December 6, 2016

"And... I see the climate science skeptics within the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters."

"The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist. While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission. And climate science doesn’t provide the option of total certainty.To put it another way, it would be easy for a physicist to buck the majority by showing that her math worked. Math is math. But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to 'tune,' you don’t have that option. Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid. So don’t expect to see many of the latter. Scientists can often be wrong, but rarely are they stupid."

From "The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science" by Scott Adams, who has surprised me by reopening his comments section. (I'd believed his notice that his comments were "temporarily" closed was a funny way to say they were permanently closed. (In the manner of "Is never good for you?"))

And while we're on the subject of climate change, here's an article on what Al Gore said about his meeting with Ivanka Trump.
"I appreciate the fact that she is very concerned about this." Gore... called it a "very intelligent exchange."

Ivanka Trump has singled out environmental regulation as her primary policy focus as an incoming first daughter, despite her father's past claims that climate change is a hoax propagated by China. Reince Priebus, the incoming White House chief of staff, in recent days said Trump's "default position" on the topic was that “most of it is a bunch of bunk.”
Gore also met with Trump:
“It was a sincere search for areas of common ground.... I found it an extremely interesting conversation, and to be continued, and I'm just going to leave it at that.”
Gore was sent to Ivanka first, and then to Trump. Interesting theater. Gore must be tempted to make himself relevant again, and the Trumps must see a use for him. It's political theater, and Gore is a big ham, no? How can he resist the charm of the Ivanka-and-Donald routine?

238 comments:

1 – 200 of 238   Newer›   Newest»
Jupiter said...

Trump is starting to remind me of FDR, who was very good at making everyone he met think he agreed with them.

Seeing Red said...

There is 2 ways to take the comment that she's concerned with climate regulations.

David Begley said...

Adams nails it. Again.

I laughed out loud when he wrote how the CAGW proponents always start every argument stating that 97% of scientists agree.

David said...

I wonder if he asked Ivanka about his chakras?

Hagar said...

If you do not agree, you are not a scientist.
See how easy that was?

Sebastian said...

If it's Reince vs. Ivanka, Ivanka wins. Could be a way to silence prog opponents. At a price, of course.

JPS said...

Political theater is exactly right, as is Jupiter's comment above.

I'm fairly impressed with it. First he stakes out "hoax" as his starting position, now he wants us all to know how reasonable and open-minded he is: He'll listen to anyone with a case to make. He's listening to Al Gore on climate change! In fact, it was supposed to be Ivanka's meeting, but he decided to drop in and hear what Al has to say.

It's showmanship - along precisely the lines Adams predicted, when he wrote about how easy it would be for Trump to allay most people's fears about him once he was elected.

Chuck said...

I am quite certain that Donald and Ivanka Trump will explain their position(s) on "global climate change" in detail at their upcoming press conferences.

Wait, what? No questions from the press?

Of course I broached this subject yesterday, and was immediately questioned for proof as to whether Ivanka really did maintain that global climate change would be a signature issue for her. (Since I'll also be accused here of being a secret Democrat troll, I'll just say for the record that I think the whole "global climate change" thing is NOT a hoax; rather it is about 95% hysteria, surrounding a naturally-changing climate.)

Perhaps, the Trump children will turn out to be like Patty Davis and Ron Reagan. Left wing salonistas. (But it's really just Ivanka, right? National child care entitlements and "global warming," right? Don and Eric are harder-right than The Donald, right?)

But I am one of those people who love wedge issues. I am always looking for wedge issues. I like ideology. And consistency.

Anyway,

traditionalguy said...

The Trump Tower Elevator Lobby is like opening a play in New Haven to see what pleases an audience and stays in or what has to be written out.

So far the star of all stars is still Kellyanne.

Gretchen said...

I think most conservatives agree the country should keep air and water clean, and should regulate accordingly. That said, it is important to make regulations reasonable, and relevant, so everyone's interests are protected. Trump is smart to work or appear to work with Gore, because while Gore is a money grubbing wind bag, he has respect of the lefties. Gore will probably go along with anything that gives him the appearance of power.

robother said...

The general truth of Adam's observations is borne out in that other quasi-science practiced by dieticians (should we call it Dietnetics?).

