. If your beliefs are righteousness [sic] enough, then the outcome is assured by a munificent deity.”

    Has abc finally found his beloved echo chamber? What’s with all the caps on the nouns? What’s with the lack of examples or documented refutations, stuff abc always insists that working people like us take vacations to produce?

    Perhaps the most pathetic thing of all, abc links to Time magazine. That, my friends, is one giant bottom-of-the-barrel scrape.

  • BrianE

    James Hansen’s predictions of global warming made before the Senate in 1988 are turning out to be very much less than he had projected. He cannot explain why there has been no significant global warming over the last 10-12 years.- Bill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University

    Many of us AMS members believe that the modest global warming we have observed is of natural origin and due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation resulting from salinity variations. These changes are not associated with CO2 increases. Most of the GCM modelers have little experience in practical meteorology. They do not realize that the strongly chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system does not allow for skillful initial value numerical climate prediction. The GCM simulations are badly flawed in at least two fundamental ways:

    Their upper tropospheric water vapor feedback loop is grossly wrong. They assume that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause large upper-tropospheric water vapor increases which are very unrealistic. Most of their model warming follows from these invalid water vapor assumptions. Their handlings of rainfall processes are quite inadequate.

    They lack an understanding and treatment of the fundamental role of the deep ocean circulation (i.e. Meridional Overturning Circulation – MOC) and how the changing ocean circulation (driven by salinity variations) can bring about wind, rainfall, and surface temperature changes independent of radiation and greenhouse gas changes. These ocean processes are not properly incorporated in their models. They assume the physics of global warming is entirely a product of radiation changes and radiation feedback processes. They neglect variations in global evaporation which is more related to surface wind speed and ocean minus surface and air temperature differences. These are major deficiencies.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/

    I believe we’re all seeking the truth, abc.

  • abc

    BrianE,

    If you are seeking the truth, then why do you quote the comments of Bill Gray, who makes a false claim?  Here are the average temperatures by year:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg

    Now, the clip you posted also claims that the models fail to account for deep ocean and troposphere impacts, but that is simply not true, as both are included in the model, although Lindzen at MIT has claimed that the model doesn’t properly account for tropospheric influences.  That he is contesting the assumptions means that the claims of the AMS are wrong.  Also, Lindzen’s own claims have been debunked.  As for ocean modelling, it is included in the standard models being used.  It is astounding that such basic factual errors are repeated multiple times, from AMS to wattsupwiththat.com to this site.

    If you are committed to the truth, and are actively seeking it, then why do you perpetuate falsehoods.  Before delving into the complexity of the models, just deal with the temperature record.  Rather than posting easily-debunked claims by Gray, how about conceding what the temperature record is.  That would be a big step forward, toward accuracy and away from the misinformation of the skeptical conservatives who live in la-la land.

  • Danny Lemieux

    We are surely luck to have eminent scientific poobah who goes by the nomme de guerre of “ABC” available to instruct Dr. William Gray, Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University and one of the world’s premiere authorities on the dynamics of hurricanes, on his obvious errors of judgment. Aha, but even better, ABC confirms for us that Dr. Lindzen of MIT has also been shown to be a scientific dunce in ABC’s eyes, for (no doubt), ABC has also submitted Lindzen’s analyses to careful scrutiny and found them wanting.
     
    And so he should, for ABC has access to none other than Wikipedia and the infallible authority of the Temple of Orthodoxy. ABC very helpfully provides us with the following link to the hallowed stone inscribed with incontestable data, to be found at this very link (please hush your voices out of respect as you carefully inspect this icon):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg
     
    Keeping in mind Mark Twain’s repartee that “there are lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics”, does anyone else notice how ABC’s link lives up to Twain’s expectations?

