Hear, Hear!

I worked as a chemical engineer for 20 years before going to law school. Now having seen both sides, engineering and law, many things are much clearer, at least to me!

So many people who complain or denigrate our legal system (the U.S. system) have little to no idea what other countries have, and why ours is preferable.

The list is long and I won’t recite it all here, but for just a few examples:

Right to Speedy Trial
Right to an attorney
Right to Trial by Jury
Presumption of Innocence
Proof of Guilt beyond a Reasonable Doubt to Convict
Right to Appeal (but government does NOT have that right in a criminal case)
No Ex-Post Facto Laws
No Self Incrimination
No Unreasonable Search and Seizure
Right to Confront Witnesses against you
Right to Free Speech
Right to Petition the Government
Hearsay Evidence prohibited at trial
Liberal Discovery
Prosecution must share all evidence against accused

and the list goes on and on and on…

After working on international projects including four years in the Former Soviet Union, I came to realize why they are so poor and we are so rich.

It is primarily due to the Rule of Law – rich countries have it, poor countries do not.

Granted, our legal system is ponderous, expensive and self-serving – but in the absence of Law and Order we would soon have nothing – witness Zimbabwe.

Regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.

That’s fine. I speak cowboy… with an accent…

Shakespeare’s line is:

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

OK, then my snide repost becomes: I thought it was “The first thing we do, let’s kill all their lawyers.” ;-)

I always like it better when the other guy finds himself in a gun fight without a gun… hired or otherwise.

Interesting blog entry on the matter:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/01/shakespeare-and-lawyers/

Fascinating…

“As I began reading I started to have the same “cold feeling on the back of neck” that I felt in trials when listening to opposing expert witnesses testify: there is something wrong here. My judgment, after studying hundreds of pages of articles, reports, blog entries and graphs, is that AGW is a hoax. I would love to be able to cross-examine some of these people as if at trial where they would be under oath and could not obfuscate or avoid directly answering the questions.”

As an attorney and engineer, I concur most heartily. When the opposition’s expert is lying or otherwise inconsistent, cross-examination can be fun, I suspect you would agree?

The graph that shows the amount of adjustments made each year here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif

is missing . Anyone know where it went?

Actually, I botched the line. I gave the ‘cowboy’ version, I suppose.

Shakespeare’s line is:

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

Interesting blog entry on the matter:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/03/01/shakespeare-and-lawyers/

You say your pal would “welcome any suggestions regarding the comparisons between these two web sites”?

OK, give this comparison to your pal at work: click

Report back. Thanx.

I give you the web site that refute most of your arguments.

http://www.realclimate.org/

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

PDO
1900 0.45
1901 -0.13
1902 0.77
1903 0.16
1904 -0.25
1905 0.64
1906 0.49
1907 0.12
1908 0.38
1909 -0.12
1910 -0.08
1911 -0.16
1912 0.15
1913 0.57
1914 0.16
1915 0.18
1916 -0.51
1917 -0.43
1918 -0.14
1919 -0.10
1920 -0.91
1921 -0.10
1922 -0.20
1923 0.48
1924 0.14
1925 0.19
1926 1.16
1927 0.14
1928 0.16
1929 0.40
1930 -0.10
1931 0.74
1932 -0.02
1933 -0.68
1934 1.18
1935 0.80
1936 1.73
1937 0.32
1938 0.16
1939 0.07
1940 1.77
1941 1.99
1942 0.47
1943 0.11
1944 -0.13
1945 -0.19
1946 -0.58
1947 0.50
1948 -0.87
1949 -1.23
1950 -1.81
1951 -0.77
1952 -0.87
1953 -0.16
1954 -0.29
1955 -1.95
1956 -1.80
1957 0.23
1958 0.64
1959 -0.03
1960 0.06
1961 -0.82
1962 -1.16
1963 -0.69
1964 -0.77
1965 -0.31
1966 -0.46
1967 -0.73
1968 -0.40
1969 -0.10
1970 -0.40
1971 -1.29
1972 -0.92
1973 -0.80
1974 -0.34
1975 -1.10
1976 0.01
1977 0.23
1978 0.24
1979 0.34
1980 0.60
1981 0.92
1982 0.11
1983 1.65
1984 0.84
1985 0.45
1986 1.24
1987 1.82
1988 0.53
1989 -0.18
1990 -0.36
1991 -0.42
1992 0.93
1993 1.42
1994 -0.15
1995 0.64
1996 0.64
1997 1.46
1998 0.25
1999 -1.06
2000 -0.59
2001 -0.56
2002 0.22
2003 0.97
2004 0.35
2005 0.38
2006 0.19
2007 -0.20
2008 -1.29

I wouldn’t take David Archibald’s comments seriously. He says that “Another large La Nina formed in late 2008.” This is totally incorrect as ENSO conditions remain neutral and with equatorial Pacific areas starting to show signs of warming a return to La Nina is looking increasingly unlikely at this late stage. What is much more probable is an El Nino later this year, the initial signs are becoming clearer in the South Pacific.http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.15.2009.gif.
Notice also, as I predicted in September, the PDO is starting to switch off its -ive phase and is now virtually neutral. So much for the 30 years of cold!

________________________________________________________

Hi Mary,

Little time to look at your work, but here is the 2008 data I have on the PDO,
from
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest

2008** -1.00 -0.77 -0.71 -1.52 -1.37 -1.34 -1.67 -1.70 -1.55 -1.76 -1.25 -0.87

2008 average is -1.29 – there have only been three lower years: 1950, 1955 and 1956, since 1900.

Not virtually neutral, imo…

Wish you were right though – I’m getting tired of this cold.

Regards, Allan

Allan M R MacRae (12:17:52) :

17-01-2009
DR (13:55:44) :

Has anyone seen David Archibald’s prediction for UAH data through May 2009?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf

Whoa, he’s really sticking his neck out. It is 180 deg out of phase with Hansen and Met O, and most likely other govt. funded institutions.

I wouldn’t take David Archibald’s comments seriously. He says that “Another large La Nina formed in late 2008.” This is totally incorrect as ENSO conditions remain neutral and with equatorial Pacific areas starting to show signs of warming a return to La Nina is looking increasingly unlikely at this late stage. What is much more probable is an El Nino later this year, the initial signs are becoming clearer in the South Pacific.http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.1.15.2009.gif.
Notice also, as I predicted in September, the PDO is starting to switch off its -ive phase and is now virtually neutral. So much for the 30 years of cold!

I think you are writing nonsense re Spencer and Christy’s UAH LT measurements.

Rather than just quoting all these papers, you should quote the magnitude of the corrections involved.

I think you will find the corrections are practically insignificant.

For plot of UAH LT global temperature anomalies in 2002, see Figure 1 in
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

For a 2008 plot, see
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG

I cannot see any material difference – can you?

Also, UAH and RSS LT temperatures seem to be converging, and the corrections are not all at UAH – many are at RSS.

Please quote the actual numbers if you wish to make a valid point.

Regards, Allan