State of Innovation

Patents and Innovation Economics

Election Predictions: What It Means for Patents, Startups, and the Economy

It would be quaint and naïve to believe that patent law and the patent system is unaffected by politics.  Since I am neither, let’s examine how the election results will affect patents, startups, and the economy?

Election Predictions

President: Romney.  Romney will win most of the swing states and maybe pick up a state or two that he is not expected to win.  Unfortunately, Romney is like to be George Bush III

Senate: Controlled by the Republicans 52-48

House: Controlled by the Republicans.  Republicans 240  Democrats 195


Patent System

President Obama was a mixed bag for the patent system.  The most positive thing under Obama was putting a patent attorney in charge of the patent system and firing the traitorous Jon Dudas appointed by Bush.  On the other hand David Kappos is a standard Crony Capitalist selection.  He came from a large company (IBM), promoted large company interests, including the incredibly corrupt, pork laden America Invents Act.  (I will not repeat the damning facts of the AIA here, since I have written about them extensively)

President Obama also supported the AIA, which is consistent with his support of Crony Capitalism.  The Supreme Court judges he appointed have displayed the usual ignorance of patents and property rights.  However, Republican appointees have only been marginally better, if at all, when it comes to understanding patents.

President Romney is unlikely to change this situation significantly.  Remember Paul Ryan was the one who gutted the anti-fee diversion part of the AIA.  Romney will probably appoint more pro-property rights judges to the Supreme Court, but even many of these are unlikely to understand patents or that they are property rights.  If we are very lucky, Romney will appoint judges along the vein of Richard A. Epstein (He is now too old).

Legislatively it is very unlikely that anything on the patent front will occur.

It has been rumored that Romney may appoint Darrel Issa to head the Patent Office.  This would likely be a disaster.  Mr. Issa has been a bull dog in fighting Fast and Furious and other Obama administration cover ups.  He also is an inventor.  But he supported the AIA, supported large company interests in patent issues, and clearly does not understand patent law.  If Mr. Issa wins reelection, which is projected to do, I would be very surprised if he would step down to take the Patent Office position.  President Romney should appoint a patent attorney who has had extensive contact with startups and individual inventors.  These are the groups (according to an SBA study I have mentioned multiple times) that create most of the revolutionary new technologies.

Bottom Line: If we are lucky the patent system will not deteriorate too much under Romney.  One bright spot is that the Tea Party generally considered the “First to Invent” provisions of the AIA unconstitutional.

Technology Startups

There are three or four policies specific to startups that are critical if we are ever going to see the USA lead in technological innovation again.  One is that we need a strong patent system.  That is discussed above.  Second we need the repeal of Sarbanes Oxley and probably Dodd Frank also.  I am afraid Romney and the Republicans will be happy with half measures like the JOBS Act.  Third, we need stock options to not be expensed and a return to “pooling of interest” accounting for mergers.  I seriously doubt the Republicans will take up either of these issues.

Bottom Line: Romney will make things marginally better for technology startups.  Mr. Romney came from the private equity end of Wall Street that benefited greatly when SOX essentially killed the IPO market.



President Obama is an avowed Marxist/Collectivist.  It does not matter whether you think he subscribes to the anti-suburb version or the anti-colonial version or the Keynesian version or some other version for the most part.  These policies were responsible for killing over 100 million people in the last century.  How many more people have to die before people like Obama will stop pushing this nonsense?  Or at least people will laugh them off the public stage? (Yes, Obama is guilty of killing numerous people, including Benghazi – but more importantly his wealth killing policies have killed people just as surely as smoking kills people).

President Obama is also a part of the environmentalist movement.  The policies of this group killed over 100 million people in the last century.  How long will it take before people recognize people like Mr. Obama are pushing mass murder?

Good Riddance Mr. Obama, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. 

Unfortunately Mr. Romney is likely to be George Bush III – meaning he is not so much not a collectivist, he just wants to be an efficient collectivist.  Romney is not humanist, he is just a more pragmatic environmentalist.  Romney is likely to be a technocrat who is not interested in changing the system, just turning it up a little.  The problem with this is that there is likely to be a huge financial meltdown in the West and Japan very shortly.  Unless Romney takes radical steps to avoid this, it is likely to throw the US into the second leg of the second Great Depression.  Here are just some of the things Romney needs to accomplish in the next two years to avoid a financial catastrophe:

1) Reduce Federal Spending by $1 Trillion a year.  If Obama could increase the budget by a trillion per year, why can’t we roll this back.

2) Rationalize the federal tax system.  We spend $430 Billion on tax compliance and only bring in about five times that amount.

