Money Money Money. Our money, and how the craven UN can get its hands deeper into the pockets of U.S. taxpayers.

The UN’s proposed “World Tax” [now re-named "Millenium Development Goals"] was proposed to be a .7% tax on GDP. For the U.S. that would mean over $100 billion every year, taken from working taxpayers and paid into the opaque and unaccountable United Nations.

That world tax has not been implemented. So, what is the UN’s response? The UN has now raised its demand, to a full one percent tax on U.S. GDP annually.

U.S. GDP is currently about $14 trillion. The UN looks at that money and gets absolutely ravenous with greed. They intensely hate the U.S. and the West — but they crave the West’s money like an unemployed brother in law living in your extra bedroom craves the money you work for. The sooner they are cut off, the better for all of us.

Ted Turner gave the UN a $1 billion donation and asked them to set up a center to document the destructive effects of AGW. They did so. Their agenda is to repay their alarmist benefactor, and possibly to induce further donations.

Flanagan (22:44:28) :

John Galt: even when looking very carefully at the IPCC ARs, I never see anywhere “knowing that global warming is man-made, blablabla” The role of these reports is to assess the role of man in the recently observed warming. To ASSESS, not to prove.

You’re sort of correct. The IPCC was not chartered to determine how or why the climate changes…Or even if it is currently changing in any sort of anomalous manner. It wasn’t even chartered for scientific purposes.

It starts from a point of assumed settled science: The climate change of the late 20th century is anomalous and probably caused by the United States…I mean anthropogenic activities…

Mandate

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

What the heck is, “socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change?”

Sounds like something that Jeffery Sachs might write in his little column in Scientific American.

…what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?

Flanagan me boy, how about if I give you a clue: the IPCC is composed of 100% political appointees. They have their marching orders, and they produce the response expected by their respective governments — that global warming is gonna getcha.

In reality, the IPCC’s agenda is to get the UN’s hands deep into the pockets of Western taxpayers. Every action they take and every statement they make supports that agenda. Only those blinded by true belief think the UN is interested in science.

John Galt: even when looking very carefully at the IPCC ARs, I never see anywhere “knowing that global warming is man-made, blablabla” The role of these reports is to assess the role of man in the recently observed warming. To ASSESS, not to prove.

You’re exactly right. The IPCC was not created to see if AGW is actually happening. They already concluded it’s true without any compelling evidence to back it up.

Thank you for making my point.

@ Nasif Nahle (11:17:18) :

I hear you. I remember quite well the scientific method.

Uh! I’m sorry… I took the whole post as if it were yours. Actually, those were words from Flanagan. Sorry again! :)

“The IPCC does not start by giving the solution before they know the problem. It’s simply not a scientific way of doing things. And what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?”- Flanagan (10:55:06)

replied

“Smokey: the IPCC does not start by giving the solution before they know the problem. It’s simply not a scientific way of doing things. And what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?”

Flanagan, the clue to the IPCC’s rationale lies in the the third and fourth letter of their acronym.

Tonyb

Whether one agrees with the rest of Leif’s comments, we should take it as a reminder not to assume that everything in this report is the ‘right ‘ view of the science in question, just because it expresses opinions closer to one’s own than warmists do. We need to have a sceptical approach to all the science, if we are to approach a true understanding.

“the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century”

George, do you know what ’statistical significance’ is, and how to calculate it in relation to trends in global temperature? “”"

“”" John F. Hultquist (17:33:57) :

RW (15:40:28) :

“the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century”

George, do you know what ’statistical significance’ is, and how to calculate it in relation to trends in global temperature?

RW,
I’m a little rusty on my statistics so I wonder if you will explain your meaning? I assume someone has used some temperature measurements to show or plot a trend. How many measurements are we talking about and how are they distributed? Do we need to do this 30 times or so and take an average? Is it the average of these 30 or so attempts at determining a trend that is being tested? Or are we examining the data for measurement error? I seem to remember some comments by instructors about population mean versus sample mean and so on, and also sample size, and tests of significance when appropriate. I just wonder how all this shakes out with respect to what you and George seem to be arguing about? “”"

I’m not quite sure who is arguing, or with whom; nor do I get whatever point RW is trying to make with regard to his question on “statisticsl significance”

If RW, you are questioning my commnet on: “the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century” ; let me say, those are NOT my observations; but are the work of others.

I looked quickly throguh my 20 foot stack of papers to try and find either a GISStemp anomaly or lookalike graph going back to ‘the early 20th century’ and sad to say the first paper that came to hand happened to be a Wikipedia dissertation on global warming; specifically :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming; and their very first graph on the first page, is global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961-1990, which I take a wild guess at is likely some rendition of Hansen’s GISStemp anomaly, although Wiki gives no credit, and I can’t discern, if it is GISStemp, what version or edited release, or update of, it is.

But it clearly shows “anomaly” falling from 1880, then an up blip around 1900, followed by a continuation of the decline to around 1910, that being reasonably the early part of the 20th century, and the graphed data being in some way “observed” rather than a prediction or even a projection of some supercomputer climate GCM.

