Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[galdur]

Heat wave kills more than 1,100 in India

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/25/asia/india-heatwave-deaths/

Stifling heat has killed more than 1,100 people in India in less than one week.

The worst-hit area is the southeastern state of Andhra Pradesh, where authorities say 852 people have died in the heat wave. Another 266 have died in the neighboring state of Telangana.

India recorded its highest maximum temperature of 47 degrees Celsius -- 117 degrees Fahrenheit -- at Angul in the state of Odisha on Monday, according to B.P. Yadav, director of the India Meteorological Department.

[1714040520]

1714040520

[1714040520]

1714040520

[Anon136]

Hey thanks for taking the time to see me boss. I just wanted to tell you something that I think is important. Something that I think you should know. This job that I do; This job that I spent 8 years studying sacrificing to get; This job that I spent 8 years sleeping only 4 hours a night; 8 years with no social life; 8 years reading the equivalent of a book a day; 8 years studying for high pressure tests; This job that i spent an entire year writing a dissertation for; This job that i went 1/2 a million dollars in debt to get; This job that pays 200,000 dollars a year; This job that has great benefits; I just wanted to tell you that you are totally wasting your money by employing me. I just wanted to tell you that 9/10 of the people with my occupation who are currently employed shouldn't be. That almost certainly includes me. I just wanted you to know that i should be fired and even though im 40 years old I should have to go back to school and do that same horrifying process over again. It's ok ill be back at an entry level job by the age of 48. So yea. Glad I could get that off my chest boss. What? You mean to tell me no one else has told you this already? You mean to tell me that 97% of people with my job dont tell you all these things that i just said? That's astonishing! Who could have possibly imagined that 97% of people in my position wouldn't tell you that they ought to be fired. I just dont understand the world any more.

[Spendulus]

Hey thanks for taking the time to see me boss. I just wanted to tell you something that I think is important. Something that I think you should know. This job that I do; This job that I spent 8 years studying sacrificing to get; This job that I spent 8 years sleeping only 4 hours a night; 8 years with no social life; 8 years reading the equivalent of a book a day; 8 years studying for high pressure tests; This job that i spent an entire year writing a dissertation for; This job that i went 1/2 a million dollars in debt to get; This job that pays 200,000 dollars a year; This job that has great benefits; I just wanted to tell you that you are totally wasting your money by employing me. I just wanted to tell you that 9/10 of the people with my occupation who are currently employed shouldn't be. That almost certainly includes me. I just wanted you to know that i should be fired and even though im 40 years old I should have to go back to school and do that same horrifying process over again. It's ok ill be back at an entry level job by the age of 48. So yea. Glad I could get that off my chest boss. What? You mean to tell me no one else has told you this already? You mean to tell me that 97% of people with my job dont tell you all these things that i just said? That's astonishing! Who could have possibly imagined that 97% of people in my position wouldn't tell you that they ought to be fired. I just dont understand the world any more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLk-3HPS12Q

[TECSHARE]

Get me off this planet, because we have climate change zombies now

Winter is Comming...

[Wilikon]

Get me off this planet, because we have climate change zombies now

Winter is Comming...

The rape scene was not that hot. I blame global warming...

[Wilikon]

Obama: “Best Climate Scientists” Link Hurricanes To Climate Change



President Obama said Thursday the link between more extreme weather and climate change is undeniable and that the world’s best scientists have made a conclusive connection.

Rising sea levels are another consequence of climate change and can make extreme weather even worse, Obama said at the National Hurricane Center following a tour.

“The best climate scientists in the world are telling us that extreme weather events like hurricanes are likely to become more powerful. When you combine stronger storms with rising seas, that’s a recipe for more devastating floods,” he said.

Obama’s remarks came during a visit to the center, whose meterologists are predicting a “below-normal” Atlantic Ocean hurricane season, with three to six storms likely.



http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/243332-obama-best-climate-scientists-link-hurricanes-climate-change

[Wilikon]

MSNBC, HuffPo, Other Media Link Texas Floods to Climate Change



Despite media denials that “specific weather events” can be linked to overall climate patterns, that is exactly what several major news outlets have done in the wake of deadly floods in Texas.

MSNBC, Huffington Post, The Dallas Morning News and other media have suggested global warming played a role in the torrential rain and consequent, deadly flooding in Texas during Memorial Day weekend. A year earlier many were blaming Texas’ drought on global warming.

