Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to iragoldberg's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein kicked off post-government life by slamming former FBI Director James Comey, calling him a "partisan pundit" whose firing was justified. read more

Monday, May 13, 2019

Sorry, someone has to say it. I think Season 8 is a cultural phenomena so I think it is appropriate for this board. read more

Thursday, April 25, 2019

""GOP: Let's pose our older male members next to cardboard cutouts of young female legislators," Ocasio-Cortez said Thursday in a now-deleted accusatory tweet (I added the actual tweet from another article as thehill article omitted it for some reason) The New York Democrat quoted a tweet from the Republican Party of Kentucky that featured a picture of House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) standing next to a cardboard cutout of Ocasio-Cortez. In her response, Ocasio-Cortez slammed Republicans for allegedly posing "older male members" next to "young female legislators."" read more


"Expect US President Donald Trump to emerge from this high-stakes US-China trade war with a face-saving deal that he will spin as a great success "

These experts don't understand the conditions on the ground in China. The latest example with Huawei is a great case in point. This company employs 188,000 people directly - their supply chains a similar amount. With one call, Trump effectively killed the company. This was long overdue. Huawei is only relevant today because they stole Cisco's networking IP (source code for switches, etc) so it is long overdue that the US finally did something about it.

As to the what will happen - your proxy is the US housing market of 2005-2008 - that is what China's manufacturing sector is like today. In order for China's economy to not dip into severe recession, they need HIGH GROWTH in the manufacturing sector - staying flat or even modest growth collapses the whole house of cards. This is because of all the spending related to manufacturing/export. 42%+ of their GDP is fixed assets - either related to residence housing (no economic value long term) or infrastructure related to the manufacture or transport of goods for their export economy. So, it is not just a decrease in export economy that Trump is threatening - it is the entire infrastructure spending that supports it that will cease. The writing is already on the wall - manufacturers are leaving to lower cost countries - Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia, etc - even if they don't come to the US, China is hurt.

This is very different from 20 years ago - then, China was undergoing the mass migration into the cities - like 500,000,000 people over 20 years which kept wages low. The government was very inviting of foreign investment, and they were the only country with decent infrastructure. Most importantly, they were nearly debt free as a nation. None of those things are true anymore. That is why China cannot win. They will take whatever deal Trump offers of they will watch the biggest economic implosion in the history of the world.


Yeah, so apparently you didn't actually watch the video and you don't understand the NOAA dataset. What NOAA is doing is actually the exact opposite of what is being claimed in the article. While what the article linked states actually does touch on the issues of contention over the data manipulation such as:

"Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record."

These are all valid reasons for adjusting the temperature record from what were the actual recorded temperatures - well, except for the fact that we have temperature readings from stations that have been continually sited in the same location for 100 years and always did the correct temperature readings by doing the 2x trick for daily high and low. For these stations, the only adjustments that should be needed is adjusting UP the prior temperatures recorded due to the Urban Heat Island effect of cities surrounding the weather station becoming larger (make asphalt, etc), or revising DOWN current readings. So, we would expect the older readings from the 1930's and 1950's to be revised UP compared to the actual readings. This is where the data starts to become corrupted in your linked article. It does indeed move the historic temperatures HIGHER - but - the starting dataset it is claiming for the 'raw data' IS NOT the actual raw data from the NOAA. I have no idea what raw data they are actually using, but it does not match the actual temperature records which reported the 1930's and 1950's and the hottest decades in US history. Again, the guy in my linked video plots the actual data and makes the data set available - you can refer to prior versions of the IPCC as well - the data shown in the article bares little resemblance. In fact, your article claims the raw data from the 1930's and 1950's is COOLER than the 1960 reference point - which, common sense will tell you is utter ridiculous as the cooling trend from the 1950's to the 1970's is what sparked fears of a coming ice age.

So, please try again - this time with actual data that you understand.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable