This is George Rebane's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following George Rebane's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
George Rebane
Naturalized Citizen, Entrepreneur, Professional Engineer and Systems Scientist formally trained in Physics, Complex Dynamic Systems, and Computer Science.
Interests: music, history, friends, community, science/cosmology, future of man, avid reader, camping/canoeing, and family, philosophy, politics, investing, flying, shooting
Recent Activity
MaryA 444pm - Regarding "believing in science", I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage. You know my credentials in science, and I don't even know whether you have any understanding of what science is. Perhaps you could share some of your background so we can tell at what level you should be addressed. Talking past each other is so frustrating.
Toggle Commented 1 hour ago on Sandbox - 1mar15 at Rebane's Ruminations
MaryA 329pm - You might want to consider that it is really "dopey" to think that there is anything that the US or even mankind can do to change climate in any desired direction. We simply don't know what levers to pull or knobs to turn to affect climate. But even worse, we don't know whether any of such controls are available to us. What you and yours are suggesting is the equivalent of turning loose a chimpanzee in the cockpit of 747 at 30,000 feet. Right now we don't know how to predict future climate, we don't know whether there is a climate problem, we most certainly don't know how control climate, but we do know how to use climate hysteria to increase the scope and size of government(s) and satisfy some pretty draconian social agendas that lead to a political world last seen in Cambodia during the 1970s.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Sandbox - 1mar15 at Rebane's Ruminations
MaryA 130pm - No problem, Walt has declared his true colors on global warming many times, without even being offered bacon. The real question is what was the purpose of the true believers when they changed the label from 'anthropogenic global warming' (AGW) to simply 'global warming', and then to 'climate change'. That especially since anyone with a grade school education should know that the normal dynamic for climate is change, which in itself has nothing to do with AGW. So what was that presto-changeo name change bamboozle all about?
Toggle Commented yesterday on Sandbox - 1mar15 at Rebane's Ruminations
MaryA 125pm - There is much that you agree with re voters and voting that is the RR position (see also Conservetarian Credo). However, it is extremely easy to register to vote - I have seen it from both sides. Recall, I also am a naturalized citizen. What are you recommending besides following the law as it now exists re vetting the registrant? It sounds like you are recommending some shortcuts that do not compromise the system. We all know that becoming a duly recognized franchised voter is perhaps the most sacrosanct contract that our society makes with a citizen.
BenE 1214pm - I believe you started the wheels spinning on non-enforcement of existing laws (see your comments above). Now you have again taken the favored Left side of the import-export argument - its OK to leave our ag industry to swing in the international markets wind (letting import of cheap produce from third world countries), however manufactories in such countries should be prevented from sending their cost competitive products to America. It makes perfect sense since there are fewer and no union workers on modern American farms voting Democrat. Not so in our remaining factories.
JoeK 949am - Unfortunately I didn't say it well enough for you to understand. The 90% stat applies to published papers that are subsequently shown to be in error. Fortunately the overwhelming fraction of those derive from the 'soft sciences', however, they do include a sizeable proportion of climate and meteorological papers simply because the systems they seek to describe are so complex and partially observed (a technical attribute). For example, arguably the biggest hole in the climate science knowledge base is our ignorance of earth's carbon cycle. You can bet the farm that the first person to complete even an approximate description of the comprehensive carbon cycle will be hauled to Stockholm and have a Nobel prize shoved in his mitt. Today we simply don't know all the looping feedbacks, let alone their relative magnitudes and dynamics. Every general circulation model incorporates its authors' favorite patchwork of what has been published on the CO2 cycle, throwing in a new pathway, adjusting the dynamics of an existing one, and purging the parts recently discredited. The bottom line is that GCMs are not ready for prime time, let alone to serve as basis for public policy. However, govt grant scientists have no choice but to give agenda driven politicians highly qualified GCM endorsements, which qualifications are immediately ignored, and for which strong statements of 'scientific consensus' are substituted which then are echoed by the gruberized across the land. A reading of the latest IPCC report (even its exec summary) is most informative - unfortunately national dumbth makes even that inaccessible.
Toggle Commented yesterday on Sandbox - 1mar15 at Rebane's Ruminations
BradC 932am - current immigration law and the above Rebane doctrine appropriately address that case.