3) Restore Patents and Property Rights.  Repeal AIA, repeal Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, repeal all Supreme Court Decisions on patents since 2000, fully fund the Patent Office.  Demand that the 5th Amendment public takings apply to all government actions, including all regulatory actions and that public takings can only be for the benefit of a public purpose – specifically over ruling the KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. case.

4) Eliminate ObamaCare, put Medicare and Social Security on a sound financial basis that does not impose crushing taxes on young people.

5) Eliminate Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank

6) Repeal all the regulations created since 2000.


What is wrong with the USA is summarized in the chart below:

November 2, 2012 - Posted by | News, Patents | , , , ,


  1. Singapore blogger…

    […]Election Predictions: What It Means for Patents, Startups, and the Economy | Blog of Dale B. Halling, LLC – Intellectual Property & Patent Innovation, Attorney – Powered by Clvr.Tv[…]…

    Trackback by Singapore blogger | November 2, 2012 | Reply

  2. Dale,

    I’ve been warning you for years about the “innovation” buzz word fest.
    Romney uses the word.
    Obama uses the word.
    All the so-called pundits uses the word.

    It is designed to drive words like “inventor” and “inventing” out of the conversation.

    When was the last time you saw Obama (or Romney) pull out an individual on stage, pay homage to them, and declare proudly to the world, “This is man/woman at his/her best. This is an INVENTOR!”

    You won’t see that.
    Not here.
    Not in this back-to the-Dark Ages country.

    Instead they all talk about the glorious “we” and how we will “innovate”.
    Innovate what?
    How to repackage Stone Age stones as pet rocks?
    How to drill-baby-drill like there is no tomorrow (because in that case, there won’t be)?
    How to be fiscally “conservative” by cutting out basic science and research?
    How to activate the fear centers in everybody’s heads by constantly talking about bogey men, terrorists, 47% moochers and alien takeover?

    Yes they can.
    And they have.
    This is what Election Year “innovation” truly and really is all about.

    Please God, don’t just “bless” us. Help us. We need it bad.

    Comment by step back | November 3, 2012 | Reply

  3. Stepback,

    You are absolutely correct and you have caused me to try to avoid that word. I appreciate your tutelage on this point.

    Not drilling will not solve our problems. We should as be building Nuclear power plants – but the flat earth people will not let us. BTW did you see that the Japanese Satellite that showed Western Countries are net Carbon Sequesters and it is the developing countries that are major contributors to carbon emissions.

    Government funded science and research has been a huge boondoggle. It is very difficult to show that the money would not be better spent by the people who earned it. That is the whole point of a patent system and the SBA study has shown it is much more effective at producing break through inventions than the government or large companies.

    The definition of theft does not change because we all voted for it, or because the government is doing rather than a private citizen. The moochers include plenty of billionaires – including Warren Buffet and Soros – and clearly their theft is without any morality under any definition of what is moral. Also includes Wall Street and the multi – billion dollar per month give away to banks and Wall Street by the Federal Reserve.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 9, 2012 | Reply

  4. Dale,

    The psycho-linguistic universe is full of poisoned words and phrases:

    “Yankee Ingenuity”
    “Clean Coal”
    “Carbon free nuclear energy”
    “Software wants to be free”
    “Our Broken Patent System”

    The less you know about a thing, the more appealing it sounds.
    Who would dare be against “Innovation”?
    Who would dare not agree that “Software wants to be free”?

    But let us pick more closely on the “Carbon free nuclear energy” meme.
    This wording invokes a rhetorical technique known as false choice menu.

    Aside from the fact that it is not true that nuclear power does not lead to dumping of large amounts of “carbon” (dioxide) into our God-given atmosphere, the mention of carbon diverts the mind away from considering all the other complexities of nuclear power: Fukashima; Yucca Mountain, Chernobyl and the promise that “we” are exceptional and therefore it will never never happen to a superior people such as ourselves. Yeah. Right.

    The next time you hear a talking-point buzzword (i.e. “Innovation”), stop to remind yourself that it was tenderly hand crafted by the crafty people who know how to spin poison tipped words into invisible arrows of the kind that fly deep into the subconscious mind and work their devious magic silently there, in those hidden recesses long after launch and landing.

    May the “farce” not be with any of us.
    Live long and be within a prosperous community.
    Remember, the man who has it “all”, has nothing.

    Comment by step back | November 10, 2012 | Reply

  5. Stepback,

    You make many good points. George Orwell’s double speak is alive and well. I would add.

    Zero Emmission cars
    Voluntary taxes
    Right to Health Care
    Right to a Job
    Right to a Housing
    Right to (anything where someone else has to provide something)

    You lose me however Nuclear Energy. It takes carbon to extract the Uranium. Nevertheless Nuclear Energy has produced the most energy for the fewest deaths, maiming, and other side effects of all energy sources. Definitely less that wind energy. You might argue that photovoltaic has resulted in less, but you have to put in the death from mining the metal, transporting the material, processing the material etc. and the very small amount of energy produced in that way.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 10, 2012 | Reply

  6. Dale,

    I think you ‘get it’ and we’re basically on the same page.
    There are no free lunches.
    It takes energy (often carbon burning energy) to produce refined metals, refined uranium, concrete (which includes cement), desalinated water, ice cubes, etc.

    At the end of the day humanity may be in a pickle because it is not clear if any of the touted technologies (e.g. photovoltaics, nuclear fission, etc.) hit some sort of clean breakeven point. One thing seems certain. “Growth” cannot go on to infinity and beyond. Somebody has to do the conservative math on conservation of mass, energy and the planet.

    (**Supposedly according to Einstein, there are two exceptions to the “growth” rule: money & human stupidity. The money supply can grow to almost infinity and beyond because we get that “stuff” (money) from where we always got it, from thin air. And as to human stupidity, we circle back to our politicians and their glib use of words like “we”, “innovation” and our never ending “ingenuity”. We are indeed a clever bunch, H. sapiens.)

    Comment by step back | November 11, 2012 | Reply

  7. Step Back,

    We disagree that there is a limit to growth. First there is likely no limit to the size of the universe, despite earlier thinking on this. Second from a practical point of view we have barely scratched the surface of the available energy that hits Earth. Third, I believe (no proof) that future growth will require less energy as it will be more about ordering information that transportation and extraction – the best proof for this I can give is Kurzweil’s book Singularity.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 11, 2012 | Reply

  8. We disagree? Not totally. Amount of energy output by our closest fusion reactor (aka the Sun) >>>> than energy impinging on tiny orb known as Earth. However, will our private sector “economy” ever think that way? Or will it always myopically worry only about profitability for the next 3 months?

    Comment by step back | November 11, 2012 | Reply

  9. I think the better question, is will the political class be more interested in power than what is right. The history of the world is not that the private sector is short term oriented – when they have property rights – but the politicians.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 11, 2012 | Reply

  10. “Right” is defined by them who are in power.

    Right now it is them who worship the end-of-the-quarter reported return on investment (f=ROI(3 months)).
    Dollars in versus dollars out over the course of a short term focus. Period. Nothing else seems to matter.

    Politicians, of course, have a way longer (cough cough) focus: Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

    Historians, if any survive, can ask the longer term question such as What were those Easter Island inhabitants thinking of as they cut down the last tree? (That last one is a metaphor irrespective of what actually happened on Easter Island. In our modern times it might be: What were they thinking of as the last of the glaciers disappeared? Oh yeah. Right. 3rd quarter results.)

    Comment by step back | November 12, 2012 | Reply

  11. No it is not anymore than the gravitational constant is defined by government, or the majority, or the consensus or other nonsense. Right is defined by reality.

    You are blaming the private sector for the actions of the public sector. What sort of companies and people succeed when the government determines the winners and losers, when the government hands out billion dollar guarantees, when the government can arbitrarily decide whether you can move you business to another state, when the government can levy taxes based on which companies and industries it wants to fail?

    Comment by dbhalling | November 12, 2012 | Reply

  12. Governments have picked winners and losers since the dawn of time.

    To imagine otherwise is to dream of a world that never was and never will be.

    (Proof: Bible: Pharaoh decides to go with Joseph’s (of multi-colored rainbow robe fame) economic plan of storing wheat during 7 years of good weather in prep for prophesied global warming drought of following 7 years. The Egyptian empire is saved. Good picking there Pharaoh.)

    (Proof: Bible: Tower of Babel governments reject Noah’s Ark venture capital proposal. Those governments go under water. Noah goes it alone, but his market penetration is severely restricted.)

    (Modern proof: Local governments OK fracking for natural gas. Long term outcome still to be determined.)

    Comment by step back | November 12, 2012 | Reply

  13. Yes and throughout time, man has lived in a subsistence world on the edge of starvation. What made the US unique and the West was that there was little of this. In that short span of time, people went from an agrarian society ruled by Malthusian trap, to a world in which we have cars, clean water, a lifespan that more than doubled, antibiotics, airplanes, nuclear power – a world in which starvation is not the concern, but type II diabetes. Is the world perfect – no that is province of fools. But life is infinitely better – the average person has access to things that only a king could aspire to a hundred years ago.

    But the anti-human environmentalist and collectivist hate humans, hate progress, hate happiness and are bound and determined to destroy it. For instance, see Ted Turner who thinks the US population should only be 15 million. These people are not interested in helping people, they want them DEAD.

    Guess what mechanism they are going to use to do this GOVERNMENT – not the private sector.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 12, 2012 | Reply

  14. DBH:

    GOVERNMENT is neither evil nor good, but rather a delicate balance between being too small/weak and thus giving way to total anarchy or too over-intrusive and strong, thus becoming a dictatorship.

    The whole idea of checks and balances is to allow for a Goldilocks form of government that is neither too big nor too small (and too non-regulatory of them in the “private sector” that badly need regulation because otherwise they inherently become bad actors).

    Comment by step back | November 12, 2012 | Reply

  15. Stepback,

    We disagree. A government has a specific function to perform. If it steps outside that function or fails to perform that function it is bad, whether it is too big or too small. The US government is way outside the function of a government. It infringes peoples’ property rights, fails to protect peoples property rights from thieves – see our patent system, infringes peoples’ civil liberties – see TSA etc.

    History shows that when governments fail to perform their designated function, immense human misery follows.

    Checks and balances are a mechanism to ensure this, but they are not an end in themselves.

    Regulatory actions are a violation of the 4th and 5th amendment. They violate due process, they are takings of people’s property, they violate 1st amendment free association, they violate the need for warrant. This is why the courts have gone through such tortured analysis to suggest that income taxes are voluntary among other nonsense. This is why the Government argues all their rules are “civil” law instead of criminal law. The only punishment that cannot be inflicted on you by regulatory rules is capital punishment. The regulatory state has made a complete mockery of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    The EPA has even argued that they are not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA is a joke that pretends to solve to the immense logical problems between the regulatory state and the Constitution. But the EPA could not even be bothered to comply with it.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 12, 2012 | Reply

  16. Dale,

    There are myths and delusions on both sides of the Big End versus Little End Egg Cracking divide (a.k.a. Right versus Left political persuasions).

    Remember the 1950’s TV show, Father Knows Best?

    Well apparently the Right wing has a similar theory called
    Businessman Knows Best

    And which “Businessman” could be more “best” than the top pick of the Businessman Knows Best
    party? In other words the Mitt man himself. Except that all his theories about outsourcing, etc. collapsed when actually put to the test.

    Mitt Romney’s ‘Project ORCA’ Was A Disaster

    You are entitled to your theories and I am entitled to mine.
    But just because yours are yours, that doesn’t make them right. ;-)

    Comment by step back | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  17. Stepback,

    Obama subscribes to two philosophies Collectivism and Environmentalism that each killed over 100 million people last century. He hates the United States, he hates western civilization, and he is an utter failure. For Americans o reelect such a person is insane.

    Mitt Romney was not so much not a Collectivist and not so much an Environmentalist, but he still subscribed to the same ideas, he just thought he would be better at running them. Until politicians who espouse these anti-human philosophies are laughed off the stage, the US is in for a very bad run and probably the world.

    Freedom is the only way to human success – real freedom – protection of property rights. Regulation is not freedom.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  18. Dale,

    I never asked you this (IIRC):

    1) Do you believe Global Warming is a “hoax”?

    2) Do you believe we should let the fossil fuels industries extract coal, oil, etc. and burn it like there’s no tomorrow (where according to some, there won’t be a tomorrow if we continue on the exponential “growth” path that we’re apparently on)?

    3) Do you believe that if I “own” a parcel of land, I should be allowed to do “whatever” I want on or to it (total freedom)?

    Just curious.

    Comment by step back | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  19. 1) Anthropomorphic Global Warming is nonsense. Its proponents constantly lie, fake the data, and ignore any evidence that disproves their theories. Increases in CO2 level follow increases in the global temperature not the other way around. This is because the biggest sink of CO2 is the ocean. Changes in global temperatures are the result of changes in the amount of solar radiation hitting Earth. A great article on point is

    2) Human history without fossil fuels was dismal, short, and brutal – see the article above. (BTW fossil fuels is a misnomer) The supposed limit to fossil fuels is without any basis in fact. Carbon is one of the most plentiful elements in the Universe. The time it takes to convert biomass into methane is very short. All energy sources are solar or at least stellar. Eliminating or limiting the use of carbon based fuels is anti-human and will kill more people than the DDT nonsense.

    3) Freedom does not include the ability to hurt other people. That is why we have nuisance laws. Pollution laws always have to be balanced. I do not have a right to complain that I am irrationally afraid of Alar, but I do have a right of action if you are dumping cyanide on my land. Note that the greatest single reducer of pollution is economic freedom. The least free countries always suffer the greatest environmental tragedies. If you truly want to reduce pollution, then you are for freedom.

    In a free market, people are always looking for ways to convert unwanted byproducts into useful products. For instance, trash is now used to produce methane. When I was a kid refineries burned unwanted methane, now it is one of their most valuable products. Food grease was something to be disposed of as cheaply as possible less than twenty years ago, now fast food places have to lock up their waste grease or it is stolen.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  20. Interesting.

    At least you are forthright with your point of view.

    I for one am not ready to call a large majority of climate scientists as all being intentional liars, fakers, con artists and part of a giant cabal.

    I assume you have looked at the RealClimate web site and dismissed them as being ClimateGate fakers. Yes?

    See also:

    Comment by step back | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  21. caught in your spam snatcher =|:-O

    Comment by step back | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  22. Stepback,

    First of all the truth is not determined by the majority or the concsus. But, second of all you are wrong. Most scientist, particularly physicists who have looked at the issue have declared that the science is weak at best and most have pointed out that it is nonsense. Most “climate scientist” do not have a strong background in physics. The first UN IPCC summary was written by politicians and did not reflect what the scientist said. This sort of lying is epidemic in the AGW.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  23. Dale,

    I am not a climate specialist.

    My understanding however is that the RealClimate people have responded to pretty much every objection raised by the “skeptics” while the latter group has turned a blind eye to every piece of inconvenient evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis.

    At the end of the day, real science allows for skepticism and challenge to all scientific hypotheses. The RealClimate people have responded to the challengers. The same is not true in the vise versa direction. From that I have to lean toward seeing the skeptics as non-scientists and the RealClimate people as being true scientists.

    Let’s leave it at that and move on to a topic you & I are more adept at, namely, patent law and policy.
    Who do you think is going to screw US inventors more, the Republicans, the Democrats, or will it be a “bipartisan” effort? :-)

    Comment by step back | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  24. Really. They answered the hockey stick chart? They answered the part where they missed the mini ice age? They recanted that temperatures did not rise as much as predicted in the last decade? They apologized for cooking the data in England, in Virginia? They admitted that variations in solar energy has always resulted in changes in the Earth’s temperature? They admitted that Hurricane activity is actually lower now than before the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels?

    I could go on and on, but they are not honest, they are not interested in the truth, but they are happy to see their policies kill the US/world economy and perhaps millions of people. They are part of the evil environmentalist who are anti-human.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  25. Dale,
    Are you talking about the so-called tree-ring proxy in the “ClimateGate” episode?
    If so, yes, they responded to all criticisms and exonerated Michael Mann of all accusations of wrong doing in a transparent review process. On the other hand, the persons who misappropriated the emails from U of Anglica (sp?) and took the “trick” word completely out of context were never exonerated of their wrong doings. One group wears the white hats. One wears black. Guess which is which.

    Comment by step back | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  26. Stepback,

    ClimateGate was not about tree rings – it was about the hockey stick graph. It was about ignoring the Little Ice Age. Environmentalist are LIARS – from the first UN IPCC report, through ClimateGate, it is one lie after another all covered up by the state controlled media. Michael Mann lied he should be in jail. He ignored the data produced the absurd Hockey Stick graph that anyone with any knowledge of history knew was wrong. That is not exoneration – that does not even pass the laugh test. He hid his data – the emails show that he purposely altered the data to fit his preconceived point of view – That is RELIGION NOT SCIENCE. He used public money to develop his data, pushed a political agenda using public money and refused to provide the data – which show he lied. The misappropriation of the emails was just acquiring what the public should have had access to.

    Do you know what the biggest global warming gas is?
    Do you know that the Global Warming models never show the Earth having an Ice Age?
    If you turn off the Sun and increase the CO2 a billion fold, what happens to the Earth’s Temperature?
    Are you aware that industrial countries are net carbon sequestration? Did you see the Japanese Satellite on point?
    Are you aware of any negative feedback systems in global warming models? Me neither – If you are an engineer you would see the flaws in that model immediately.
    If you have 4 billion years of data and you attempt to draw a trend line from 10 years or 20 years or even 100 years, can you draw any statistically significant conclusions?

    AGW does not pass the laugh test – it is a religion. A religion that starts with the idea the humans are evil and everything they do is evil. Environmentalism is not your father/grandfathers conservationism. Conservationism starts with the human and what is good for or pleasing to humans. Thus they seek to protect areas for ducks, because they like to hunt them or they protect areas for deer because they like to see them and/or hunt them, they clean up dumps because they are an eyesore or because they are a danger to the water supply. Environmentalist start with an anti-man point of view. They argue there are too many people. I pointed to Ted Turner’s statement, but you can find many more, including scientists who pushed the ban on DDT who admit they were wrong about the dangers, but there were too many people anyway and banning DDT was as good a way to kill 100 million people as any other.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 14, 2012 | Reply

  27. Sorry Dale. In this particular instance you have your facts, I have my facts and they don’t seem to jive. So we’ll just have to agree –as they say– to disagree on the ClimateGate thing and on the whole ClimateChange/ AGW thing.

    At the end of the day, Mother Nature is not going to care which of us two primates made the “right” monkey noises. She is deaf to our noises and does her own thing irrespective. I very much wish that you are right and I am wrong and I am therefore fretting over a hoax perpetrated by thousands of scientists all over the world because obviously they have nothing better to do and they all have much to gain from all this hoaxing around. Peace.

    Comment by step back | November 14, 2012 | Reply

  28. Two more links that show Global Warming is nonsense and without any facts

    First, an interesting article which appeared in a reliable source, the Daily Mail in the UK, on October 13th of this year. It’s not good news for the International Panel on Climate Change:–chart-prove-it.html

    Secondly, National Geographic also reported in October of this year that ANTARCTIC ice levels have reached RECORD HIGHS:

    Comment by dbhalling | November 14, 2012 | Reply

  29. Like I said, the RealClimate people do not duck and hide from all these criticisms.

    See the first graph of the multi-decade temps at:

    Comment by step back | November 14, 2012 | Reply

  30. It was always insane to attempt to draw a trend line over such a short period.

    Many of the AGW alarmist were also around with the same complaints in the late 1970s that we were facing an imminent ice age. That claim has more basis in fact.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 14, 2012 | Reply

  31. Stepback,

    Here is a quote from Obama’s first press conference after the election

    “You know, as you know, Mark, we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. What we do know is the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. We do know that the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than was predicted even five years ago. We do know that there have been extraordinarily — there have been an extraordinarily large number of severe weather events here in North America, but also around the globe.
    And I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions. And as a consequence, I think we’ve got an obligation to future generations to do something about it.”

    Is you vaunted group going to put out a press release correcting these inaccuracies? No. Your so-called objective group wants to ignore the present 15 years of data, but in 1996 if someone had pointed out their selective time range they would have branded them a member of the flat earth society. We would be lectured by such scientific luminaries as Al Gore, who flunked out of Divinity school, Barack Obama who most likely never took a calculus level physic course, I was told I sounded like I was part of the Flat Earth society by someone who had a master’s degree in religion.

    REALl scientists are skeptical of any new hypothesis. Any hypothesis that cannot explain major parts of the known data are discarded. AGW cannot explain the little ice age, it cannot explain the cooling in the 1970s. Global Warming cannot explain why we have ice ages, in fact why most of Earth’s history it has been in an ice age.

    AGW IS NOT SCIENCE. You may have your facts, but you are not acting as a scientist.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  32. Dale,

    This seems to be an emotional hot button for you.

    I agree with you that real scientists always leave room for skepticism about every theory regarding how the universe works (the so-called “Laws of Nature” touted by the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus).

    That means they (the real scientists) also get to be “skeptical” about the skeptics.

    To stick with your “us versus them” mentality regarding this issue, “your” people do not have any models of their own regarding how the planetary climate system works (other than of course that Neptune controls the oceans and Zeus controls the sky). Instead they keep throwing out that “skeptical” word as if that gives them credible authority.

    It is well established that CO2 absorbs radiation in the IR part of the spectrum and converts the absorbed radiation into heat. The more CO2 a planetary atmosphere has, the more this heat retention process comes into play. If Earth had no CO2 at all, it would be an inhospitably cold place. No one is saying CO2 per se is “bad”.

    However there is a Goldilocks balance in play here. Just as one can have too little CO2 in the atmosphere (and then we would all be dead because there would be no CO2 based plant life, no photosynthesis and no oxygen), one can also have too much CO2 in the atmosphere and too much of other chemicals in the air.

    Right now our global population stands at 7 Billion strong and growing while each of us is responsible for pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. There is no denying that CO2 ppm has been steadily rising since the start of the industrial revolution.

    “Your” people say we should just keep going this way and see what happens at the end of this grand scale experiment. “Your” people say they are the only rational ones and that everyone else is a tree-hugging, polar-bear-petting, whale-riding nuts and fruits collector. Forgive me but I am “skeptical” about the rationality of such a theory as put out by “your” people –the same ones who deny evolution and can’t wait for the Rapture to kick in.

    As I said up top, Mother Nature is deaf to the monkey noises we mud-slinging primates make as we bounce off the unpadded walls of our cage.

    Mother Nature is going to do what she is going to do irrespective of our theories about her “Laws”.

    This is more about risk/reward analysis than about who is more in the “right”.

