You Just Can’t Make This Up…… Zero Says His Spying Is Transparent!

Is Zero a clueless buffoon or is he just acting like one?

Obama calls NSA secret data gathering ‘transparent’ in PBS interview

No, really, he said that……

Obama also defended the National Security Agency spying programs and called them “transparent.”

“That’s why we set up the FISA court,” he said, referring to the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes two recently disclosed programs: one that gathers U.S. phone records and another that is designed to track the use of U.S.-based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism.

“We’re going to have to find ways where the public has an assurance that there are checks and balances in place … that their phone calls aren’t being listened into; their text messages aren’t being monitored, their emails are not being read by some big brother somewhere,” Obama said.

Yes, the are so transparent, they set up a secret court.  And spying on American citizens was set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.   

Our assurances come from requiring you asshats to follow the constitution!!!  What part of the Fourth Amendment is ambiguous? 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What’s hard about understanding this?  And, while we’re at it, what’s hard about understanding the fifth amendment?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This madness doesn’t rise to the concept of “due process” in any shape or form as proscribed in the constitution, how the general public conceives it, nor, am I aware of any SCOTUS ruling which says this is allowable. 

I don’t care how many plots NSA jackboots say they’ve foiled, they have to find another way!  It is entirely beside the point. 

A gilded cage is a cage, nonetheless.  Security is of no value without freedom. 

Because Nothing Says Mitigating Disaster Like Wind Sails On Roofs During A Storm

Ikea And Global Green Team Up For ‘Solar For Sandy’ Project To Support Hurricane Victims

While the rest of the world is running away from solar power schemes, our nutters don’t! 

As mentioned, an exact Red Hook installation location has not yet been established as Global Green works alongside the Parsons the New School for Design to identify a partner site (students will contribute design proposals for the facility and its educational components.) Despite this, the overall aim of Solar Sandy is loud and clear: to “help mitigate future power blackouts and provide expanded emergency services to the location selected.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  Clearly there needs to be some backup generation available during these storms.  I’m skeptical about solar panels being the best option.  It seems a bit…. well, stupid.  But, as per HuffPo’s m.o. , it does get even more stupid……..

Adds Petersen:

Global Green’s ‘Solar for Sandy’ initiative will serve as a catalytic model for the resilient, and green rebuilding of low-lying, coastal neighborhoods devastated by Hurricane Sandy. Through smarter, more sustainable energy systems, we can improve vulnerable infrastructure and reduce ongoing energy costs, as well as demonstrate how we create green jobs as we respond to the realities of sea level rise and climate change.

Oh, did we mention they’re putting this stuff in Red Hook?  Red Hook is a community in Brooklyn.  Oh, look here’s Red Hook!!!

So, in response to devastating storms, and hurricanes and the like, we’re going to put an energy source on roofs, where the storms may occur again.  And, we’re going to put our energy source at sea level, while we’re concerned about sea level rise.  Makes perfect sense if you’re a nutter.  What’s not to like?

Four Lunatics Get Economics Backwards

Good heavens!  I thought I was going to be shocked by a HuffPo writer, but, they rarely fail to disappoint.  I was intrigued by the headline……

Paul Krugman Surrenders To Washington: Bloomberg View

I mean, sure, they’re right, Krugman is wrong, but they don’t know why.  It starts with Krugman’s post…..

Sympathy for the Luddites

His title was appropriate.  You can read his opening.  I won’t rehash the history of the Luddites.  But, Krugman states this…..

But this, the story went, was because modern technology was raising the demand for highly educated workers while reducing the demand for less educated workers. And the solution was more education. ……

Today, however, a much darker picture of the effects of technology on labor is emerging. In this picture, highly educated workers are as likely as less educated workers to find themselves displaced and devalued, and pushing for more education may create as many problems as it solves.

I’ve noted before that the nature of rising inequality in America changed around 2000. Until then, it was all about worker versus worker; the distribution of income between labor and capital — between wages and profits, if you like — had been stable for decades. Since then, however, labor’s share of the pie has fallen sharply.

Education, then, is no longer the answer to rising inequality, if it ever was (which I doubt).