BenE 911am - I'm all for enforcing existing laws had that been a consistent policy over the last decades, but it wasn't. Now illegal aliens live among is in the millions. Most Americans (me included) see neither the feasibility nor acceptability of launching massive nationwide manhunts to round up illegal aliens and deport them. That is why a broad range of alternatives have been proposed for the resolution of the matter, and that is why I have offered my own unique proposal. In the above, you have sidestepped the natural consequences of just enforcing existing immigration law. If you continue to do so, you are literally taking yourself out of the debate, having contributed no more than an old rusty sign swinging in the wind. You are capable of better. On the matter of government subsidies of industry we agree. However, you and yours seem to run into a problem when comparing unsubsidized production of ag products with unsubsidized production of manufactured products for American consumers. You are all for free markets and trade in ag products, but not so for manufactured products - both equally affect consumer prices and labor opportunities here and abroad.
Administrivia - For those with short-term memory problems I remind that the topic of this post is immigration policy as it applies to resident illegal aliens. Please take your climate concerns to the nearest Sandbox. Many thanks.
MaryAnn 409pm - I'm not sure you understand what I have proposed in my post. The illegal alien problem has focused on the 11M+ who are already living among us. Since no one is seriously proposing to round them up and deport them, the problem has been what kind of new law can we pass that 1) doesn't provide them amnesty for having broken our immigration laws, 2) allows them to immediately come out of the shadows as legal residents to live and work here in perpetuum, and 3) and deny them the ability to become citizens, thereby providing appropriate punishment for being an illegal entrant and removing the charge that their rapid legalization would provide Democrats with millions of new voters. Have no idea where you got off on the tangent about illegals voting. Also, there should be no constitutional issue raised here because we are essentially pardoning criminals through new legislation, which Congress has the power to do. But I hope this helps. BenE 402pm - You are not addressing the illegal alien problem that the rest of the country is concerned about. It seems that you are happy to leave them all in limbo, or have them deported in piecemeal, or ... . I have suggested new legislation to address the problem of illegal aliens with citizen children living among us. What's your solution?
MaryA 1224pm - No change to the Constitution is needed or contemplated by the above policy. But it does recognize that what you imply as being our inevitable and ad nauseum future, that will come to an end. Things that cannot go on forever, will not go on forever. However, you seem to have an alternative approach; please share it with us.
JoeK 1206pm - Don't know who these "fossil fuel industry scientists" are, sounds like they are everyone besides the govt scientists. In any event, you clearly have neither worked with nor have any idea how govt scientific research is conducted, therefore your faith in their "conclusions" is understandable and even forgiven. The rest of us recall that every previous version of climate science from this crowd was equally heralded with '... but this time we have it right!' Fortunately, the measurables are there for all who have eyes to see. (BTW, around 90% published scientific papers turn out to have contain significant errors in the approach, analysis, conclusions - sufficient to require their withdrawal or offer corrected versions, which, of course, suffer the same fate. Only the lambs retain their comfort levels.)
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Sandbox - 1mar15 at Rebane's Ruminations
re JoeK 1023am - Ah yes, yet another debate ending study from government scientists. Finding that CO2 is a greenhouse (heat trapping) gas should not get anyone to break out the celebratory confetti, noise makers, and funny hats. That has been known for quite a few decades. But what continues to bamboozle lay people like our Mr Koyote is their inability to evaluate claims by such scientists. Messing with the models some more to get them to replicate tortured data records is an honorable profession. However, claiming success (again) from such efforts that involve processes with very long time constants is more than a bit fatuous. The real place to start evaluating their claims is to look at the confidence bands on their delivered outputs. Of the many humorous interludes climate science has provided us are the hosannas of the true believers touting a new clear vision of the future at every turn, when in reality none of their work has been able to make their predictions more accurate over the passing of years. In science, that is the clearest indication that one does not yet have a handle on the problem. But given the disaster of the recent IPCC report, these bought-and-paid-for scientists have to produce something now and then to keep the grant and budget monies for climate research coming. It doesn't even have to be too fancy, just enough to dangle in front of an innumerate public so that the central planning wheels can keep turning in all those big buildings in Washington. And on the hustings, good people like Mr Koyote are doing their job. More here -
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Sandbox - 1mar15 at Rebane's Ruminations
Did everyone see George Boardman's column in the 2mar15 Union? Most regular readers know that GeorgeB shares his comments on RR now and again, and they always contribute to the issue(s) being dissected. But his piece this morning was a confusing amalgam of topics that included critique of the BoS for giving the SoJ people time to present their case, vaccination attitudes in our community, a couple of anecdotes involving CCW permit holders in Nevada, and economic development being held back in Nevada County by, perhaps, all of the above. And frankly, I don't know if I got any of this right, but I'm sure that it was not one Mr Boardman's tightly written offerings.