Every nostrum From the 60s through the 90s (e.g., eggs bad, dairy fat bad, grains and carbs good) has been shown to be complete BS, but for all that time, no doubt 97% of physicians believed it was gospel.

chickelit said...

While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission.

You're not really a scientist if you're not "bucking conventional wisdom" and trying to prompt new theory; you're a teacher of science.

Jupiter said...

Trump is (was?) a businessman. The Art of the Deal, New or otherwise. You never want to let the other guy know that he isn't going to get what he wants. And you don't want to let him know what you want, or at least not how much you want it.

I'm afraid he's going to prove to be infuriatingly good at this. Keeping in mind that we are all "the other guy".

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I hope the Secret Service was there to protect Ivanka from the crazed sex poodle.

wildswan said...

So far Ivanka is endorsed by Leonardo DiCaprio who "heroically" gave her a DVD about Climate Change and now by Gore whom she called for more information after she saw the DVD. The little woman is trying to learn from from the big clever men. Or something.

Mike said...

DT should have Ivanka meet with Roger Pielke Jr. then, so she has a broader perspective on the issue. And unlike Gore, Pielke is a scientist (WSJ paywall, Google around it with the text below, if you like). Trump's instincts on this matter are much closer to reality than his daughter's, I fear.

"There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather."

traditionalguy said...

A sudden sharp world temperature decline over a degree C. in the past year is going to morph the Great Warmist Hoax into the old SciFi script category where it belongs . They are calling the Warmist Scare cadre the Data Deniers now.

Peter said...

The value of science lies in its predictive capability. The physics of motion makes it possible to accurately preduct solar and lunar eclipses with great precision far into the future; if you inject rabies-infected blood into a dog, the dog will get rabies, etc., etc. Few doubt the quality of this science because it's obvious that it works.

BUT climate models have yet to accurately predict much of anything, and the key here is "accurately." Climate models are not only complex but depend on a great many assumptions regarding feedback paths and thus remain equisitely sensitive to the magnitude of the coefficients in those feedback paths and their cross-correlations (i.e.the extent to which the feedback paths are not independant of one another).

And therefore if one says "more CO2 in the atmosphere can be expected to produce some warming" there is consensus, BUT, if you say "If atmospheric CO2 increases as expected then global temperatures will be at least eight degrees C higher within 50 years" there is plenty of room for skepticism, because, even a slight tweak of the model can result in wildly different predictions.

Science has acquired great authority because of its ability to predict; therefore, it's important to know when it has not yet reached the state where reasonably accurate prediction is possible. In law, this limitation is seen when mental-health experts attempt to predict whether an individual can be expected to be violent in the future; such assessments are essential in involuntary treatment cases, yet here experts have not been shown to make more accurate predictions than anyone else.

Science has acquired great authority because it works, yet, scientists can also be prone to over-reach, to claiming predictive capability where none (yet) exists. To see the limits of science, just look at the replication crisis in the social sciences (the best, or at least the most readable, article on this is http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-winds-have-changed/ ).

EDH said...

And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist. While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission.

Add to that any interrogation professional who posits that 'enhanced interrogation' might be effective, at least under certain circumstances?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid.

That claim is not even wrong.

traditionalguy said...

Ivanka is Trump's Ambassador to listen to the rich NYC Liberals. She will probably set up a Ivanka Cares Embassy in DC for them to make Hajj to...in the spring when it is not still freezing and not too hot yet.

rehajm said...

I endorse the scientific consensus on climate change to protect my career and reputation.

Mike points out Prof. Pielke's position which also happens to be the position of the IPCC and the 'consensus' but it didn't stop Think Progress and ultimately Congress from going after Pielke.

Chuck said...

Scott Adams' concluding paragraph could have come from the Op-Ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, but for the fact that Adams' writing is not nearly up to the quality of writing routinely seen on those pages.

Here:
If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.

Correct. We may be changing the climate, or not. God knows, the climate has been in a state of constant change since Earth's creation. We have had glacial ages. We have had Paleocene epochs. The oceans have been 18 degrees hotter than they are now, in some periods of earth history. We should continue to build an economy, develop science and technology, to deal with it.

