Piketty said the discrepancies were simply adjustments to raw data to smooth them over time and across countries.
18 Replies to “Everything He Knows, He Learned From Temperature Records”
The Mikey Mann School of Science strikes again.
Who cares what the data is. It only matters what it says after I “adjust” it.
Me-My-Mine- ‘I’ know folks don’t want to hear about Global Warming after having to endure Chicago Winters-
Brainy Obama.
–
97 percent of Climate Scientist are probably wrong, but what difference will it make if we still install our government mandates? -John Kerry
–
Climate Science is settled- Joe (hair plugs) Biden.
–
All their religion needs now is a Pope of Climatology….
“If” wealth distribution is actually becoming more concentrated it is most likely a result of the corruption and erosion of capitalism rather than a natural feature as hypothesized by Marx. Heavily mixed economies due to cronyism, politics, and uber-regulation, yield mutant entrenched corporations more immune from the kind of market entry and destructive creation that would otherwise liberate or recycle much of the carpet-bagging rent-seeking high income corporate executives. Too big to fail and the distortions that led up to the phenomena has nothing to do with laissez-faire capitalism.
That’s right up there with “the climate change models aren’t supposed to match reality.” That’s why the watermelons want to base 100% of our economic/environmental decisions on those models, right? Wrong.
Nobody said climate models had to be perfect; it would be good if they weren’t ridiculously inaccurate and fail to back test correctly. The same goes for this Piketty fellow – along with his nonsense algorithms, he doesn’t include economic growth in his calculation, thus begging his own economic question.
To statists like him the economic pie is fixed so one must take from the other. The reality is the pie gets bigger so everybody can win.
Perhaps except tenured professors making their reputation and fortune on junk science.
Peer review.
Of course Picketty wouldn’t include economic growth in his calculations. He’s French.
Socialist economics. Make the data fit the conclusions. What the USSR found out the hard way was disobeying this basic economic principle I call the Law of Diminishing Returns. When you take away the incentive for an individual to profit from his wealth creation, through tax or other confiscation means that individual will toil only to a point where that individual feels that their is no net benefit in accumulating more wealth through their toil. This results in a downward spiral of increasing wealth confiscation polices from government due to less wealth creation by individuals, until you eventually wind up with everybody equal in poverty and mandated work quotas. This law applies across the board, and is easily demonstrated in the workforce. Punish productivity and employees do less, reward productivity and employees do more. It really is that simple. Can I get my Nobel Peace prize now, cause I am a capitalist pig and will enjoy that million dollars subjugating the poor with my avarice ways.
CBC’s Language and O’Leary exchange were debating this book. Comments Page as usual calling for evisceration of Kevin. Sickening really. The left actually believe they should determine how much wealth one may acquire.
Could we not forgo duck season and replace with libtards?
I don’t have a television and haven’t had one in decades but when I am around tv I can’t watch Lang/O’Leary. I think it’s supposed to be a show about the business of the day but Lang’s interaction with O’Leary turns it into a soap opera a sort of he said she said thing and it devolves from there. It’s almost like they are married……. The whole concept lacks credibility.
The British Financial Times is a very good paper. It would have been better to link to it, rather than a vacuous précis
Giles wrote three pieces but the second two don’t have the content & link to his first — http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/
&
the FT has included an initial response from Piketty, which the quoted bit doesn’t do justice to
Piketty response to FT data concerns http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/
+
As I mentioned, the FT is a good paper, & the comments are instructive. Several holes are appearing in Giles’ own presentation.
His claim that Piketty is cheating & that “There is no obvious upward trend” in inequality of wealth & that “wealth concentration among the richest people has been pretty stable for 50 years in both Europe and the US” goes way beyond picking out transcription errors & claiming that data have been misinterpreted.
Furthermore analyses by others come to much the same conclusion as Piketty.
Giles focuses somewhat on Britain, so perhaps this article is relevant — http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/18/wealth-britain-richest-1000-new-high-sunday-times-rich-list
Wealth of Britain’s richest 1,000 people hits new high of £519bn [15.4% last year, doubled since the 2009 crisis & equal to one-third of GDP]
This promises to be interesting. The FT’s “chief economics commentator”, Martin Wolf had written a glowing review. [Here without registration — http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0c6e9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2yzIyzAGP ] & I am curious to see his eventual response.
To the left everything belongs to the state, and those to whom the state belongs decide what everyone shall get, think and do. (read Plato’s Republic). Much to the benefit of those who control the state.