    If “your” people are right but the “leftie” policy is followed anyway, then the main harm is that we create more of that money and debt stuff out of thin air (as we always have done since the day after the last dinosaur died).

    On the other hand, if the lefties are right but the right-wing policy is followed, then the species goes extinct. Oh well. But at least some of us will die off while being “rich”. That counts as a “win”, right? ;-)

    Comment by step back | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  33. Stepback,

    Logic demands that the person asserting something provide the evidence – you cannot prove a negative.

    Yes, I get emotional when people propose killing people for a religion that they pretend is science.

    You are wrong about the “other side” not understanding why the Earth’s temperature varies. The major reason for variations in the Earth’s temperature is variations in the solar radiation hitting the Earth.

    There is only one part of the global warming theory that has any science. If you model the Earth as a black body it’s temperature would be lower than it presently is.

    You failed to answer the questions about what is the greatest greenhouse gas – it is water vapor. Man made CO2 is dwarfed by the effects of water vapor – which cannot be only a positive feedback system or the temperatures on the Earth would have gone up in a straight line for 5 billion years.

    You ignore that industrialized countries actual are net carbon sinks.

    The precautionary theory is not science – it is hysteria. If you don’t know where you are going, it is insane to suggest you should turn right or left or brake.

    Here is what we know for certain global warming policies are killing people today – more surely than smoking. That is a provable fact unlike all the global warming nonsense. We know for sure that environmentalist hate people and advocate the death of billions of people. In any human center version of morality that makes them immoral and EVIL.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  34. I don’t think you meant to say “hitting the Sun”.
    Perhaps ’emanating from the Sun’?

    Comment by step back | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  35. Dale, as mentioned up top, climate science is not an area I am particularly well versed in.

    The theory you subscribe to is apparently known as “solar forcing”.

    There are numerous papers on this aspect.
    The bottom line appears to be that, while solar fluctuation does play a part, it is a relatively small part.
    See for example:

    Comment by step back | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  36. Thanks, I meant hitting the earth. As the one article I pointed you to explains, the distance from the sun varies over time (elliptical orbit) as does the obliquity cycle, sun spot cycle. These explain why we had an ICE AGE – global warming does not and cannot explain why we had an ice age 10000 year ago.

    Since the paper you are pointing to does not even discuss these obvious facts, it can hardly be considered authoritative.

    If you cannot understand that the SUN or solar radiation hitting the sun is the major factor determining the Earth’s temperature – how did you pass physics or differential equations? Without the sun, the temperature on Earth would be about -454 F.

    If you do not at least skim the article at you are not seriously interested in the truth.

    Are you aware that the Earth has an elliptical orbit?
    Do you understand that it would affect the energy hitting the Earth?
    Can you point to one theory of global warming that explains the Ice Ages?

    If not please do not waste my time on nonsense.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  37. Also see

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  38. Dale,

    LOL at your emotional outbursts.

    Yes I know about elliptical orbits.
    I even know that for the Northern Hemisphere, during summer, the Earth is farther away from the Sun due to elliptical orbit and during the winter it is closer to the Sun

    Comment by step back | November 15, 2012 | Reply

    • Excuse my lack of explanation – See the link that explains it varies over 100000 years. In other words it becomes more or less elliptical.

      Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  39. See also changes in Earth’s orbit

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  40. Dale,

    No need to apologize

    I am aware of the various cycles and their relative scales
    It’s just that I don’t have that as second nature, back of the hand kind of knowledge:

    Comment by step back | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  41. Well they actual correspond to the data that we have.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  42. Correlation is not causality.

    Comment by step back | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  43. Stepback,

    That is the MOST IDIOTIC statement I have heard in years.

    Certainly, lack of correlation is not causality.

    DO you understand what the temperature on Earth would be without the solar radiation?

    YOU ARE CLEARLY uninterested in the Truth.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  44. :

    “Correlation does not imply causation” is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.

    Comment by step back | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  45. LACK OF CORRELATION is certainly not causation – What is you fucking point???????

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  46. Stepback,

    Your are trying to support a theory that does not even show correlation? But you are complaining that correlation is not causation. That is insane.

    Do you understand a forcing function – without the sun there is no warming – periods

    Comment by dbhalling | November 15, 2012 | Reply

  47. Dale,

    Let’s set up what I’m sure you will see as an unfair analogy:

    You have a digital computer whose main circuits are designed to operate best at 5.0 volts DC.

    However, lately, you notice the internal power lines are delivering 5.1 VDC, a slight change but it gives you worry nonetheless and you investigate.

    You check the AC power side of your power supply and note that it is applying pretty much the same AC drive signal as it always had.

    Then you check the voltage regulating circuits that are disposed after the main rectification section.