So what is the answer? If the picture I’ve drawn is at all right, the only way we could have anything resembling a middle-class society — a society in which ordinary citizens have a reasonable assurance of maintaining a decent life as long as they work hard and play by the rules — would be by having a strong social safety net, one that guarantees not just health care but a minimum income, too. And with an ever-rising share of income going to capital rather than labor, that safety net would have to be paid for to an important extent via taxes on profits and/or investment income.

I can already hear conservatives shouting about the evils of “redistribution.” But what, exactly, would they propose instead?

Glad you asked Paul, I’ll get to that in a minute.

Of course, some of what Krugman is saying is anathema to progressives.  What?  Education isn’t the answer? So, some decided to respond to Krugman, which you can read in the first link I posted……

It seemed one of our premier economic thinkers was throwing in the towel on the U.S. economy.

Krugman blamed technology for exacerbating inequality before dismissing the commonly espoused remedy — more education — as a false god.

So, the author seeks out other economist to argue Krugman’s thoughts…..

“Is education an individually sound investment? Yes, absolutely,” said David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, via e-mail. “Would getting more Americans through college decrease inequality? Certainly. Is education an omnibus solution to U.S. inequality? Definitely not. But that’s not an argument against education!”

Conversely, here’s another response he got…….

Jeff Madrick, a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, isn’t so sure. Increased supply inevitably devalues a college education, he said. “You know what would happen if we had more college grads,” he said, “they’d be making less.” But Madrick also touts a laundry list of other policies to battle inequality — a minimum-wage hike, unionization, aggressive fiscal policy and revisiting trade policies that he thinks have stranded too many workers.

And, of course, the author finishes with this……

Yet even if you agree with such prescriptions, politics has rendered them moot; Republicans oppose them all. …..blah, blah, blah……

Fascinating.  They all see a problem, and almost get some of it correct.  Is there a declining middle class?  Yes, this is unarguable, and tragic.  Krugman is also correct in so far as the solution isn’t education.  I’ve argued this many times.  Yes, we do need an educated public.  But, no, we don’t need to spend a fortune and train someone with a masters degree to flip burgers or push a broom.   Not everyone needs a degree, nor is it achievable without degrading the value of a degree so much as that it is meaningless. 

It doesn’t matter how many ways one wishes to look at it, some people are simply not capable of complex thoughts.

Over half of our population now goes on to some college at least for some time.  That’s insane!  Look at the graphic!  We are literally sending near morons to college!  It makes absolutely no sense to do so.  Look at the graphic.  We shouldn’t send anymore than a 1/3 of the population to advanced education. 

Let me too, just devote a small amount of time to the notion that automation requires people with degrees.  ………  It does to build the things, but, as the word implies, it makes things easier and simpler to do.  Yes, this also means the requirements for the amount of workers decrease, but, it in no way implies you need to be smarter to make things go.  And, in the end, you still need people to run things.  George Jetson’s, if people can understand the analogy. 

So, what’s the solution?  Well, one is, obviously, we need to be engaged in many more things.  Because it takes less workers to do things because of technology, we need to be doing more things.  Where are the Levi plants?  Well, there’s not a damned on in the US.  HP doesn’t build their computers in the US anymore, either.  We can go all day listing the various industries we’ve off-shored.  If we quit finding ways to move our jobs off shore, then much of the problems go away. 

But, then, none of the idiots mentioned above addressed the real problem.  OUR LABOR POOL IS TOO LARGE!!!!! Want to know why people without college degrees can’t make a decent living?  Because the supply of laborers has exceeded the demand.  It’s just that simple.  Think we still don’t need construction laborers?  Of course we do.  And, we still have them.  The only problem is, there’s an endless supply of cheap, uneducated workers to the south of us.  And, for the cheap educated workers, we import an endless supply from Asia and other places.  It isn’t that Americans can’t do the work, it is they can’t do the work and get paid for it.  Care to guess where and why the income inequality is occurring?  It’s only a mystery to the people who don’t compete with this annual huge influx of workers. 

I used to work in bridge construction.  They didn’t automate my job away.  I just couldn’t outwork 3 illegals.  I used to work in a production plant.  While we automated some, that job didn’t go away because of automation, that job went away because the labor pool was so large it didn’t pay good enough to feed the family.  I used to work for a software company.  But, year after year, more and more people in the company and other companies I dealt with were people who couldn’t speak English.  The pay they demanded was significantly less than what people in the industry was working for.  But, my story isn’t unique.  It has happened and is happening all across this nation. 

