PDF of presentation: There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect
Presentation start at 18:20.
In this live webcast I will be giving a slideshow presentation which demonstrates that the radiative greenhouse effect, upon which climate alarm and even the field of climate science itself is based, does not exist. On both scientific requirements of having theoretical & empirical support, the radiative greenhouse effect is proven to have neither: it is based in false physics and paradox, violates the laws of thermodynamics, and doesn’t produce the empirical observables it predicts and claims responsibility for.
It isn’t just that climate alarm isn’t as bad as the alarmists say it is, it is that the very foundation of the science – the radiative greenhouse effect – is in error, does not exist, and hence the alarmism and the policy surrounding it is completely, 100% in error.
Not merely slightly wrong, not mostly wrong…
View original post 69 more words
Will Thomas and I gave a talk at Atlas Summit 2016 on Austrian Economics. The talk focused on epistemological and ethical positions of Carl Menger, Ludwig Von Mises, and F.A. Hayek. A number of people asked for the slides and related materials. Below I provide links to nine posts on blog that investigate some of the issues discussed in the talk in more detail. Below that are the slides from the talk.
Is Carl Menger a Socialist? https://hallingblog.com/2016/06/25/is-carl-menger-a-socialist/
Why Austrian Economics Subjectivity is Wrong and Condemns Economics to Being a Pseudo-Science https://hallingblog.com/2016/06/13/why-austrian-economics-subjectivity-is-wrong-and-condemns-economics-to-being-a-pseudo-science/
Can “Dignity” Explain the Industrial Revolution: A Review of Deirdre McCloskey’s Economic Ideas https://hallingblog.com/2016/05/22/can-dignity-explain-the-industrial-revolution-a-review-of-deirdre-mccloskeys-economic-ideas/
Carl Menger: Austrian Economics vs. Objectivism https://hallingblog.com/2016/03/21/carl-menger-austrian-economics-vs-objectivism/
Carl Menger: Principles of Economics https://hallingblog.com/2015/11/16/carl-menger-principles-of-economics/
Capital in Disequilibrium: The Austrians’ Answer to New Growth Theory https://hallingblog.com/2015/09/09/capital-in-disequilibrium-the-austrians-answer-to-new-growth-theory/
Praxeology: An Intellectual Train Wreck https://hallingblog.com/2015/09/08/praxeology-an-intellectual-train-wreck/
Hayek: Friend or Foe of Reason, Liberty and Capitalism? https://hallingblog.com/2015/03/04/hayek-friend-or-foe-of-reason-liberty-and-capitalism/
The Austrian Business Cycle Debunked https://hallingblog.com/2015/02/15/the-austrian-business-cycle-debunked/
The Irrational Foundations of Austrian Economics https://hallingblog.com/2015/02/12/the-irrational-foundations-of-austrian-economics/
This weekend the ebook version of Pendulum of Justice, the first Hank Rangar Thriller, is on sale for $0.99. The sale starts Thursday, November 12 and lasts through Sunday, November 15, 2015, just in time for your Thanksgiving weekend reading.
Here is what people are saying about Pendulum of Justice:
“Convert this to a movie script and sell it to Hollywood. Excellent theme and plot.”
The Magnolia Blossom
WOW! I feel like I just watched a movie in my head.
Hines and Bigham’s Literary Tryst
Absolutely brilliant – that was my first thought after I finished reading this compelling novel.
Lit Amri for Readers’ Favorite
Click here to get your copy of Pendulum of Justice.
Don’t miss Hank in Trails of Justice, the second Hank Rangar Thriller. A global conspiracy to eliminate the 2nd Amendment results in the deaths of 1000s and Hank Rangar knows too much.
View original post 47 more words
This is the latest 5-star review for Trails of Injustice (2nd Hank Rangar Thriller)
I enjoyed this book enough to read it straight through. Hank Rangar didn’t disappoint, maintaining his personal commitment to helping those in government that like to practice predation and abuses of individual rights and liberties of American citizens, to achieve their just rewards.
If you believe in freedom of the individual and his rights and a limited role for those in positions of government power and enjoy complex characters in your stories, you’ll love this book and these authors.Verified Purchase
The whole patent litigation explosion/troll sham was created by large companies that do not want to compete with startups.
This was previously posted to the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Blog on October 4, and given that Congress is rushing headlong into enacting legislation to respond to an alleged crisis over “patent trolls,” it bears reposting if only to show that Congress is ignoring its own experts in the Government Accountability Office who officially reported this past August that there’s no basis for this legislative stampede.
As previously reported, there are serious concerns with the studies asserting that a “patent litigation explosion” has been caused by patent licensing companies (so-called non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) or “patent trolls”). These seemingly alarming studies (see here and here) have drawn scholarly criticism for their use of proprietary, secret data collected from companies like RPX and Patent Freedom – companies whose business models are predicated on defending against patent licensing companies. In addition to raising serious questions about self-selection and other biases…
View original post 1,143 more words
In two cases this week, the Supreme Court preserved the integrity of our patent system. In the Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, case the ownership of three patents for a diagnostic test used worldwide to measure the concentration of HIV in patients’ blood plasma was at issue. The Court emphasized that U.S. patent law is based on the concept that the inventor is the first owner of his invention.
“Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court’s majority. “Although much in intellectual property law has changed in the 220 years since the first Patent Act, the basic idea that inventors have the right to patent their inventions has not.”
The second case was Microsoft Corp v i4i Limited Partnership, in which Microsoft argued that prior art not considered by the Patent Office should only have to meet the “preponderance of evidence” test to invalidate a patent. The court disagreed and upheld the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) in requiring “clear and convincing” evidence. If Microsoft had prevailed it would have significantly weakened patent rights.
These two cases taken together seem to signal a change in the Supreme Court towards patent cases. For the last 3-5 years the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of patent cases that all weakened the patent right. For instance, the KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), made it easier to find a patent invalid for obviousness. The eBay Inc v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) case made it more difficult to obtain an injunction against an infringer, even after winning a case showing that there was infringement. The In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 case narrowed the scope of patentable subject matter. The Medimmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), case overturned a long-standing rule that a licensed patent user cannot file a declaratory judgment action when they have not breached the license terms. These cases showed a Supreme Court that had become hostile to patents and was willing to ignore or rewrite the law to weaken patent rights. While neither of these cases strengthens the rights of inventors, at least they did not undermine patent rights. The timing of the Stanford case appears to be a way for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the Constitutionality of the America Invents Act before it passes.
- Business Models
- Featured Videos
- Intellectual Capitalism
- Legal Philosophy
- Press Release
- Regulatory bill of Rights
- sarbanes oxley
- Sarbanes Oxley