18 years after 9/11…We have spent Trillions, are less free than we were on 9/10/2001, and are still stuck in forever-war. Islam/Sharia has been elected to our offices and is loud and proud. I would say that the terror that is Islam has won. Or has it? The Middle East is more or less under our control. We say jump, they do it. Daesh has been obliterated. Yes, there is war on Islam’s borders, as there has always been throughout history. Iran is a major sponsor of terror and is a thorn…as it has been since 1979, but their power and influence has been reduced. None of the other Middle East states regard us as the enemy anymore. They saw the destruction and don’t want to test the ‘strong horse’ Trump. None of the neighboring states of Israel want a war with them.

Are we at detente / containment as we were with the Soviets in the 70’s? Is it even correct to apply the old bi-polar strategies and definitions to this struggle? I think it is. Islam is nothing more than a political system pretending to be a religion. Communism was a political system that strived to be a religion. Both are and were anathema to Western Civilization.

The pinnacle of 2527 years of the development of Western Civilization is The United States of America. The other Western Democracies, as in the Cold War, are along for the ride. The pure power and might of the US is unparalleled in human history. The Roman Legions and the British Navy of old were indeed the ultimate ‘global’ powers in their times and historical spaces. America’s global reach and economic power has no equal even when adjusted for history, hence, it is the main target. Everyone wants a shot at the Champ. Rome was taken down as the world grew up around it. The British Empire was replaced by America. For the past 75 years, The US has been the de facto driver of the world. Mistakes were and will be made on the way.

As a student of Economics and History, I look at the Chinese ‘threat’ as almost a joke. WE taught them just enough about economics for them to hang themselves. Central Banking is War by other means. Are we perfect economically? Nope. However, the Chinese are in very, very big trouble. Export led economic development has always led to ruin every time its tried because you do not have control of the markets that are exported to. A powerful middle-class who drives consumer spending is the ONLY path to a healthy and growing economy. This has to backed by manufacturing where raw materials are taken out of the ground and made into end-use products. This is where real and sustained economic growth occurs. We are back on that path. The Chinese are losing markets, running out of water, and can’t produce enough food and must import. Lower the value of your currency to prop up exports, your food bill goes up and service on your debt increases. The human body needs oxygen, water, and food at a base level. Potable water is the cornerstone of all development, calories come next.

I suppose that I am fairly optimistic about the foreseeable future.

AND

THis is fun. Look, I read this whole thing and had to apply some math that I haven’t used since grad/PhD level stats…Their summary is devastating.

This analysis has shown that the air temperature projections of advanced climate models are just linear extrapolations of fractional GHG forcing. Linear propagation of model error follows directly from GCM linear extrapolation of forcing. The ±4 Wm–2 year–1 annual average LWCF thermal flux error means that the physical theory within climate models incorrectly partitions energy among the internal sub-states of the terrestrial climate. Specifically, GCMs do not capture the physical behavior of terrestrial clouds or, more widely, of the hydrological cycle (Stevens and Bony, 2013). As noted above, a GCM simulation can be in perfect external energy balance at the TOA while still expressing an incorrect internal climate energy-state.

The further meaning of uncertainty in projected air temperature is extensively discussed in Section 10.1 of the Supporting Information, “Why confidence intervals do not imply model oscillation.” Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of the Supporting Information provide an extended discussion of the meaning of confidence intervals, uncertainty, and propagated error.

Although other approaches to uncertainty in projections and simulations of climate futures have been carried out, most notably perhaps using Bayesian statistics (Tebaldi et al., 2005; Buser et al., 2009; Urban and Keller, 2010; Zanchettin et al., 2017), none of them propagate calibration error through model simulation steps into the projected future climate-state. In these studies, the impact of the continued evolution of simulation error on the uncertainty within the final projected climate state remains unevaluated.

It is now appropriate to return to Smith’s standard description of physical meaning, which is that, “even in high school physics, we learn that an answer without “error bars” is no answer at all” (Smith, 2002). LWCF calibration error is ±114 × larger than the annual average increase in GHG forcing. This fact alone makes any possible global effect of anthropogenic CO2 emissions invisible to present climate models.

At the current level of theory an AGW signal, if any, will never emerge from climate noise no matter how long the observational record because the uncertainty width will necessarily increase much faster than any projected trend in air temperature. Any impact from GHGs will always be lost within the uncertainty interval. Even advanced climate models exhibit poor energy resolution and very large projection uncertainties.

The unavoidable conclusion is that a temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.

Man Made global warming will not get beyond the noise of the data. devastating. This is a single stroke destruction of the data and the models. I have a MS in Econ and Applied Statistics, this is the single most devastating Summary that I have ever read. As geeky as it sounds, I had chills when I read it.

Bayesian statistics is a theory in the field of statistics based on the Bayesian interpretation of probability where probability expresses a degree of belief in an event. The degree of belief may be based on prior knowledge about the event, such as the results of previous experiments, or on personal beliefs about the event. This differs from a number of other interpretations of probability, such as the frequentist interpretation that views probability as the limit of the relative frequency of an event after many trials.

“The Science is Settled…”

By citing Bayesian statistical theory the writers basically gut-punched, spat on, and then assassinated man-made global warming. Then cooked some steaks on a charcoal fire. This was on purpose and is a total dismal by KO. If this summary were applied to your MS/PhD defense you would be taken out back and shot, after a good stoning and drawn and quartering. Your advisor would be skinned alive.

Howz that for a far ranging open? 🙂