The problem isn’t, nor was it ever, technology.  Nor, is the solution to have every Tom, Dick, and Jane running around with a masters degree.  All of that is pure unadulterated sophistry. 

Here’s an idea.  Instead of encouraging and even paying for immigrant workers, both legal and illegal, and instead of paying to educate near morons, let’s take some of that money and incentivize hiring American workers.  Secure our borders, in order to make an orderly and focused import of talent.  Quit allowing companies to import millions of supposed tech workers simply because they are cheap labor, locked into working for the sponsor company.  This would increase demand for American workers, which would reduce unemployment and raise the wages of the average worker.  See, you don’t have to raise a minimum wage by law, you can do it simply by decreasing the supply of the labor pool.  Dumbasses.  

Another Nail In The Solar Coffin —- Solel

Siemens pulls plug on last solar energy business

Siemens just couldn’t stop the bleeding.

MUNICH (Reuters) – German industrial conglomerate Siemens <SIEGn.DE> is shutting down the last of its solar energy businesses after it failed to find a buyer, the company said on Monday.

Confirming a report in German newspaper Handelsblatt, a spokesman for Siemens said the group would close Solel by early next year. The Israeli business has accumulated losses of around 1 billion euros ($1.33 billion) since Siemens bought it in 2009, including a write-off of the entire purchase price. ….

Industrial giant Siemens has already closed down its photovoltaic inverter business and pulled out of the Desertec solar energy project.

Its fellow conglomerate Bosch <ROBG.UL> is looking to sell or close its photovoltaic solar operations after losing 2.4 billion euros since 2008. It partly blames a drop in U.S. energy prices caused by a growing abundance of shale gas.

As we can see, cheap energy was never the goal for the nutters. They wanted it expensive, because they’re misanthropists.  The entire business model was based upon escalating energy costs.  If solar energy can’t work in a desert, it can’t work. 

It’s well past time for our governments and energy companies to quit wasting our time and money on these Quixotic quests and start looking for real solutions, like cheap and abundant energy. 

Warmist Professor’s Critique Not Published!!! Makes Same Complaints Skeptics Did!!

 

In the latest skirmish regarding the crazy Cook paper, Dr. Tol has become the latest injury…….  along with the perpetual assault on science by the climate nutters.

To recap for the unaware, Cook and team wrote another consensus paper.  Once again, we saw the 97% claim of consensus.  Cook et al reportedly studied 12,000 papers.  They claimed that of the ones which expressed a position on climate change, (only 1/3 of the papers they examined) 97% “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Then something fascinating happened.  Richard Tol took exception to the study.  That in itself isn’t fascinating.  Anyone reading the paper (you can read Cook et al in its entirety from the link above) can see that it’s, yet again, utter rubbish work. 

The fascinating thing is Dr. Tol is a warmist supreme.  And, an ardent advocate of carbon taxes.  He possesses a long resume of warmist credentials.  He has no doubt there is a consensus and states so. 

So, what’s his problem?  Well, just about everything with the paper, except the conclusions of the paper……. sort of.  He found a fundamental math error which, if the numbers team Cook came up with were to be believed, should have come up with a 98% finding, not a 97%.  And, that’s what his problem was.  His argument goes something akin to this…. ‘if the authors can’t do basic math, then there’s no reason to lend them any validity’.   But, please don’t take my word for it.  You can read his critique here.  (Comes in the form of the Google pdf thingy)  And, if you really want to dig around his data is here.

I think what alerted Dr. Tol to the errors of the paper is that part of the paper asked the authors to evaluate their own works.  Some of Dr. Tol’s papers made Cook’s list as endorsing anthropogenic climate change.  But, Dr. Tol objected to such characterization, as did several others.  In other words, Cook believes he has better insight as to what the papers were stating than the authors of the papers themselves.  Some excerpts of Dr. Tol’s critique…..  although the abstract says it all.

Abstract

The claim that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013, Environmental Research Letters) does not stand. Numbers are padded with many irrelevant papers. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent. The sample is not representative. Key results cannot be reproduced or tested as data disclosure is incomplete.