Query; if the earth was naturally warming right now, and melting glaciers and rising sea levels threatened Miami Beach and Manhattan and Venice, would the Greens say that we should do something about it? Change our climate anthropomorphically, so as to suit our needs? My answer would be sure, if we could. Figure out a way to deal with it. Develop the technology to do it. I wonder what the Greens would say.

buwaya puti said...

Chuck,
Re "climate change" - no doubt there is hysteria in some quarters, but it hasn't made the general public hysterical, which frustrates many it seems. Score one for the global public.
However, it is all at core a conspiracy. People working with the relevant data have to know that they are manipulating analyses to keep the benefits spigot on. There are way too many 500lb gorillas in there, being carefully ignored.

As for consistency, well, there we go, that ISN'T a conservative virtue. The short form is that conservatism is empiricism, arranged on multiple time scales. Consistency requires perfectly accurate theories, which is a funny notion best left to the fellows on the left.

buwaya puti said...

The Greens of course are a religious lot (neo-pagans) and are big on dogma.

So they have to say that, whatever is wrong, or why, the only acceptable answer is to wear hair shirts and recite the proper prayers. And give them lots of money.

Burnt offerings are right out though.

Chris N said...

If you're a former politician, poet, carbon-credit salesman, slide show doom-presenter, visionary media exec etc.

You and Trump both might have more in common than you think

Mike said...

[A] majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this...

This is a good guide to skepticism. I would like to revive the idea that skepticism is good. When did we become a country that demands "belief" in things? I distrust religious terms when turned into political phrases. And I completely agree with the opinion put forth by Chuck above.

MikeR said...

Judith Curry on Scott Adams and Roger Pielke Jr. https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/05/climate-heretic-to-be-or-not-to-be
Read the whole thing.

Bob Ellison said...

Peter, I disagree. Science is getting worse, not better, at prediction. Witness the changes in nutrition (carbs v. fats, margarine v. butter), weather (four-day forecast v. 100-year ones), and vaccines. These troubles are still underway, with folks on both sides arguing with scientific terms.

We're in a bad time with science. "I don't know" used to be a prized statement. Now "I agree with them" is good enough.

I guess actually I'm agreeing with you, mostly. But scientists in the news, with the way they're portrayed and scaled by assholes like Al Gore, come out looking like crazed zealots.

Larry J said...

Whenever someone claims that "the science is settled", you're likely hearing a religious discussion, not a scientific one.

The Earth's climate has been constantly changing for billions of years. At times, it was far hotter than today and at other times far colder. The driving questions should be:

1. Are human activities causing the climate to change differently from how it has changed in the past? If so, how?

2. If the answer to 1) is proven to be yes, then what practical things can we do about it?

A bit over 10,000 years ago, an ice sheet thousands of feet thick covered pretty much all of Canada and into the northern US, along with northern Europe. That ice age ended (how, precisely?) and the climate warmed considerably. The people alive during this period of epic climate change managed to not only survive but to thrive. Our climate continues to change. Are we - with all of our technology and capability - less capable of adapting to change than cave people were thousands of years ago?

Henry said...

Everybody is co-opting this days. Not cooperating.

* * *

I've been reading Arctic Dreams by Barry Lopez recently. It's a brilliant set of essays on Arctic ecology (and geology, astronomy, history, anthropology). Lopez discusses the warming of the arctic as a long-term geological trend. The book was written before global warming stalked the nightmares of the cognoscenti. As a result, Lopez writes with grace and insight into the strategies by which animals adapt. He acknowledges, with sadness, but acceptance, the fact that arctic storms or a late or early freeze can kill huge numbers of a particular species. And yet the populations recover. It's a relief to read about ecology without apocalypticisms.

FullMoon said...

The argument regarding climate change is not whether it is happening or not. The argument is whether we can manipulate the climate.

So far, mankind has tried everything from prayer, human sacrifice, to rain dances. Generally, way back when, bad weather was blamed on somebodies personal failure, either an individual, or a tribe, or something had displeased the gods.
The prayer, sacrifices, and dances always worked, although relief was never immediate.
I witnessed a rain dance one summer, and sure enough, it rained a few months later.

Mike said...

Addendum: I meant the 9:05 Chuck post on hysteria.

Like BP I assign that term to the group-think scientists and green weenies alone. The great disappointment for the watermelons is that they could not induce mass hysteria on the general population and impose their economic "solutions" to it.

Mike said...

Who will rid of this troublesome FAKE SCIENCE plague?

Original Mike said...

I had the "Is never good for you?" cartoon on my door for years. I didn't know it was a thing.

Chuck said...

FullMoon said...
The argument regarding climate change is not whether it is happening or not. The argument is whether we can manipulate the climate.
So far, mankind has tried everything from prayer, human sacrifice, to rain dances. Generally, way back when, bad weather was blamed on somebodies personal failure, either an individual, or a tribe, or something had displeased the gods.
The prayer, sacrifices, and dances always worked, although relief was never immediate.
I witnessed a rain dance one summer, and sure enough, it rained a few months later.


Nice post. I wish I had written it.

Now, we just need to have a chat with Ivanka and Donald, right? Or maybe not. Senator Inhofe will take care of things for us, with GOPe majorities in both houses of Congress. Right?

Bob Ellison said...

GM food crops. Golden rice. DDT. We're half-way through a century of science denial. Oil reserves, peak oil, the population explosion, China's one-child policy, eugenics, nuclear power...it goes on and on. Science in the popular imagination has gone psychotic, in spite of all of the amazing victories in science.

PB said...

Science IS math, if you take it seriously. Things are provable or they are not. The standards of proof based on statistical analysis of observed data is pretty well established, but many "scientists" in the climate arena lower the standards of proof or "adjust" the data so their claims are more headline worthy.

Claims of oncoming disaster are what is necessary to obtain funding from an ignorant, scared source. Claims of no disaster obtain little to no additional funding.

"Climate change" is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry and there are jobs at stake that people want to keep

JPS said...

Peter, 9:13: Terrific comment.

"if you say 'If atmospheric CO2 increases as expected then global temperatures will be at least eight degrees C higher within 50 years' there is plenty of room for skepticism, because, even a slight tweak of the model can result in wildly different predictions."

I was once looking over a manuscript with many coauthors, including a climate scientist I know well - a responsible, sober person who tries very hard to get things right. I came across the phrase "noise-to-signal ratio" in reference to a number greater than one.

I asked, Don't you mean signal-to-noise ratio?

No. Noise-to-signal.

Most of these people are not arguing in any kind of bad faith, nor engaged in some mass conspiracy to keep the grants flowing. But when your noise-to-signal ratio is greater than one, you are telling a story of what *might* be going on and where things *might* be headed. And once you get in that habit, of course melting glaciers, drought, storm, record heat and polar vortex, and many many others, can be woven into your story.

Bob Ellison said...

PB, things are testable, not provable. Crucial difference.

Owen said...

Science is skepticism. It rests on the null hypothesis: "Oh yeah? Show me!" I think we drift away from that because, done right, it is hard work and in a way perverse: you have to keep running experiments designed to break your cherished hypothesis, and often you do, and nobody is going to pay to read about failure. Even though the negative results are at least as important as the rare positive ones. You need both figure and ground to develop a good picture of "what is really going on."

So. We are all lazy and we pursue incentives, which in this area heavily favor one view, because money. Also religious fervor, expiation of generalized disgust with Modern Life, and a chance to lecture others. Throw in a subsidized solar array and Tesla, and what's not to like?

I think one big explanation for this madness is the collapse of science teaching in K-12. It should teach respect for data, humility in the face of experimental error, and an abiding suspicion of slick explanations, especially when accompanied by moral imperatives.

Jose_K said...

I old to remember that we would be death by know due to global cooling

damikesc said...

I laughed out loud when he wrote how the CAGW proponents always start every argument stating that 97% of scientists agree.

As did I. Reading on how they generated that number is always amusing, especially since several of the scientists included in that figure dispute it.

Wait, what? No questions from the press?

Honestly, at this point, why should he?

Obama almost never did and the press was fawning in their coverage. Ditto Hillary. Why do Republicans have this masochistic streak where they demand to be slammed by Democrats with bylines regularly?

You're not really a scientist if you're not "bucking conventional wisdom" and trying to prompt new theory; you're a teacher of science.