  • abc

    Apparently, conservatives like Danny will not even face facts recorded by a thermometer over the last 50 or more years…really out of touch with the facts and reality.  Rather, he wants to cite a retired expert (Gray) who apparently refuses to confront the data as well, or was misquoted by BrianE or has been paid God-knows-how-much by the oil industry.  I don’t really know, nor do I care.  The facts remain.  The temperature data supplied above, and coming from NASA, has been confirmed by multiple independent groups around the world.  Either you accept the facts or you continue to play rhetorical games to hide the truth.  But to continue to insist that there has been no increase in temperatures, as many conservatives continue to maintain is an exercise in denial.

    By the way, for more on Lindzen, both good and bad, but mostly bad:  http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm.

    Conservatives prefer fantasy to facts, which is why they post videos on the economy that do not quote economists, or they cite skeptics on global warming that have not published on the subject, or they make up whole-cloth lies about Obama’s massive regulatory assault on big business or his gigantic increases in unfunded liabilities.  The fiction is more fun to tell than the truth.  And because they are impervious to facts, they can keep up these lies with total ease.  Amazing…

    And I am still waiting for the truth-seeker BrianE to present his own temperature data to prove Gray correct, that it really hasn’t been warming anyway.  I won’t hold my breath on his facts in this instance.

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, we missed you. Glad to see you back!

  • Danny Lemieux

    Thanks, Hammer!

  • Danny Lemieux

    ABC emotes with passion “Conservatives prefer fantasy to facts, which is why they post videos on the economy that do not quote economists, or they cite skeptics on global warming that have not published on the subject, or they make up whole-cloth lies about Obama’s massive regulatory assault on big business or his gigantic increases in unfunded liabilities.”
     
    OK. let’s take a poll in pursuit of a consensus: who believes that last quoted statement is reality based?
     
    Just wondering.

  • Charles Martel

    Danny, we have had it said here seriously by one commentator that each of us creates our own reality, based on the best information available to us and provided we take a vote. For instance, if our best possible information says it’s OK to hunt down and kill Jews, and a majority of us agree, then it’s understandable if we do.

    With that in mind, the quote you cited is a perfect example of what happens when you filter information to the point that you publicly denounce any opposing information because it offends your reality.  

    So, I’d have to say that the quote is more wishful thinking than reality. What’s more, I’ll bet that 97 percent of the people here will agree with me.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The problem with people like A who lack a STEM background and are unable to understand scientific methodology and research data, forcing A to rely upon “expert authorities” with ulterior agendas in motion, is primarily the issue of their lack of self-awareness. They believe that they can pick up on the righteous path by listening to experts, but the very act of determining what is true and false from a study or a information massager has to be based upon a direct understanding of the principles of science.

    Someone like A who doesn’t understand what sample bias is or how it gets into temperature readings, can not adequately account for uncertainty and physical laws when making judgments concerning what is or isn’t reliable. In laymen’s terms, he’s screwed: he can neither trust his own judgment to determine which science is false nor can he trust his own judgment on trusting anyone else to tell him which science is false.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    When a person has no firm foundations, that person becomes a wind detector: like Kerry or Clinton. Go with the flow, so long as the flow satisfies the ego.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Making no-plan invasions of other countries is the natural progression of such magical thinking.

    So A thinks Cheney having the oil pipelines of Iraq on his desk before/after 9/11 means Cheney was planning on taking Iraq’s oil in an invasion. But A also thinks there were no plan invasions of other countries going on for Iraq…

    Somebody, anybody, get your troubleshooting self over here and resurrect this choking A (pple) of a suffocater. Too much logic for the foolish is poisonous.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    BrianEBill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University

    abc: If you are seeking the truth, then why do you quote the comments of Bill Gray, who makes a false claim?  Here are the average temperatures by year:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record_(NASA).svg

    Danny Lemieux: We are surely luck to have eminent scientific poobah … And so he should, for ABC has access to none other than Wikipedia and the infallible authority of the Temple of Orthodoxy.

    This is a very simple situation. Gray made a statement that is not supported by the data. When abc points it out, Danny Lemieux derides the speaker, and the source of the information, rather than the data itself, even though abc also cited NASA, which is credible scientific source.