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Sandbox - 1mar15 at Rebane's Ruminations
George Rebane This may herald the start of a series of doctrinaire posts that outline the application of my Conservetarian Credo to specific public policy conundra. To date these have been marbled into a more difficult to search series of... Continue reading
Posted yesterday at Rebane's Ruminations
For our leftwing friends we still invite them to consider what the wealthy would do if governments became of a size and scope that they could no longer offer the largest ROI to satisfy the greedy and well connected. Where would they then be driven with their bags of money to invest?
[New month - March already!! - deserves a new sandbox. Upcoming happenings include Netanyahu's speech to Congress Tuesday, and the progress of demonstrations in Russia protesting Nemtsov's death and Putin's response. In the meanwhile Islamists continue to gleefully acquire new... Continue reading
Posted 2 days ago at Rebane's Ruminations
MichaelK 317pm - Well said. Perhaps a better restatement of your "How, then, can we define ..." would be - How, then, can we define, exactly, when any of THEM are sufficiently wealthy?
Apropos to the widespread and concurrent interest in AI and robots, The Reason magazine (by the Reason Foundation) devotes its April (and its still Feb) issue to the topic. When it's hot, it's hot.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on The Robots in Our Future at Rebane's Ruminations
Dear People - on voters, voting, and who should vote, a lot of water has passed under this bridge on RR. We are not adding much to it here. For some more definitive discussion, I return you to the post 'Who should (not) vote' and its comment stream, so you can tell which barn you're orbititng.
BenE 1028am - numeracy demands a bit more than such a "list of Koch Bros influence" - first, what the hell does that mean; second, who contributed those monies over what time interval? Ben, you've got to be a bit more serious than that. And to make your high-handed point, you should also publish what Soros and our local CA billionaire have been funding.
Voting methods and rules have been studied for an awful long time. Combining one-man-one-vote in a pure democracy creates havoc on the large scale, as we have witnessed. And that effect is amplified by the kind of primary CA has now implemented. The minority gets permanently screwed, blued, and tattooed. As nobelist Ken Arrow demonstrated, say good-bye to such voting schemes being fair to all.
ScottO 848am - I don't think that we have gotten this far over the millennia through some in ivory towers or castles deciding and decreeing conduct with "the wants and needs of humans always (being held) paramount". People worked, risked, and invested to satisfy their own and their families' needs, but the best way they could do that was to satisfy someone else's needs and earn a profit from that. Funny how that works out, but we both know that. The days of technology-savvy futurists uniformly painting a "rosy picture" are long gone. And we have yet to build the first robot that is "eager to please the humans", or for that matter, eager to do anything. That actually is the big fear about the Singularity - when machines become eager.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on The Robots in Our Future at Rebane's Ruminations
ScottO 1132pm - Commend your desire for precision, but my statement about "destroying human jobs by the thousands" is precise. 'Human jobs' are ANY jobs that humans do, and the list of those has never been static since man pressed beasts of burden into service. They are what they are in any age. All we need is to now start parsing what is a 'proper' human job and what isn't. This will add heat without light, and most certainly will not advance any arguments re Singularity that have been made on RR. We can, if you wish, delineate jobs done for household maintenance by a human, and those done for income received from others. In any event, machines have been and will continue at a greater pace to take over both kinds of jobs for those who can afford the machines.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on The Robots in Our Future at Rebane's Ruminations
RLCrabb 403pm - Not only robophobia, but the many dimensions of robophobia. The first is already here destroying human jobs by the thousands. And some worthies still think that the Singularity will be controlled through human policy making. We are inevitably sliding toward machines smarter than we can imagine - you ever try to put toothpaste back into the tube?
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on The Robots in Our Future at Rebane's Ruminations