From 1910 we then get a steady climb to a peak around 1940, substantially above the 1880 to 1910 region thereby suggesting that the early part of the 20th century was indeed lower.
The 1935-1980 era was then relatively flat to slightly donwhill; which as I recall was the period during which the AGW folks were crying about the coming ice age; not unlike the current period post 1995 (exempt 1998) to today.

Now wiki was not my source that led to that comment; one of the recognized reporting groups was; and no don’t ask which one because I don’t remeber those kind of details; I have enough to just remeber the data; and the source is always recoverable by you Googlers.

But anyhow RW, that is what that one liner was all about; and now that I have explained that; I have no idea how that relates to your question.

But as to your question on the statistical significance and how to calculate the same.
To me it is of no statistical significance; because I already know that the data is not believable, simply because of the blatant violations of the Nyquist Sampling Theorem. The sampling process doesn’t even satisfy Nyquist for the temporal variation; to give an aliassing noise free time average for even a single measuring station; and for the spatial sampling, the violation is by orders of magnitude; so has no global significance.

So the time to consider “Statistical significance” and Central Limit Theorems, comes after you first gather actual real data, that is not irretrievably corrupted by aliassing noise; about which your statistics can do nothing.

You can apply your lovely statistical mathematics to a number set as meaningless as your local telephone directory set of numbers; and assign some statistical significance to that; but that does not avoid the fact that those numbers have no real world significance, other than if you dial one of them, a single telephone will ring somewhere.

And I am not sure I grasp John’s point fully; but it does lead me to comment that such plots, as GISStemp anomaly, and whatever it is that Wiki posted on that site purport to be observed measurment data.
As such, each plotted point is a separate entity, unrelated in any way to any other plotted point; and the values are all different, because they are supposed to be all different; just like telephone numbers are supposed to be all different.
And from what little I know about the origins of those numbers or the original raw measurements; they come from a completely chaotic physical system; so one would not ever expect to find any relationship between one number and another.

In particular at no point in such a graph is it ever possible to predict what the next plotted point will be; or even whether it will be higher or lower than the last plotted point.

So my view is that the application of statistical mathematics to such a data set, is a futile attempt to create information where ther is none to be found.

George

PS and finally, these plots and all like them, are plots of AlGorythmically masticated temperature anomaly “data”. They don’t have anything whatsoever to do with global temperatures; for which we have no practical means of making credible measurments.

I’ve been a Libertarian since 1996, but most of that time I believed government was run by well-meaning but uninformed morons. The TARP bill plus their carbon tax schemes convinced me of their criminal intent.
Although congressman Waxman’s comments on the ice, tundra etc demonstrates that the term “morons” is still valid as well.

I hear you. I remember quite well the scientific method.

Flanagan (10:55:06) :

Yes, they did. The IPCC started with the conclusion that AGW is real. Then they set out to prove it. The IPCC wasn’t chartered to find out IF man is changing the climate.

In the scientific method, you observe, make hypothesis and test (experiment). If the results of the test do not match the expected results, discard the hypothesis and start over.

The IPCC did not conduct any experiments. They picked existing studies that support their premise and discarded all others.

Compare this with the police investigating a crime. Imagine they decide you are guilty, before looking at all the evidence. They only look for evidence that proves you are guilty while summarily dismissing anything that shows your innocence. If the police find evidence that you were in the Library with Miss Plum when Colonel Mustard was murdered in the Dinning Room and Mrs. White also saw you there, then the police are supposed to eliminate you as a suspect. But the police have already decided you are guilty so they claim Miss Plum is a tobacco scientist and Mrs. White is in the pay of Big Oil.

Then they create a computer model to show how you killed Colonel Mustard. They model doesn’t prove anything, it just shows what might have happened if you were guilty.

That’s how the IPCC works.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/LockeDeconstruction.shtml

@ Flanagan (09:31:51) :

Wow, is that what they call ‘deconstructionism’? They don’t like AGW because it’s not ‘free market’?

You’re out of orbit, John… It’s not a matter of “likes” or “dislikes”, but of scientific assessments. AGW doesn’t pass the test of falseability. Deconstructionism is the same as it is poststructuralism and is based on the proposition that the real world is apparent and is actually a vast social paradigm and that the way to education resides in dismantling in one’s mind this thing that society has constructed.

For example, AGW idea changes what observation and/or experimentation have established to construct our current knowledge on heat transfer science and thermodynamics. Yet, some AGWers have despised the external “forcings” which drive the Earth’s climate. Those AGWers isolate the terraqueous system from the remainder systems of the solar system and express ideas which coincide with the idea of a thermos-like Earth.

Wow, is that what they call ‘deconstructionism’? They don’t like AGW because it’s not ‘free market’?

It’s amazing to see how your mind works.

And tell me, how do you conduct ‘free market science’?

Nasif Nahle (10:03:14) :
Leif Svalgaard has made an observation, and I’m sure other solar physicists will revise Svalgaard’s assertions and, if they find the same errors

What do you mean: me making errors? :-)

Heh! I dropped off in the last paragraph. :)

What do you mean: me making errors? :-)