MSNBC host Chris Matthews made this link during Hardball With Chris Matthews May 26. He cited the National Climate Assessment, claiming that “climate change contributes to harsh climate conditions like the flooding in Texas and drought in California happening right now.”

He failed to admit that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a report in December 2014 that said the opposite regarding global warming and droughts in California. The report instead attributed the drought primarily to a La Nina weather pattern.

Matthews also interviewed Columbia University Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs, a man-made global warming alarmist. He said that “underlying warming of the sea surface and the land” led to “tragedies” like the flooding in Texas.

Sachs is a long-time crony of left-wing billionaire George Soros. His “Millennium Village Project” received $50 million from Soros in 2008. Soros pledged in 2011 to contribute an additional $27 million during the next five years.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/05/28/msnbc-huffpo-other-media-link-texas-floods-climate-change

[Spendulus]

MSNBC, HuffPo, Other Media Link Texas Floods to Climate Change



Despite media denials that “specific weather events” can be linked to overall climate patterns, that is exactly what several major news outlets have done in the wake of deadly floods in Texas.

MSNBC, Huffington Post, The Dallas Morning News and other media have suggested global warming played a role in the torrential rain and consequent, deadly flooding in Texas during Memorial Day weekend. A year earlier many were blaming Texas’ drought on global warming.

MSNBC host Chris Matthews made this link during Hardball With Chris Matthews May 26. He cited the National Climate Assessment, claiming that “climate change contributes to harsh climate conditions like the flooding in Texas and drought in California happening right now.”

He failed to admit that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a report in December 2014 that said the opposite regarding global warming and droughts in California. The report instead attributed the drought primarily to a La Nina weather pattern.

Matthews also interviewed Columbia University Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs, a man-made global warming alarmist. He said that “underlying warming of the sea surface and the land” led to “tragedies” like the flooding in Texas.

Sachs is a long-time crony of left-wing billionaire George Soros. His “Millennium Village Project” received $50 million from Soros in 2008. Soros pledged in 2011 to contribute an additional $27 million during the next five years.



http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/05/28/msnbc-huffpo-other-media-link-texas-floods-climate-change

Wow, the bullshit is thick.

[tvbcof]

MSNBC, HuffPo, Other Media Link Texas Floods to Climate Change
...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/05/28/msnbc-huffpo-other-media-link-texas-floods-climate-change

Wow, the bullshit is thick.

Surely this doesn't come as a surprise to you or anyone else who's been an observer recently.

[Wilikon]

MSNBC, HuffPo, Other Media Link Texas Floods to Climate Change
...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/05/28/msnbc-huffpo-other-media-link-texas-floods-climate-change

Wow, the bullshit is thick.

Surely this doesn't come as a surprise to you or anyone else who's been an observer recently.

The Age Of Disinformation




I have been a professional meteorologist for 36 years. Since my debut on television in 1979, I have been an eyewitness to the many changes in technology, society, and how we communicate. I am one who embraces change, and celebrates the higher quality of life we enjoy now thanks to this progress.

But, at the same time, I realize the instant communication platforms we enjoy now do have some negatives that are troubling. Just a few examples in recent days…

I would say hundreds of people have sent this image to me over the past 24 hours via social media.

Comments are attached… like “This is a cloud never seen before in the U.S.”… “can’t you see this is due to government manipulation of the weather from chemtrails”… “no doubt this is a sign of the end of the age”.

Let’s get real. This is a lenticular cloud. They have always been around, and quite frankly aren’t that unusual (although it is an anomaly to see one away from a mountain range). The one thing that is different today is that almost everyone has a camera phone, and almost everyone shares pictures of weather events. You didn’t see these often in earlier decades because technology didn’t allow it. Lenticular clouds are nothing new. But, yes, they are cool to see.

No doubt national news media outlets are out of control when it comes to weather coverage, and their idiotic claims find their way to us on a daily basis.

The Houston flooding is a great example. We are being told this is “unprecedented”… Houston is “under water”… and it is due to manmade global warming.

Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.

But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper. There is no comparison. In fact, many circulated this image in recent days, claiming it is “Houston underwater” from the flooding of May 25–26, 2015. The truth is that this image was captured in June 2001 during flooding from Allison.

Flood events in 2009, 2006, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1983, and 1979 brought higher water levels to most of Houston, and there were many very serious flood events before the 1970s.

On the other issue, the entire climate change situation has become politicized, which I hate. Those on the right, and those on the left hang out in “echo chambers”, listening to those with similar world views refusing to believe anything else could be true.

Everyone knows the climate is changing; it always has, and always will. I do not know of a single “climate denier”. I am still waiting to meet one.

The debate involves the anthropogenic impact, and this is not why I am writing this piece. Let’s just say the Houston flood this week is weather, and not climate, and leave it at that.

I do encourage you to listen to the opposing point of view in the climate debate, but be sure the person you hear admits they can be wrong, and has no financial interest in the issue. Unfortunately, those kind of qualified people are very hard to find these days. It is also hard to find people that discss climate without using the words “neocon” and “libtard”. I honestly can’t stand politics; it is tearing this nation apart.

Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are “unprecedented”, there are “millions and millions in the path”, it is caused by a “monster storm”, and “the worst is yet to come” since these events are becoming more “frequent”.

You will never hear about the low tornado count in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn’t fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…



James Spann
AMS certified meteorologist in the media. Host of WeatherBrains.


https://medium.com/@spann/the-age-of-disinformation-98d55837d7d9

[Cryddit]

I for one sure as heck hope it's anthropogenic.

If it's not, then it's something we have no power to stop.

And if it doesn't stop, we're in really deep doodoo.

[Spendulus]

I for one sure as heck hope it's anthropogenic.

If it's not, then it's something we have no power to stop.

And if it doesn't stop, we're in really deep doodoo.

Umm, none of these statements, on examination, seem to be true.

"Climate engineering" is or would be essentially the same regardless of cause - natural or man-made.

And if it doesn't stop, we are in trouble? 

We are, scientists say, somewhat overdue for an ice age.   So no, we are not necessarily in trouble if "it doesn't stop" -

[hdbuck]

Leo DiCaprio asks everyone in the world to stop pretending that global warming facts don't exist.

Leonardo DiCaprio is passionate about us all not dying from global warming. If you'd prefer not to die, I'd just hear him out:

http://www.upworthy.com/leo-dicaprio-asks-everyone-in-the-world-to-stop-pretending-that-global-warming-facts-dont-exist?u=fb3

[galdur]

Oh no... But they´re all crazy for war so all is not lost...

New study reaffirms the link between conservative religious faith and climate change doubt

Last week, I blogged about a striking figure created by evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education, plotting U.S. based faiths and denominations based on 1) their members’ views about the reality of human evolution and 2) those members’ support for tough environmental laws.

The figure (below) has created much discussion, both because of what it seems to suggest about the unending debate over the relationship between science and religion, but also because of how it appears to confirm that more conservative leaning denominations harbor a form of science resistance that extends well beyond evolution rejection and into the climate change arena. ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/

[tvbcof]

Oh no... But they´re all crazy for war so all is not lost...

New study reaffirms the link between conservative religious faith and climate change doubt

Last week, I blogged about a striking figure created by evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education, plotting U.S. based faiths and denominations based on 1) their members’ views about the reality of human evolution and 2) those members’ support for tough environmental laws.

The figure (below) has created much discussion, both because of what it seems to suggest about the unending debate over the relationship between science and religion, but also because of how it appears to confirm that more conservative leaning denominations harbor a form of science resistance that extends well beyond evolution rejection and into the climate change arena. ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/

I'm not surprised by this.  To me it is a reflection of underlying human psychological and political features.  I'll explain.

All higher vertebrates (including humans) are born with an innate sense of dependency.  With maturation this wears off.  It must do so necessarily to allow the adult creature to exist in it's environment.  As with any other feature, the extent to which such behavior occurs varies from individual to individual.

Social creatures (e.g., wolves, many primates including humans, etc) have evolved to have this maturation process become more partial than solitary creatures such as felines.  As a side note, the process of domesticating a creature involves selecting individuals who are on the outer bounds of normal and selectively breading them.  Domestic animals tend to thus be animals who are immature in some ways throughout their life.

Humans, as social creatures, are normally programmed to have an emotional dependence on a 'higher power'.  This can be a group leader or a God or a government.  Indeed, a key element of leadership is to understand this feature of those to be led.  Certainly governments recognize this and leverage it.  More totalitarian governments discourage our ban religion with the expectation that the innate psychological dispositions of the masses will shift to the state.

So, called 'agnostics' are not so much non-believers as they are people direct their dependence toward the state.  Thus, it is unsurprising that they will be more prone to support efforts driven by the state apparatus.

Environmental issues are not generally a focus of traditional religious organizations so their leaderships don't focus on the topic and neither do their flocks.  In a lot of cases the flock has a general gut feeling that there is a leadership struggle between church and state and will be actually antagonistic to state sponsored efforts.  Probably mostly this will happen at a sub-conscious level.

A competent State leadership will recognize these dynamics and will deal with things not by open antagonism but by subverting the church leadership itself (when they have gained the power necessary to do so, and the U.S. passed that threshold some time ago.)  We have seen on this thread several instances of the state acting in this manner.  e.g., giving churches a tax break if their preachers will to preach 'green' stuff.

[Spendulus]

Oh no... But they´re all crazy for war so all is not lost...

New study reaffirms the link between conservative religious faith and climate change doubt

Last week, I blogged about a striking figure created by evolutionary biologist Josh Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education, plotting U.S. based faiths and denominations based on 1) their members’ views about the reality of human evolution and 2) those members’ support for tough environmental laws.

The figure (below) has created much discussion, both because of what it seems to suggest about the unending debate over the relationship between science and religion, but also because of how it appears to confirm that more conservative leaning denominations harbor a form of science resistance that extends well beyond evolution rejection and into the climate change arena. ....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/29/this-fascinating-chart-on-faith-and-climate-change-denial-has-been-reinforced-by-new-research/

I'm not surprised by this.  To me it is a reflection of underlying human psychological and political features.  I'll explain.

All higher vertebrates (including humans) are born with an innate sense of dependency.  With maturation this wears off.  It must do so necessarily to allow the adult creature to exist in it's environment.  As with any other feature, the extent to which such behavior occurs varies from individual to individual.

Social creatures (e.g., wolves, many primates including humans, etc) have evolved to have this maturation process become more partial than solitary creatures such as felines.  As a side note, the process of domesticating a creature involves selecting individuals who are on the outer bounds of normal and selectively breading them.  Domestic animals tend to thus be animals who are immature in some ways throughout their life.

Humans, as social creatures, are normally programmed to have an emotional dependence on a 'higher power'.  This can be a group leader or a God or a government.  Indeed, a key element of leadership is to understand this feature of those to be led.  Certainly governments recognize this and leverage it.  More totalitarian governments discourage our ban religion with the expectation that the innate psychological dispositions of the masses will shift to the state.

So, called 'agnostics' are not so much non-believers as they are people direct their dependence toward the state.  Thus, it is unsurprising that they will be more prone to support efforts driven by the state apparatus.

Environmental issues are not generally a focus of traditional religious organizations so their leaderships don't focus on the topic and neither do their flocks.  In a lot of cases the flock has a general gut feeling that there is a leadership struggle between church and state and will be actually antagonistic to state sponsored efforts.  Probably mostly this will happen at a sub-conscious level.

A competent State leadership will recognize these dynamics and will deal with things not by open antagonism but by subverting the church leadership itself (when they have gained the power necessary to do so, and the U.S. passed that threshold some time ago.)  We have seen on this thread several instances of the state acting in this manner.  e.g., giving churches a tax break if their preachers will to preach 'green' stuff.

I agree with this analysis.

To say it a bit differently the researchers missed the dynamic.  The dynamic is not people who are relatively untouched by the propaganda, but those who are highly influenced by it.  EG, the "believers."

[Spendulus]

Interesting article.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

One part of this entire process that is worth mentioning is the use of "ensembles" of computer models.  For example, the recent IPCC reports use an "ensemble of 55 models."  Of course this will generate the infamous and unintelligible "spaghetti graph" that we all love.

Now, is that better, or worse?  Is that like picking 55 Republicans, to get a "True" feeling for what a Republican is?  Because obviously that would give the power of picking the results to the person picking the 55.

And why would some sort of "ensemble" be better than a single, correct model, anyway?   Or if they are all wrong, is it okay to average the wrongness?  Given that they are all WRONG, this is a bit of an important question.

[Wilikon]

Interesting article.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

One part of this entire process that is worth mentioning is the use of "ensembles" of computer models.  For example, the recent IPCC reports use an "ensemble of 55 models."

Now, is that better, or worse?  Is that like picking 55 Republicans, to get a "True" feeling for what a Republican is?  Because obviously that would give the power of picking the results to the person picking the 55.

And why would some sort of "ensemble" be better than a single, correct model, anyway?   Or if they are all wrong, is it okay to average the wrongness?

Why are you such racist? Is it because planet earth has a blue skin? Do you want mother earth to have a Red Skin like mars? Those 55 computer models create jobs for a lot of people. Why do you want those jobs to be taken away by oversea workers, killing the economy? Don't you love your fellow citizen more than them? A lot of adjusted maths went into creating a perfect hockey stick curve, proving it is time to stop the madness of wrong thinkers. We need to share the wealth but also the misery we created to mother earth. Our joy of life kills mother earth. We need to make mother earth happy again, and bluer than ever. With a rejuvenating skin. The 55 computer models are the Nivea cream of planet earth. Why are you breathing the air mother earth gives you without a just compensation to her? A tax to help compensate all those hard working people on those 55 computer models needs to be created.

Our 56th computer model is working on a tax solution right now....

 

[notbatman]

Interesting article.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

One part of this entire process that is worth mentioning is the use of "ensembles" of computer models.  For example, the recent IPCC reports use an "ensemble of 55 models."

Now, is that better, or worse?  Is that like picking 55 Republicans, to get a "True" feeling for what a Republican is?  Because obviously that would give the power of picking the results to the person picking the 55.

And why would some sort of "ensemble" be better than a single, correct model, anyway?   Or if they are all wrong, is it okay to average the wrongness?

Why are you such racist? Is it because planet earth has a blue skin? Do you want mother earth to have a Red Skin like mars? Those 55 computer models create jobs for a lot of people. Why do you want those jobs to be taken away by oversea workers, killing the economy? Don't you love your fellow citizen more than them? A lot of adjusted maths went into creating a perfect hockey stick curve, proving it is time to stop the madness of wrong thinkers. We need to share the wealth but also the misery we created to mother earth. Our joy of life kills mother earth. We need to make mother earth happy again, and bluer than ever. With a rejuvenating skin. The 55 computer models are the Nivea cream of planet earth. Why are you breathing the air mother earth gives you without a just compensation to her? A tax to help compensate all those hard working people on those 55 computer models needs to be created.

Our 56th computer model is working on a tax solution right now....

 

Now that "they"ve succeeded in taxing the air you breathe how's the sunlight tax coming along?

[Spendulus]

Interesting article.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

One part of this entire process that is worth mentioning is the use of "ensembles" of computer models.  For example, the recent IPCC reports use an "ensemble of 55 models."

Now, is that better, or worse?  Is that like picking 55 Republicans, to get a "True" feeling for what a Republican is?  Because obviously that would give the power of picking the results to the person picking the 55.

And why would some sort of "ensemble" be better than a single, correct model, anyway?   Or if they are all wrong, is it okay to average the wrongness?

Why are you such racist? Is it because planet earth has a blue skin? Do you want mother earth to have a Red Skin like mars? Those 55 computer models create jobs for a lot of people. Why do you want those jobs to be taken away by oversea workers, killing the economy? Don't you love your fellow citizen more than them? A lot of adjusted maths went into creating a perfect hockey stick curve, proving it is time to stop the madness of wrong thinkers. We need to share the wealth but also the misery we created to mother earth. Our joy of life kills mother earth. We need to make mother earth happy again, and bluer than ever. With a rejuvenating skin. The 55 computer models are the Nivea cream of planet earth. Why are you breathing the air mother earth gives you without a just compensation to her? A tax to help compensate all those hard working people on those 55 computer models needs to be created.

Our 56th computer model is working on a tax solution right now....

 

Now that "they"ve succeeded in taxing the air you breathe how's the sunlight tax coming along?

I am shocked, shocked I am, and humiliated.  That my errors would be shown so very fast and easily.  Yet it remains for me to seek redemption by helping.

I suggest a combined climate and tax model as the next step, one which would tax based on the adjusted temperatures, and which would forecast accurately into the future, accuracy of forecasts being judged by closeness to adjusted numbers.  These important aspects of our lives would be handled by Government Adjusters, who in their professional capacity had acquired the knowledge and skill to tweak. 

We couldn't just have any old twit or twat tweaking the tweaks.