Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Excerpt from Chomsky's "Power Systems"

A brief an interesting excerpt here includes some interesting historical details regarding the Cuban missile crisis.  If you didn't already know our leaders, though often praised for their handling of the issue, in fact acted in ways that appear insane.  Also a few details about the current crisis with N Korea, which frankly for most Americans, me included, is just completely shrouded in mystery.  Yeah, we know their leaders are a bit nuts, but I always feel like there's a lot to the story we aren't getting.  Chomsky provides some of that mostly unknown background.


Chad said...

JC - Off topic, but a friend sent me this.

Very interesting read - especially for a guy who's on that side of the fence.


Examinator said...

Chad, you clearly don't understand or don't want to, what his title says about his standing as an expert. i.e. he's retired.

Added to that he is writing a paper for Homeland inst. It is NOT A academically peer reviewed paper any more than Chomsky's lecture in the head line. Albeit Chomsky includes more independently provable facts.

Of course you are competent to review it and to understand the limited scope of his paper. It's pitched at entry level undergraduate climate science. Minus the hyperbole and as a project for analysis its OK. If you're interested there is a video undergrad course that discussed/teaches all the principals/ math he's using available I dig out the URL for you. Be warned it is in 40 min lectures and runs for some 24 hrs. I've worked through the course. ( it is 1st semester stuff)

The most important point here is that as an academic paper it is very selective on what he has referenced. note that the newest reference is 8-3 years old... there has been heaps since then that would rip his to bits.
Notwithstanding, he starts with a false (popularist interpretation) assertion.
Most climate scientists and the 30+ other disciplines involved don't necessarily see CO2 as the only or major mechanism involved. But rather a starting point.

The reality is that there are multiple simultaneous factors involved some they know well some not so well and some they educated guess at. It isn't as simple as the 'paper' says.

While it isn't total BS it is way too simplistic to the point that he hasn't, can't, based on what is included, prove his primary Premise.
Interesting perhaps but definitive..... not in the least... a good academic paper ... NO, it is derivative and selectively so... no new research to back up his conclusions. In short it's a paid opinion.

Chad said...

So - your saying the predictions made by the so called experts has come true and are not flawed?

I like simple answers or at least answers that make a lot more common sense.

Chad said...

BTW - the predictions made by Al Gore and all his minions of scientists are also a paid opinion sir. In order to continue Recieving funding they have to have this.

Jon said...

Chad, I'm not ignoring you, just out sick. Will check your link.

Examinator said...

Wrong topic. I was addressing the scientific efficacy/credibility of the 'paper' .
As for the predictions being flawed ....what predictions ? Clearly you don't/or don't want understand the nature the academic process or the nature of the science involved i.e. the predictions.

Last time I looked they were all focused on the highly probable net EFFECT most visible between 2050-2100 . The righties are 'deliberately' trying to focus on WEATHER as opposed to CLIMATE. There is NO short term time table of predicted specific events.

The 30 + other disciplines involved are reporting real, factual measurements that are consistent with the climate's TREND predictions.

It doesn't change the facts this dude's paper isn't scientific any more than my posts would be accepted by the academic press or society. BTW Gore's movies was 'derivative', added nothing new to the science thus it had no more academic standing than an article in Science magazine. Largely true but a NON scientist's perspective.

Also Note The science research came first Gore merely popularised it.
Was HE worthy of his Nobel? meh He got it for making the topic widely known NOT FOR HIS SCIENCE... he added nothing, zip, nadder, boopkiss. Attacking him is the same as shooting 'A messenger' cos you don't like the message. In short the scientists are NOT "his minions" he has no control over what THEY study , measure, conclude... to say that they are is simply demonstrably 'rightie' spin, detraction, diversion and .

Having said that I have no inclination to try and convert you or anyone else to anything hence I offered to find a URL for university bona fide subject. I have no problem accepting your idiosyncratic ( meaning unique to you) BELIEFS regardless of their illogicality they are your right ...FOR YOU e.g my mom is a fundamental Christian ( she “believes in Christ” if not the teachings of the New Testament) which is fine FOR HER but I dispute her right to prostelytize with the view to impose it on others on the assumption it's the absolute.

Chad said...

Ex - I am almost at a loss of words. A man who claims to have an open mind on all subjects - especially with some sort of data dismisses all data by people outside a specific and extremely limited pool of people as false. Then once faced with the real possibility that the narrative is wrong and wrong by a long shot - you doule down?

Unfortunately for you - SCIENTISTS are starting to come around to my way of thinking (as the song goes) and predictions from the Right are coming true - as they tend to always do.


Suddenly - when pressed by the fact that the "experts" models are proving big time off and the emphasis on CO2 exaggerated - now they are not surprised???

Scientists helped push an agenda that lined thier pockets and Al Gore's pockets full of cash, slowed the development on natural resources (owned by the Right mainly) and allowed for silly EPA and GOVT regs to come raining down upon high - that's all this was and it's starting to come to light.

Chad said...

JC - sorry you haven't been well and wish you a quick recovery.

Ex aside (snotty attitude and talking out both sides of his mouth) seriously wondering if your starting to question not only the forecast models which seem to now be a fore gone conclusion that they are wrong, but to question the entire narrative?

I don"t believe in many master conspiracy theories - in this case I think a perfect storm allowed scientists with big money backing and a huge tree hugging population to convince themselves that our evil ways will have a bigger impact than they really do. My concern here is that if this is discredited and it is heading that way on a bullet train then when there is a REAL issue with the environment it is going to be a tough sell. A credibility issue which is a bad thing because the knee jerk reaction could hurt. Another words - we have to have a balance of some kind and developing alternate energy options IS important. Maybe - and I don't like it of course, but maybe this will turn out to be a net positive? I hate the idea that billions or even trillions of dollars was wasted on bad tech that could have been used to develop our natural resources, but at the same time - I have bought several solar developed items that are cool. I am not sure they would have been available today if not for this very costly push.

Check this - I bought a battery trickle solar charger for the RV. It sits quietly on the dash - plugs into the AUX 12v lighter plug and maintains my batteries to 100% charge. Then I got another solar type panel that is probably a little bigger than the top of a folding table that I put that on top of the RV and that thing powers up several plug in devices we use outside like lights, radio, a TV and some other things. I mainly bought it so when visitors come tent camping with us they can have some power and let me tell you something that thing works pretty decent for what we use it for. Then I bought one more solar panel - actually bought it at a garage sale for next to nothing because the guy said it was broke, but Imjust don't think he knew how to use it. Anyhow that one panel runs the filter and a water heater for a smaller pool we have (Intek) for the kids.

As you already can predict my motivation here is to save money if possible. Me batteries are $200 for the RV - this deal was $49 and others tell me they haven't changed batteries for years. The tent solar panel - convenience really (not running cords off the RV) and the pool to save money on electric since the filter and heater runs all day long, but that is the point we can all benefit and I am afraid things in that department may slow dramatically when this blows up on scientist/global Warmers.

A side note - I see the Left - who loves solar is ready to go after folks and tax them for the revenues lost through gas. Funny how that works and sad.

Jon said...

Chad, I think Ex summarizes my reaction pretty well to this paper. It's not written like a scientific paper, but more like a blog post. Not that I have a problem with blog posts, but there's a difference between what I do here and what a scientist does in a peer reviewed paper. I think the notion that other scientists don't know that CO2 is not the main driver is just false, and that's his kind of opening bolded line. The concern is not the warming caused directly by CO2 but the feedback mechanisms that will accelerate warming and be triggered by CO2.

Remember, you're going to find a small minority of real experts dissenting from the consensus. You get that in holocaust denial, Einstein's theory of relativity, and every other area of scientific research. One point I do agree with you on is your concern over money. Money skews all kinds of things, including science. That's the effect of Chevron, Exxon, and the rest. They've managed to skew what would otherwise be clear.

Anyway, glad to hear you are using renewable energy. If it saves that much money it must be a large amount, meaning that's a lot less fossil fuel burned. Not sure who you are talking about regarding taxes.

Chad said...

Time out - your still ignoring the facts that none of the predictive models have been correct - in fact they are way way off. Now we are starting to hear and see scientist back tracking - we are hearing that a cooling period is coming. Let's put a pin in this conversation and come back to it in ten years - this theory is going to be proven wrong.