3.30.2019

Discovered Checkmate


Posted by Jim Peet at 3/30/2019 08:09:00 PM 0 comments

Labels:

3.29.2019

Fell behind but Won


  • On points, Black was ahead:
  • Equal on Pawns (6)
  • But Black had 2 Rooks to my 1 Rook & 1 Knight
  • Nice protected defense for the White King at A2

Posted by Jim Peet at 3/29/2019 12:57:00 PM 0 comments

Labels:

The Grandparents I Never Knew


  • Yesterday - just yesterday! - was the first time I had ever seen this photo. I'm not exactly sure why I had never seen this photo. It was in my mother's collection and now in my sister's.
  • This is the only known photo of my grandparents
  • Charles Peet (d 1946)
  • DeEtta Peet (d 1950)

Posted by Jim Peet at 3/29/2019 07:23:00 AM 1 comments

Labels:

Victory at Dawn

Posted by Jim Peet at 3/29/2019 06:00:00 AM 1 comments

Labels:

3.25.2019

Checkmate by Pawn


  • Pawn: G2 to G3
  • For whatever reason, perhaps because I am right handed, I most often work the right flank
  • Black King unwisely ventured into risk
  • White King protected Pawns at F3 and G3

Posted by Jim Peet at 3/25/2019 09:56:00 AM 0 comments

Labels:

3.09.2019

The Bull Market a Decade on ... Running with the Bull



The Bull Market Began 10 Years Ago.

Excerpt:

The financial system had nearly collapsed. The deepest recession in decades was devouring over 700,000 jobs a month. Roughly $13 trillion in stock market wealth, slowly rebuilt since the dot-com bust, had again been incinerated. It was March 2009. And it was one of the best times in a generation to buy stocks. A decade later, the bull market that began back then ranks among the great rallies in stock-market history. The 305 percent surge in the S&P 500 is the index’s second-best run ever. The rise has generated more than $30 trillion in wealth. Adjusted for inflation, that is the most created during any bull run on record, edging out the $25 trillion in gains during the epic streak from December 1987 to March 2000, which ended with the bursting of the dot-com bubble, according to Federal Reserve data.
Mark Haines Calls the Stock Market Bottom, March 10, 2009

Excerpt:

In this clip from the March 10, 2009 edition of CNBC's Squawk on the Street, the late Mark Haines tells Erin Burnett, "I think we're at a bottom. I really do." As the credit crisis continued to swirl, the Dow had closed the day before at 6,547.05, a staggering 54 percent plunge from its all-time closing high above 14,000 in October of 2007.

Mark Haines Calls the Stock Market Bottom, March 10, 2009 from CNBC.

2/20/2009 is the day I started individual investing. I called a broker and bought 1,000 shares of FITB for just above $ 1,000. I later sold for about $ 10,000.

From there:
  • I opened a Wells Trade account enabling me to have 100 free trades a year (I'm grandfathered into this deal ... no longer offered)
  • Shortly thereafter we paid our mortgage off and I began to invest $ 2,000 per month 
  • After a bit, we were at the point that we lived in one salary and invested the other
  • We continue to invest. Recently buying IBM and CSCO

Posted by Jim Peet at 3/09/2019 03:05:00 PM 0 comments

Labels: , ,

3.04.2019

Disabusing the 97% claim




Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Excerpt:

The 97% figure has been disputed and vigorously defended, with emotional arguments and counterarguments published in a number of papers. Although the degree of consensus is only one of several arguments for anthropogenic climate change – the statements of professional societies and evidence presented in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are others – there is data to suggest that support is lower. In this post, I attempt to determine whether the 97% consensus is fact or fiction.

The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications. Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and on the population surveyed.

This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure.

In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number.

The most influential and most debated article was the 2013 paper by Cook, et al., which popularized the 97% figure. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content. I do not intend to reopen the debate over this paper. Instead, let’s consider it along with some of the numerous other surveys available.

Reviews of published surveys were published in 2016 by Cook and his collaborators and by Richard S. J. Tol, Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex. The 2016 Cook paper, which reviews 14 published analyses and includes among its authors Oreskes and several authors of the papers shown in the chart below, concludes that the scientific consensus “is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology.” The chart shows the post-2000 opinions summarized in Table 1 of the paper. Dates given are those of the survey, not the publication date. I’ve added a 2016 survey of meteorologists from George Mason University and omitted the Oreskes article.

... Despite the difficulty in defining a precise number and the opinion that the exact number is not important, 97% continues to be widely publicized and defended. One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry. They are frequently described as a “tiny minority.” It’s not as easy to discount dissenters if the number is 10 or 15 percent.

Comment: It's repeated so much ...

From 1989:








Posted by Jim Peet at 3/04/2019 05:28:00 PM 1 comments

Labels: , , , , ,

3.03.2019

The problem with the "Hell" sign


The problem with the "Hell" sign:
  • It is prideful. It cries out ... "I'm better than you!"
  • It is dishonest. Paul saw himself as a sinner. The sign carrier should say the same. My name should be on the list (I'm saved by grace!)
  • Wrong categorizations: Christ-rejecting baptists should be on the list too!
  • God's wrath is portrayed but not His love
The correct balance here:

Posted by Jim Peet at 3/03/2019 07:22:00 AM 0 comments

Labels:

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)