http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

The Telegraph

Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

This should prove interesting.

Well then.

With this being budget week, the federal government’s taxing and spending decisions are under the microscope — as they should be in a healthy democracy. But what about government’s hidden tax: regulation? With no equivalent of a federal budget day, regulatory decisions and their implications get precious little scrutiny and we are all worse for it.

Thankfully, regulatory transparency got a considerable boost Thursday when the Red Tape Reduction Act (C-21) received Royal Assent and became law. Minister Tony Clement, who has championed the bill, can be proud that Canada is now the first country in the world to require that for every new regulation introduced one of equivalent burden must be removed.

C-21, has been operating as policy for several years already, which means that the costs of new rules must be quantified and equal or greater costs removed. It essentially caps the cost of rules coming directly from regulations. Government rules can also come from legislation and policy so the one-for-one rule is not a cap on the cost of all government rules. Still, it is a very good start.

Why is this so important? Regulation, both necessary and unnecessary (red tape), are a huge hidden tax on all Canadians. The latest estimate from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business suggests that regulation costs $37 billion a year. To be clear, not all of these costs could or should be eliminated. But Canada’s small business owners suggest that about 30 per cent of these costs, $11 billion, could be eliminated with no negative impact on human health, safety or the environment. This number seems reasonable given that British Columbia has reduced its regulatory requirements over the past decade by over 40 per cent with no one arguing the cuts had any serious negative impacts.

Prime Minister Harper calls red tape a “silent killer of jobs.” He’s right. One of the disturbing findings from CFIB’s recent report is that one in four of today’s business owners would not advise their kids to go into business given the current burden of complying with government rules. But discouraging businesses from starting is just the beginning of red tape’s negative impacts. Red tape wastes valuable time that could be spent doing any number of other things like serving customers, learning new skills, or enjoying family. For consumers, it increases prices and reduces choices.

Red tape’s most destructive impact is that it undermines the relationship between government and its citizens. Struggling with confusing language, getting put on hold for excessive periods of time, getting bad compliance advice from government agents or running up against a dumb, costly rule shakes one’s faith that the taxes we pay are working for us not against us. Small businesses often comment on CFIB’s surveys that they “feel like the enemy” when dealing with government.

In this context, it’s reassuring that C-21 received near unanimous support, with some opposition critics arguing that it doesn’t go far enough. While the one-for-one rule does not explicitly reduce the burden of red tape, it has gone beyond just capping new regulatory costs. In 2012-13, it saved small businesses 98,000 hours and $20 million.

Two other reforms announced in 2012 as part of the federal Red Tape Action Plan are important to make government’s hidden tax more visible. The government recently published a 36-department inventory of 129,860 regulatory requirements that will be tracked annually. This inventory will allow for an overall assessment of whether regulatory activity is increasing or decreasing in the same way we can currently track whether government spending and taxes are increasing or decreasing.

The other important reform is that each department is now required to publish and track performance against service standards. For example, a department could publish a standard of a 15 day turn-around time for a permit, the goal of meeting that standard 90 per cent of the time and results against that goal. Government departments don’t have the same strong incentive to keep service high that businesses have because they are not subject to the discipline of competition. Publishing service expectations and results is therefore critical to ensure some accountability.

Taken together these reforms have the potential to give Canadians a much clearer picture of the impact of government’s regulatory activity. Making the hidden tax of regulation more visible deserves our applause and attention. Maybe soon we will have a regulatory accounting day that gets as much profile as budget day does.

I'm on the fence about whether or not C-21 is a good idea.

It was obviously justified.

"If I have seen further [than those before me], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton.

"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness." - Friedrich Nietzsche.

 "Active, successful natures shun the dictum 'know thyself' and follow the commandment: 'Will thyself.'" - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." - Isaac Asimov.

"Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others." - Christopher Hitchens.

"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence." - Christopher Hitchens.

""If ever a man is to achieve anything like dignity, it can happen only if superior men are given absolute freedom to think what they want to think and say what they want to say." - H.L. Mencken.

"Trust is good. Control is better." - Lenin.

"I have written on all sorts of subjects and yet I have no enemies, except indeed all the Whigs, all the Tories and all the Christians." - David Hume.

"Mohammed praises [instances of] tretchery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, and bigotry that are utterly incompatible with civilized society." - David Hume.

"An empty throne always tempts me." - Napoleon.

"If I fail it is only because I have too much pride and ambition." - Caesar.

"HURRR THE EU IS DA EVUL BOGEYMEN XDDDDD"
-Your typical UKIP supporter

It's not a nice commentary on the UK's political landscape that UKIP supporters are closest to the truth when it comes to the EU.

Both.

I'm starry-eyed in some respects, but bitterly cynical in others.

Basically, I'm optimistic about human potential. Incredibly pessimistic about the realisation of such potential.

Fuck the DEA.

Wealth statistics are mostly bullshit. On measures of consumption the US does a lot better.

Not that the US government shouldn't adopt some new policy approaches for the issue.

But in the past I do remember Verb openly being insulting about my particular outlook as well.

Looks like your philosophy doesn't play well with empiricism or sceptical pessimism, then.

What the actual fuck is even going on in this thread.

Quote from: challengerX on April 20, 2015, 01:59:12 PM

Noam Chomsky is a fucking gaylord.

He's a fucking gaylord when it comes to foreign policy.

No the guy's just a fucking lunatic.

Life in prison.

Couldn't someone say that great things do come out of suffering?

Well, this is obviously the case.

The suffering of 107 billion humans before us is clearly outweighed by the long-term benefits!

That keeps me from dancing,
With the one I love,
My mind holds the key.