No joke. Hell, I was taught you should start all research looking for ways to disprove your thesis. Anything else is little more than propaganda.

They hate to think about this, but if their models cannot accurately predict weather in a relatively small area more than a few days out --- why do they assume their models will be more accurate on a much larger scale over a much larger period of time? You'd think the variables involved would only become more problematic the wider you cast the net and over a longer time.

What I also love is people who claim that GLOBAL warming is why Arctic ice is allegedly thinning while Antarctic ice is not. They don't seem to comprehend that the word "GLOBAL" means something. If we are warming GLOBALLY, there wouldn't be pockets that are getting colder. Some might be getting less hot, but colder makes zero sense.

Chuck said...

PB said...
...
"Climate change" is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry and there are jobs at stake that people want to keep


Yet another comment in this thread I wish I had written. Now; I wonder if that sentiment will ever appear in Ivanka Trump Kushner's Twitter feed?

mockturtle said...

I laughed out loud when he wrote how the CAGW proponents always start every argument stating that 97% of scientists agree.

Social scientists? Political scientists? Yeah. Be specific.

Chuck said...

Professor Althouse: A new "tag" suggestion. "Conservative criticism of Trump."

damikesc said...

Social scientists? Political scientists? Yeah. Be specific.

It goes even more off the rails than that.

The study labeled papers that indicated man caused some warming (meaning somewhere between 1 and 100%) as being supportive of the belief that warming is man made and dangerous. That was, mind you, the vast majority. So, if your paper said man caused 5% of the warming, you feel warming is man made and dangerous.

There were other papers where support for warming was "implied". So, no, they didn't even say they believed it. The study's author felt it was implied and added it.

Nonapod said...

In assessing any human generated theory about something vast and highly complex, skepticism is always a valid position. And when politics become involved, skepticism may in fact be the only sane position. Humans are notoriously bad at objective decision making when things like money, peer pressure, and political ideology are deeply involved.

And as far as I can discern, doomsaying has been a pervasive behavior for humans as long as there have been humans. There's something romantic and compelling about the end of all things. And demanding people repent for their sins, be they theological or ecological is certainly a great way to get people to do what you want when you offer salvation. Why would our behavior change simply because we know more?

JPS said...

damikesc:

"If we are warming GLOBALLY, there wouldn't be pockets that are getting colder."

Sure there would, why not? Haven't you ever had a cold snap in SC while much of the rest of the country was warmer than usual, or vice versa?

"Some might be getting less hot, but colder makes zero sense." What's the difference between "less hot" and "colder" apart from perspective?

buwaya puti said...

Bob E,

Most of that is technology/engineering, not "science".

Its common these days to mix these up, but they aren't the same, yet, and back in the day it would have been odd to confuse them. In recent times its become common for engineers to pick up mathematical tools invented by scientists, and many mathematical models are useful in design, up to a point, and the educational system keeps trying to turn engineers into hands-off theoretical (or digital) creatures, like "scientists".

But most of the useful modern tech is not the work of "scientists", at all.

buwaya puti said...

JPS,

Not bloody likely that most of that lot is sincere.
Theres way too much questionable or missing data in there to ignore. I've been on projects where the numbers just werent adding up (budget or technical) and the real experts (usually in the back room) in the inner circle always knew perfectly well that things were likely to go awry. They were either get-along-go-along types planning to bail before the disaster, or sure not to be blamed for it, or they were Cassandras, ignored in the back room.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The Art of the Deal, New or otherwise. You never want to let the other guy know that he isn't going to get what he wants. And you don't want to let him know what you want, or at least not how much you want it.

The real skill of The Art of the Deal and people who know how to 'deal' is that: in the end you get what you wanted in the first place and the other participants get some of what they wanted too. Everyone walks away feeling like they got something from "the deal" and no one got totally screwed over.

The Chinese are masters at this dealing and have been for centuries. They have made deals with clueless morons and ideologues like Obama and of course, the Chinese have always come out on top leaving the US the losers. We lose "face" everytime due to our inability to understand.

A President Trump and a State Department guided by his deal making philosophy will be able to make those deals where we may actually win again and the Chinese will not lose face either.

The best deals are where everyone wins something and of course we win big league.

Owen said...