Popper’s scientific method needs be resurrected. If there is no direct, observable evidence, no predictive value or ability to replicate the experiment then the hypothesis should have a huge asterisk attached to it. Too much science these days is statistical augury and activism disguised as science.
The reaction to the alleged manipulation of the data is always the revealing part. Which fact-based politicians and unbiased media professionals will have the honesty and integrity to reevaluate their blind faith in experts and academics? Will they question other areas of science where the same type of shady statistics/models are used to push political policies? Unlikely. The next junk science garbage that fits their political preferences will be reported as indisputable, expert facts that must be acted upon regardless of negative impacts on the economy and individual freedom.
another **scientist**with a pet bull and more bullshit than he knows what to do with.
Exactly!
It is fascinating to watch the Canadian political parties and the US political parties adopt many of the Soviet Union’s economic policies while the media covers for this and the educational systems in fact teach Marxist economics. Even the so-called conservative parties are infected as Friedrich Hayek warned.
This sickness has greatly penetrated the scientific community and then we see skulduggery like this. China and India will bury us economically.
“The Mikey Mann School of Science strikes again.”
Not quite. Piketty put his data and methodology online specifically so that others could examine it and critique.
Mann and co go to enormous lengths to hide their data and methodology.
TY PofP, that is my favourite political moment from my favourite politician, where the Labour MPs “smooth out” their data to fit their socialism. Mikey Mann also “smoothed out” the natural causes of warming, leaving his hockey stick and human causes only.
Nobody gives a s**t anymore about this left wing drivel. Fast forward to the Macleans article posted above on the site – declaring yourselves right, saying therefore the matter is “settled,” then trying to insult, cajole, misrepresent, intimidate and slime opposition to your mantra into silence doesn’t work.
When their BS doesn’t stand up the scrutiny, their shrillness and hysterical fallacies is ramped up further and further. WRT to IPCC, as more doubt of AGW theory becomes obvious to any inquiring mind, they become more certain! Of course, the world government kleptocracy solutions that cause more pollution and less freedom and prosperity reveal them for the charlatans they truly are. So, slime away a**holes, we’re not backing down from the wannabe world overlords.
The Mikey Mann School of Science strikes again.
Who cares what the data is. It only matters what it says after I “adjust” it.
Me-My-Mine- ‘I’ know folks don’t want to hear about Global Warming after having to endure Chicago Winters-
Brainy Obama.
–
97 percent of Climate Scientist are probably wrong, but what difference will it make if we still install our government mandates? -John Kerry
–
Climate Science is settled- Joe (hair plugs) Biden.
–
All their religion needs now is a Pope of Climatology….
“If” wealth distribution is actually becoming more concentrated it is most likely a result of the corruption and erosion of capitalism rather than a natural feature as hypothesized by Marx. Heavily mixed economies due to cronyism, politics, and uber-regulation, yield mutant entrenched corporations more immune from the kind of market entry and destructive creation that would otherwise liberate or recycle much of the carpet-bagging rent-seeking high income corporate executives. Too big to fail and the distortions that led up to the phenomena has nothing to do with laissez-faire capitalism.
That’s right up there with “the climate change models aren’t supposed to match reality.” That’s why the watermelons want to base 100% of our economic/environmental decisions on those models, right? Wrong.
Nobody said climate models had to be perfect; it would be good if they weren’t ridiculously inaccurate and fail to back test correctly. The same goes for this Piketty fellow – along with his nonsense algorithms, he doesn’t include economic growth in his calculation, thus begging his own economic question.
To statists like him the economic pie is fixed so one must take from the other. The reality is the pie gets bigger so everybody can win.
Perhaps except tenured professors making their reputation and fortune on junk science.
Peer review.
Of course Picketty wouldn’t include economic growth in his calculations. He’s French.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638097/Rock-star-economist-bestselling-book-claims-gap-rich-poor-worst-World-War-1-got-sums-wrong.html
Socialist economics. Make the data fit the conclusions. What the USSR found out the hard way was disobeying this basic economic principle I call the Law of Diminishing Returns. When you take away the incentive for an individual to profit from his wealth creation, through tax or other confiscation means that individual will toil only to a point where that individual feels that their is no net benefit in accumulating more wealth through their toil. This results in a downward spiral of increasing wealth confiscation polices from government due to less wealth creation by individuals, until you eventually wind up with everybody equal in poverty and mandated work quotas. This law applies across the board, and is easily demonstrated in the workforce. Punish productivity and employees do less, reward productivity and employees do more. It really is that simple. Can I get my Nobel Peace prize now, cause I am a capitalist pig and will enjoy that million dollars subjugating the poor with my avarice ways.
CBC’s Language and O’Leary exchange were debating this book. Comments Page as usual calling for evisceration of Kevin. Sickening really. The left actually believe they should determine how much wealth one may acquire.
Could we not forgo duck season and replace with libtards?
I don’t have a television and haven’t had one in decades but when I am around tv I can’t watch Lang/O’Leary. I think it’s supposed to be a show about the business of the day but Lang’s interaction with O’Leary turns it into a soap opera a sort of he said she said thing and it devolves from there. It’s almost like they are married……. The whole concept lacks credibility.
The British Financial Times is a very good paper. It would have been better to link to it, rather than a vacuous précis
Giles wrote three pieces but the second two don’t have the content & link to his first —
http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/
&
the FT has included an initial response from Piketty, which the quoted bit doesn’t do justice to
Piketty response to FT data concerns
http://blogs.ft.com/money-supply/2014/05/23/data-problems-with-capital-in-the-21st-century/
+
As I mentioned, the FT is a good paper, & the comments are instructive. Several holes are appearing in Giles’ own presentation.
His claim that Piketty is cheating & that “There is no obvious upward trend” in inequality of wealth & that “wealth concentration among the richest people has been pretty stable for 50 years in both Europe and the US” goes way beyond picking out transcription errors & claiming that data have been misinterpreted.
Furthermore analyses by others come to much the same conclusion as Piketty.
Giles focuses somewhat on Britain, so perhaps this article is relevant —
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/18/wealth-britain-richest-1000-new-high-sunday-times-rich-list
Wealth of Britain’s richest 1,000 people hits new high of £519bn [15.4% last year, doubled since the 2009 crisis & equal to one-third of GDP]
This promises to be interesting. The FT’s “chief economics commentator”, Martin Wolf had written a glowing review. [Here without registration — http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/0c6e9302-c3e2-11e3-a8e0-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2yzIyzAGP ] & I am curious to see his eventual response.
To the left everything belongs to the state, and those to whom the state belongs decide what everyone shall get, think and do. (read Plato’s Republic). Much to the benefit of those who control the state.
Popper’s scientific method needs be resurrected. If there is no direct, observable evidence, no predictive value or ability to replicate the experiment then the hypothesis should have a huge asterisk attached to it. Too much science these days is statistical augury and activism disguised as science.
The reaction to the alleged manipulation of the data is always the revealing part. Which fact-based politicians and unbiased media professionals will have the honesty and integrity to reevaluate their blind faith in experts and academics? Will they question other areas of science where the same type of shady statistics/models are used to push political policies? Unlikely. The next junk science garbage that fits their political preferences will be reported as indisputable, expert facts that must be acted upon regardless of negative impacts on the economy and individual freedom.
another **scientist**with a pet bull and more bullshit than he knows what to do with.
Exactly!
It is fascinating to watch the Canadian political parties and the US political parties adopt many of the Soviet Union’s economic policies while the media covers for this and the educational systems in fact teach Marxist economics. Even the so-called conservative parties are infected as Friedrich Hayek warned.
This sickness has greatly penetrated the scientific community and then we see skulduggery like this. China and India will bury us economically.
“The Mikey Mann School of Science strikes again.”
Not quite. Piketty put his data and methodology online specifically so that others could examine it and critique.
Mann and co go to enormous lengths to hide their data and methodology.
Margaret Thatcher explains the commies obsession with wealth distribution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
TY PofP, that is my favourite political moment from my favourite politician, where the Labour MPs “smooth out” their data to fit their socialism. Mikey Mann also “smoothed out” the natural causes of warming, leaving his hockey stick and human causes only.
Nobody gives a s**t anymore about this left wing drivel. Fast forward to the Macleans article posted above on the site – declaring yourselves right, saying therefore the matter is “settled,” then trying to insult, cajole, misrepresent, intimidate and slime opposition to your mantra into silence doesn’t work.
When their BS doesn’t stand up the scrutiny, their shrillness and hysterical fallacies is ramped up further and further. WRT to IPCC, as more doubt of AGW theory becomes obvious to any inquiring mind, they become more certain! Of course, the world government kleptocracy solutions that cause more pollution and less freedom and prosperity reveal them for the charlatans they truly are. So, slime away a**holes, we’re not backing down from the wannabe world overlords.