    There is an “ice cubes/glacier” voltage lowering section. While it is slightly melted, it is still doing its job. So far so good.

    Then there is an energy store and retain section. Here you notice that an energy retaining parameter (not the main H2O vapor one but rather the CO2 one) has been steadily rising and it seems to correlate to the long term increase of your final measured voltage from 5.0 to 5.1.

    Given this set of investigative procedures, you set your sights on that one subcircuit (the CO2 one) as being the main culprit even though under other circumstances it could have been any of the others (the AC input side, the main H2O vapor circuit or another). It is because of the unique set of symptoms that you set your sights on that one subcircuit (the CO2 one).

    Well it’s been kind of that story in the whose-the-culprit investigation game for Global Warming. At first there were many suspects including, yes, the output of the Sun. But then as many, many factors were considered, it was determined that it was the lowly CO2 subcircuit and not the others that was the prime suspect leading to the observed rise in global average temperatures.

    What you’re doing here is screaming at the analysis experts to the effect of, you fools, it can only be the Sun output and nothing else! They nod at you, realize you are not an expert, and move on with their investigations and reports. The reports continue to say it is primarily the CO2 subcircuit although they are open to other opinions by experts (not by amateurs)

    Comment by step back | November 16, 2012 | Reply

  48. Stepback,

    You clearly do not understand the basic physics of heat transfer. I will provide you a detailed explanation of physics of heat transfer. For you to ignore the source of the heat or suggest it is correlation would have caused you to get an F in my physics labs.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 16, 2012 | Reply

  49. Dale,

    I be a wee bit older than thee and therefore it would be you who is the pup student in my control systems class.

    However, I wouldn’t seek to flunk you but rather to enhance your understandings of the complex world we live in.

    So to start with, we might learn about the temperature gradients on planet Earth extending from its poles to equator and the different pressure zones in the atmosphere. Those induce winds, which kick up dust into the air. Water vapor nucleates around dust particles and forms light-reflecting clouds. The area of clouds and ice/snow on the planet determines its albedo factor …

    Further reading for the student here:

    Comment by step back | November 16, 2012 | Reply

  50. While we fight over what you consider to be a “hoax”

    Others are plotting to kill or chill our patent system.

    For example, one “professor” writes:

    “The nonobviousness requirement should bar patents on many software innovations because low costs of innovation plus strong incentives to innovate outside the patent system create a great case for viewing many (but not all) software innovations as legally obvious and thus, unpatentable.”


    What say you on that one?

    Comment by step back | November 16, 2012 | Reply

  51. Dale:

    Here is a video you will really like:
    The Evidence Is In Green Jobs Are a Total Waste – Diana Furchtgott-Roth (Manhattan Institute):

    Except … wait a minute … didn’t the entire Silicon Valley IC (Integrated Circuit) industry take off only thanks to those evil “government subsidies”? Facts? Who needs facts when you’ve got your ideology to cling on to?

    Comment by step back | November 17, 2012 | Reply

  52. p.s. Now that we have gone past 50 comments on this post, please note that your web site tags for “Older Comments” and “Newer Comments” are linked backwards. :-)

    Comment by step back | November 17, 2012 | Reply

  53. Stepback,

    Silicon valley was no more made by government subsidies than the railroads. The supposed accomplishment of the transcontinental railroad resulted in two bankrupt companies within several years of the completion. There is extensive macroeconomic evidence that the more the government spends the less economic activity the country experiences in the future. I can point you to the papers.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 17, 2012 | Reply

  54. Dale,

    Like many other evolutions and revolutions in technology. the miniaturization aspect of Silicon Valley electronics was driven by military needs and military funds; for example the need to place lighter electronic control modules on ICBM missiles. See the Secret History:

    No one disputes that the Internet had similar beginnings: a military desire for a more robust military communications system.

    Say what you want but there are many countries around the world where their “lassize faire” governments do not invest in educating the young in science and math, do not invest in start up technologies, and the glorious results of such true “hands off” government policy shows.

    Comment by step back | November 18, 2012 | Reply

  55. Stepback,

    Please provide actual facts not anecdotes – there is no macroeconomic evidence for either of you positions, but there is tons of evidence against it.

    Having worked in the defense industry I can categorically state that just is not true. The Defense industry often used older larger size microchips because they would withstand radiation and heat better. If the electronics industry had waited on defense to push them forward we would be use 80386 processors today.

    Comment by dbhalling | November 18, 2012 | Reply

  56. I worked in DOD based facilities as well and almost always used mil spec parts :-)

    Comment by step back | November 18, 2012 | Reply

    • Yes, which were not leading edge technology.

      Comment by dbhalling | November 18, 2012 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,041 other followers

%d bloggers like this: