What we see is the web portal, which is a mess. It’s even worse behind the wizard’s curtain. I love the train-wreck animated gifs.
When the administration says they don’t know how many have signed up, they’re either lying, or their technical incompetence knows no bounds.
..by keeping calm. Bjorn Lomborg says, once again, cool it:
When you look at these issues properly, the results are surprising. Climate change, for example, has had a net benefit for the world. From 1900 to 2025, it has increased global welfare by up to 1.5 per cent of GDP per year. Why? Because it has mixed effects – and when warming is moderate, the benefits prevail (even if they are unevenly distributed between nations).
Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have improved agriculture, because the gas works as a fertiliser; we have avoided more deaths from cold than have been caused by extra heat; and we have saved more from lower heating bills than we have lost to an increased need for air conditioning.
But that doesn’t give the socialists the control over our lives that they continue to crave.
…proposes a giant leap for all mankind:
Mr. Griffin reminds us that space is a dangerous business. One of his biggest jobs at NASA was to manage the risk in a reasonable way. Risk can never be taken to zero; that would mean humans do nothing. Astronauts have died in space, but to put this in context, people in the aerospace community have also been killed on the highway on their way to work. Transportation, in any form, does not currently have zero risk. Safety is important. An early failure, such as the Apollo Launch pad fire, would be a problem for commercial viability. Design will require a reasonable middle ground with some redundancy, but not to the point of adding massive weight or prohibitive costs. Technology is so much better today and designers have fifty years of operating history to guide them. The physical demands of working in space are so intense that a momentary distraction could prove fatal. However, more is known about human error factors and training could better manage those.
Gee, someone should write a book about that. Yes, I know, Real Soon Now. Had a last-minute glitch, but it’s happening this month.
Comparing the America that works with the one that doesn’t.
Meet the new feudalism, same as the old feudalism:
As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.
At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to roughly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s population.
Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one recent report. Nor are things expected to get better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.
Some of these trends can be found nationwide, but they have become pronounced and are metastasizing more quickly in the Golden State. As late as the 80s, the state was about as egalitarian as the rest of the country. Now, for the first time in decades, the middle class is a minority, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
Read the whole thing, especially about how the economically ignorant techno-oligarchs in Silicon Valley are perfectly content to wreck the economy in the rest of the state.
I wonder, though, if that poverty number is real poverty, or fake poverty?
There are two things that make this correction really rather important. The first being that everyone else measures poverty after all the things that are done to alleviate it. Thus any comparison across countries is going to leave the US looking very bad indeed: for others are talking about the residual poverty left after trying to do something about it and the US is talking about the poverty before alleviation. Very different things I hope you’ll agree.
The second reason it’s important is that the only way anyone’s ever really found to reduce the number living in poverty is to give the poor money n’stuff so that they’re no longer living in poverty. But if we don’t count the money n’stuff that is being given to the poor then we’re not going to be able to show that giving the poor money n’stuff alleviates poverty, are we?
They don’t want to show that. If people realized the programs were actually working to keep people out of poverty (though they also have the effect of reducing higher aspirations), then it would be hard to justify ever-growing big government.
Has the IPCC implicitly called it off? Yes.
[Update a few minutes later]
More from Judy Curry. But expect AlGore to continue to be anti-science.
[Update a few minutes more later]
More from Andrew Montford:
The real story may not be in the IPCC rowback on temperature ranges, or its cack-handed “explanations” for the stalling temperatures. It may in fact all be in this table. Be sure to look for yourself. Every single catastrophic scenario bar one has a rating of “Very unlikely” or “Exceptionally unlikely” and/or has “low confidence”. The only disaster scenario that the IPCC consider at all likely in the possible lifetimes of many of us alive now is “Disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice”, which itself has a ‘likely’ rating and liable to occur by mid century with medium confidence. As the litany of climate disasters go, that’s it.
This prompted me to put a question to him, which was the first I’d been able to raise via the chair all day (I’d tried in several talks). I said to Matt:
“What the IPCC says, and what the media says it says are poles apart. Your talk is a perfect example of this. Low liklihood and low confidence for almost every nightmare scenario. Yet this isn’t reflected at all in the media. Many people here have expressed concern at the influence of climate sceptics. Wouldn’t climate scientists’ time be better spent reining in those in the media producing irresponsible, hysterical, screaming headlines?”
Tumbleweed followed for several seconds. Then Matt said:
“Not my responsibility”.
No. Of course not.
If you could put a reaction control system into them to allow them to rendezvous with each other, you might have some interesting fractionated satellites.
This is a good example of Arthur C. Clarke’s rule that when a distinguished elder scientist says that something can’t be done, he’s very likely wrong.
It’s an embarrassment for the administration. Well, yeah. What’s surprising, though, is who is saying it:
“An embarrassment for the administration,” Blitzer stated. “Hopefully, they’ll get all those glitches out of the way by Monday, if possible. They’ve only had three years to get ready for this roll out.”
When you’ve lost Wolf Blitzer…
Only a fool would think it’s a coincidence:
… until the FBI bugs the West Wing of the White House, or the Treasury building next door, or the Internal Revenue Service’s headquarters a few blocks to the southeast, we might never know the exact origin of America’s tax collectors harassing President Obama’s political adversaries.
Maybe there was never an explicit order. Considering the threat of being overheard, it’s part of the job of the capos to know what the boss wants and make him happy by giving it to him without him even having to ask.
The IRS and the Obama administration are on the same page when it comes to big government: Tea Partiers and other conservatives threaten the massive state they love, and the IRS’ powerful army of bureaucrats is a pretty handy weapon for use against them.
…This is not a coincidence, any more than awakening with a severed horse’s head in your bed after being made “an offer you can’t refuse” is.
Someone — either within the IRS bureaucracy or above it — saw what Carson did, didn’t like it, and decided to make him pay. The American people must know who it was.
Remember, the president “joked” about auditing his political enemies four years ago. If this isn’t punished, it will continue, and get worse.