Again, don’t take my, or Dr. Tol’s word for it, read the paper.  But, the most salient point was not in his proofs, but rather in his introduction…..

Consensus or near-consensus is not a scientific argument. …. A claim of consensus serves a political purpose, rather than a scientific one.

And yet, this is just one of many papers claiming consensus in climate science journals. 

Those who oppose climate policy do so for various reasons…… Others, however, are concerned about the standards of proof in climate research. They would emphasize the complexities of the climate system and highlight lack of rigour in peer-review, substandard statistical analysis, and unwillingness to share data. …… It does not matter whether the exact number is 90% or 99.9%. These people are concerned about the quality of the research:  More papers does not mean better papers.

How true.  It’s one of the things we do here at Suyts!  It’s nearly all low-hanging fruit for one reason or another!  I won’t bore you with the details, because I would have to replicate nearly the entire paper.  It is a nice, step by step, indictment of team Cook’s work.  Cook did just about everything wrong, from the way the volunteers were used, to the sampling, to the math, to the interpretations, to the checks.  In other words, it was a typical warmist paper. 

But, here’s part of the rejection notice, which you can read at WUWT.

The comment raises a number of issues with the recent study by Cook et al. It is written in a rather opinionated style……..

The specification for ERL comments is:
“A Comment in Environmental Research Letters should make a real
contribution to the development of the subject, raising important issues about errors, controversial points or misleading results in work published in the journal recently.”

I do not think this manuscript satisfies those criteria.

Ahh, Dr. Tol lost on style points!  It is true, the introduction was opinionated.  But, that doesn’t negate the work in the body of his comment.  So, what does Dr. Tol have to say about this?  Well, I’ll quote him word for word……

The rejection did not come as a surprise. ERL has been heavily promoting the Cook paper. The editor-in-chief personally praised the paper in his blog and played a supporting role in the press release. (This is not something editors usually do.)

The rejection letter shows just how much the odds were stacked against me.

In the opening paragraph, I give five reasons why people may be less enthusiastic about climate policy and argue that the Cook paper does not take away any of these concerns. In fact, those who worry about the quality of climate research have more to worry about now.

The editor does not engage with the comment at all. Data quality, data unavailability, bias, unrepresentative sample, misinterpreted results are all swept under the carpet.

The editor highlights my concern about rater fatigue. Others have been bemused. This is a real issue in survey-based research. If a questionnaire is too long, people will “tire” of answering. They will answer as fast as they can. In a multiple choice survey, for instance, they may always pick option a.

In the Cook survey, raters performed on average 1922 tasks. One complained online about fatigue. I ran the standard statistical tests for fatigue (because Cook had not), and rejected the null of non-fatigue.

Admittedly, I did so on less than perfect data — but to dismiss this as speculation …

Oh, my aching sides!  Sucks, don’t it Dr. Tol?  The dismissive attitude, the waving away of the points you bring up.  The advocacy of the editor.  The entire failure to rebut the points you made.  But, the worst part is, there’s no recourse other than maybe finding another journal.  But, he’d probably have to change the format of his work to make it fit.  It was a response to a paper published in ERL. 

Will this change Dr. Tol’s mind?  No.  Will it inspire someone to reexamine all of the papers written by the warmists?  Of course not.  There’s simply too many.  But, the overwhelming majority of the papers which I’ve read are near or on the same quality level as Cook’s, meaningless babbling nonsense.   

Gems on the Sword — A False Sense of Security — June 18

Guest post by Jeanette Andrade

A False Sense of Security June 18

Scripture Selection: Psalm 17:13-15; Proverbs 18:11; Mark 10:17-27

Food for Thought: Prov. 18:11

How do you define rich? Most people I know would define themselves as “comfortable” and “prosperous,” but maybe not “rich.” To them, being rich is never checking price tags before buying them, owning several properties and all the luxuries that go with them, zipping around the world on a whim, having servants, and so on. But let’s put things in perspective and compare how most of us live and the way most people of third world countries live.

We live in air-conditioned and heated homes. We own refrigerators, and they are full. We have so many clothes and shoes in our closets that we cannot possibly wear them all. Our streets and highways are paved, and we own vehicles to drive on them. Our sewage is out of sight. We have a police force and a military to protect us. Our children attend school for at least twelve years. Just cross the southern border and you will find many people who lack these comforts and benefits that are common to us.

While there is nothing wrong with being blessed so greatly, there is a danger of putting our trust in our wealth. It can become a false sense of security. Our security is in the Kingdom of God. It is He Who provides and protects. So as you go to work today, remember that you do not work for a living. You live for Christ, and your hope is in Him, not in your things.

Digging Deeper: _________________________________________________________________

Getting Personal: _________________________________________________________________

Confession of Faith: _________________________________________________________________

Important Events on This Day (birthdays, anniversaries, etc.): _________________________________________________________________

Well…… Maybe It Should Be A Crime!

Man called emergency number to complain about prostitute’s looks

SOLIHULL, England, June 14 (UPI) — Police in Britain said a man was warned for using the 999 emergency number to complain a prostitute was not as attractive as advertised.

West Midlands police said a dispatcher at the Solihull, England, call center took a call Tuesday evening from a man who said he wanted to report a prostitute for “breaching the Sale of Goods Act” by claiming to be more attractive than he found her to be when he met her at a hotel parking lot, The Telegraph reported Friday.

“When he raised this issue with the woman concerned, she allegedly took his car keys, ran away from the car and threw them back at him, prompting him to call police,” a police spokesman said. “An officer in the Solihull contact center advised the caller that no offenses had been committed by the woman and that soliciting for sex was in fact illegal. Despite the man refusing to give his details, police have been able to identify him and have sent him a letter warning him about his actions.”

The man was advised that charges of wasting police time can carry prison sentences of up to six months, the spokesman said.

Understatement From Cruz?

Naw, he just wasn’t as bombastic as usual.  But, he does nail it.

Cruz: Obama Admin Scandals Make It Difficult to Trust NSA

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said though he did not want to “rush to judgment” on the NSA’s phone and Internet surveillance programs, there was still “cause for concern.” He emphasized the Obama administration’s actions have made it difficult to trust the National Security Agency when it says, “trust us.” …..

“Part of the problem is that we’ve seen a pattern from the Obama administration…whether it’s the IRS, whether it’s targeting journalists, whether it’s Benghazi…a willingness to use the machinery of government to implement political and partisan ends, and then to mislead the American people,” he said. “Their conduct has not suggested they are trustworthy.”

Cruz said he would not “rush to judgment” about the NSA programs until he found out more about “the contours of the programs,” and said he, like most senators, had not been briefed on the surveillance programs before they came to light.  ……

Cruz said the Constitution was designed to protect the American people from abuses of power and overreach by the federal government and that “it shouldn’t be trust that protects our liberties, it should be our Constitution.”

“You and I both know too much power in Washington is a dangerous thing,” Cruz said, noting that the foundation of the country was the idea that, “we don’t trust this administration or any administration.”

Exactly true, Mr. Cruz.  It isn’t for us to rely on trust.  It’s too easily broken.  We have our constitution which constrains the government and lines out what they’re suppose to be doing and what they can’t do.  And, while Zero has demonstrated over and over again that his administration can not be trusted, I wouldn’t trust any other administration on these issues.  

Pic Of The Day! More Sads :(

G8 Summit. 

Thank goodness we had that “reset” back in 2009, else we might not be getting along as well.  Barry made everything better. 

Note to Vlad   …..  give the darn ring back!

Note to Zero …… Quit arming terrorists!!

h/t Twitchy

We Know Global Warming Hasn’t Stopped Because The Polar Regions Are Still The Fastiest Mostest Hottingest Places Evuh!!!!! ……. IN THE WORLD!!!!

You see, we know that CO2 makes a much larger difference in the polar regions than it does in the rest of the world.  This creates laser like heat in the poles which melt all of the ice away.  Well, at least in the Arctic, because the Antarctic is upside down, obviously the affects are reversed.  See?  We call this polar amplification.  And, even though you can’t see it right now, we know that it’s true because our models showed us conclusive proof that it was true!!!  Even though after more than 30 years of data from the south polar regions which never demonstrated this, the nutters bitterly cling to this notion today.

source