Nonapod: "...Why would our behavior change simply because we know more?". Bingo!

JPS: you rightly critique the idea that a warming world could not have colder patches. And that leads us to the fundamental absurdity of trying to characterize the ocean-atmosphere system with a series of temperature readings. Temperature is a local scalar value. It does not directly tell you what is "really" going on in the system as a whole: which is the heat content. (To get at the absurdity of "average" temperature across a surface: what is the physical meaning of the average temperature between say Billings MT at -10 F and Miami FL at 80 F?)

The global warming panic is predicated not only on cooked data and rigged models, but a failed conception of what the dependent variable really is.

damikesc said...

Sure there would, why not? Haven't you ever had a cold snap in SC while much of the rest of the country was warmer than usual, or vice versa?

"Some might be getting less hot, but colder makes zero sense." What's the difference between "less hot" and "colder" apart from perspective?


Absolutely. I'm not claiming it is a GLOBAL phenomenon. I refer to that as simply weather. The advocates claim that this is a GLOBAL occurrence. Meaning everywhere.

And getting less hot is an increase in temperature. Getting colder is a decrease.

damikesc said...

As an example, if I predict the temperature will increase by 2 degrees, but it increases only by 1, it is less hot.

If I predict it will increase by 2 and it goes down by 1 instead, it is colder.

Bill said...

I remember when Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, characterized Tip O'Neill as "the Hogarthian embodiment of the superstate he had labored for so long to maintain."

Gore is the Hogarthian embodiment of something else.

Gahrie said...

All of human history and civilization has occurred during a period of global warming called the Holocene interglacial in the current ice age, the Quaternary that began 12,000 years ago. Before the current global warming began, humanity spent 190,000 years wandering around in small tribes picking lice off of each other.

Global warming allowed the invention of agriculture, which produced surplus, which allowed specialization which led to civilization.

Global warming is a good thing.

JAORE said...

"ience is skepticism. It rests on the null hypothesis: "Oh yeah? Show me!" "

None of that now, or there will be no headlines or grants for you!

"Of course I broached this subject yesterday, and was immediately questioned for proof as to whether Ivanka really did maintain that global climate change would be a signature issue for her."

If that referred to me, Chuck you have it close to right (or as close as you ever get). You stated something like "sources say". I stated something like, I'll wait until I see more than a "source" filtered through Chuck. [Close enough on both, I wager. Not really worth hunting down exact quotes.]
I was not looking for "proof", I was looking for a link, quote or named source. It was more a reflection of my belief that your statements are often nonsense and based on less.

Todd said...

But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to 'tune,' you don’t have that option.

Actually, you don't have "science".

And this:

PB said...
Science IS math, if you take it seriously. Things are provable or they are not.
12/6/16, 9:44 AM


One of the biggest lies of this century is "social science". Is was crap like that that lead to all of the "studies" crap we have today.

Science is observation, leading to a theory, leading to testing of the theory, leading to either proof of the theory by tests or a revision of the theory and back to square one. It is also complete and open transparency of process, method and data for the expressed purpose of allowing others to duplicate the results.

"climate science" is not even close to that. It is hustlers and charlatans running a grift.

khesanh0802 said...

The Trumps will play Gore like a wee violin. Trump knows how to bend big egos to his purposes.

Chuck said...

JAORE:
A few days before the Gore meeting, it was reported, based on "sources," that Ivanka would adopt global climate change as one of her signature issues. With the Gore story following so closely on the heels of Politico's December 1, I'd rate the Politico reporting as rather credible.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ivanka-trump-climate-czar-232031

And so I referred to that, yesterday, before Althouse posted this entry today. I didn't post a link yesterday. But anyone could have looked it up and checked it out.

Naturally, the reaction from Althouse commenters was to attack me, as you just have. Instead of simply inquiring about the point.

Brando said...

What use does he get out of Al Gore? Gore is about ten years past his sell-by date, and a big phony on the global warming front anyway. Should have kept him a has-been. Not really seeing the angle here.

Brando said...

If he trots out Jimmy Carter next as an "unofficial diplomat" I'm just going to stick to entertainment news for a while, this is getting too trippy.

JAORE said...

"What use does he get out of Al Gore? Gore is about ten years past his sell-by date, and a big phony on the global warming front anyway. Should have kept him a has-been. Not really seeing the angle here."

Keeps the Rubes off balance.

walter said...

What is Ivanka's position? 1st daughter?
So if Melania doesn't use her unelected, unaccountable power..anyone in the extended family can jump in?
Man..that family leave speech of Ivanka's was bad. Go take care of business.

Bruce Hayden said...

There are a lot of problems with AGC/AGW/AGCC, but I think that the biggest is that so much money is involved. Above, a poster talked about noise to signal ratio. Most scientists and scientific papers are good about limiting their conclusions to the data. That is something that peer review is supposed to enforce. And, if you read papers closely that supposedly prove, or at least support, AGW (etc), you will notice that they come with a lot of very debatable assumptions, but with those assumptions assumed, you might possibly get this result. Then, scientific illiterates, like AlGore (two bonehead science classes in college, where he got a C- and a D+), Obama, etc., miss the assumptions made, and skip to the conclusions. Enough people like that making decisions, and getting rich from such, and you have a movement.

Normally, we don't care that much about whether a scientific theory is true or not. Does the universe, in another 5-10-20 billion years fly apart, or pull back together and implode in a negative Big Bang? Did Lucy (a distant ancestor) still climb trees, or just run over the savanna (longer, stronger arms than we have seem to indicate some remaining tree dwelling, but non-opposed big toes indicate walking). We seem to have just named some new elements - do most of us really care? The list goes on. Mostly, it doesn't affect our personal lives, and, so we don't really care.

We wouldn't really care about AGC/AGW/AGCC if it weren't being used to justify massive government spending and control, world wide, and weren't being used by profiteers like AlGore and Tom Steyer to get filthy rich. In Obama's "Stimulus", billions went to big Dem contributors for Green Energy loans (many/most of which went bad, of course, since they needed federally guaranteed loans due to their bad business plans). Maybe worse though is its use in growing the reach of government. Of course, it isn't just statists, liberals, and progressives, who push these sort of policies - every time we go to the pump, we enrich the ag business in this country through the mandatory addition of engine destroying ethanol to our gasoline. And, now we have it destroying our military's jet engines, and wasting precious defense dollars.

Make no mistake - it is all about the money and the power. Money to the insiders, and power to the politicians. They don't care if the science is bogus, or at least weak or suspect. Most of them couldn't understand the arguments if their lives depended on it. The danger changes through time, from anthropogenic global cooling, to global warming, to global climate change (whatever that means), as the "science" behind each fails to prove out, but the policy prescriptions, and the ways it is used to get the insiders rich do not.

And, one of the reasons that we know that this is true is that so many blithely jump directly to the proposed solutions of spending trillions of dollars and regulating everything that they can get their hands on, from whatever scientific theories seems to be prevailing at the time. Never mind that the economic impact of any really feasible rise in the ocean levels is very likely a tiny fraction of the costs of reducing our dependence on nasty CO2, or that agriculture is likely, long term, to benefit from both increased CO2 and temperature, etc. As I said, what is more important than the truth or falsity of the science is how much power and money can be generated by exploiting a doomsday scenario supposedly hastened by that "science".

Jack Wayne said...

If you want to see what a scam climate change models are, go look at this.

William said...

To Scott Adams arguments, I would add the demonstrable fact that smart people are Armageddon prone when it comes to visualizing the future. Growing up, there was a constant buzz about the risks of nuclear war. Bertrand Russell wrote a pamphlet that explained how in the history of the world there had never been a weapon invented that was not used. It was a convincing argument. There were a lot of movies like Dr.Strangelove or Fail Safe that dramatized those risks. Hollywood always presented the US as the initiator of these wars. Those damned generals......The risks of nuclear war became exponentially greater when Reagan was elected. Nuclear war became a near certainty under his watch.......I was pleasantly surprised when the world didn't end in a nuclear Armageddon. It's also kind of ironic that we came closest to this scenario during Kennedy's presidency and that Fidel Castro was the one who urged a preemptive nuclear strike and not those damned generals......You live and you learn. I bet those people who designed the interior furnishings at the site of that Oakland fire believed in global warming but yet couldn't visualize the need for sprinklers and more exits. We all have these blind spots when contemplating the future.

Owen said...

Bruce Hayden: an excellent rant.

The Romans had a phrase for this: cui bono?

If we were to change the incentives, we would see better science. If somebody like Michael Mann or James Hansen really believes in their hypothesis, why not ask them to post a bond? If their predictions fail, they sign over their pension? Since the fate of the planet rides on the outcome, and since they are so very certain, this tiny patch of epidermis being put at risk seems pretty reasonable.

But somehow all their bets are too vague for that, or can only be determined by our great-great-great-grandchildren; which is to say, never.

Brando said...

"Keeps the Rubes off balance."

I'll have to count myself as a rube. I get some of his moves--either picking people who seem to fit with certain policies (e.g., HHS to gut ACA, Flynn as NSA) or to reassure the GOP rank and file (Romney possibly, and Preibus) but cozying to Gore of all people--not seeing the upside. Unless he really does respect Gore's crackpot ideology.

If he needs to reach out to Dems, he can start with Red State Dems like Senators Tester, Manchin and Heitkamp to provide some electoral cushion. Or liberals with relevance, like Schumer. Gore, though...

Gusty Winds said...

Man-Made Global Warming is the biggest scam ever pushed on the world's population. It is all bullshit fake news.

More people realize this than are mentioned which is why it is a blip on this United Nations priorities survey. Sort the survey results and ALL education levels around the globe place "action on climate change" at the bottom of the priority list.

It's the best kind of liberal cause. You don't actually have to do anything to say you support it. You know in your heart it's fake, but it allows you to be righteously indignant and broadcast virtue signals all over the place. It allows you to claim to understand science even though you don't.

Henry said...

What is Ivanka's position? 1st daughter?

If Melania continues to live in New York (as all my New York friends are complaining about), Ivanka could be White House Hostess. Van Buren's first lady was his daughter-in-law. James Buchanan's was his niece.

In those cases, though, the president didn't actually have a wife.

Expat(ish) said...

@william: "No fighting in the war room!"

Bruce Hayden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

Climate is a chaotic system with no real availability to experiment.

Physicists cannot even agree on whether particles appear and disappear.


FYI, a theory need not be true in order to be useful. A theory is useful so long as it makes useful predictions. It is valid so long as nobody can prove that it isn't. (e.g., Newton's universal theory of gravitation has been invalidated, but it still is useful.) Sometimes a theory has hidden features (e.g., General Relativity says that a singularity must exist in every black hole, but it also says that you can never look inside a black hole to see it.) If you can prove that virtual particles do not exist, then congratulations on your important contribution to physics.


This is why "Climate Science" is as useful as "Social Science" Although, even Peter Venckman was able to experiment in Social Science, but his subject got pretty angry.

There is some doubt about how useful his experiment was.

We have had a Medieval Warm Period and a Little Ice Age and it is interesting to see how Michael Mann eliminated both from his "Hockey Stick." One would think that some attempt to correlate those periods with sun spot cycles would be important but "Climate Science" seems to be more an appeal to authority than real science.

It also has many trappings of religion.

Michael K said...

What must be remembered is that the schools charge overhead.

When I submitted a grant application at Dartmouth 40% of of it was "overhead" for the University.

Your comment is excellent.

walter said...

"It also has many trappings of religion."
Right. When proof is lacking, there's Pascal's wager...alive and well in CAGW circles.

Harold said...

Why exactly does a first daughter, first lady, or first son have a policy focus? They haven't been elected to anything, they may or may not be competent but we elect a president not a royal family.

JAORE said...

"... cozying to Gore of all people--not seeing the upside. Unless he really does respect Gore's crackpot ideology."

I don't think that's the case. And by rubes, I meant the media, protestors and liberal politicians.

They are busy painting Trump and his appointees as racist, environment destroyers, foreign policy idiots leading us inexorably to war.

Then he, reportedly calls on Mitt as potential SOS. And the news is about, "Why talk to Mitt? Don't they hate each other?" Then he reopens the list of potential SOS candidates.

And Dr. Carson for HUD. Forcing the opposition to focus on how this brilliant, black man is unqualified for a job.

And Al Gore for a chat? And the news is about "Why is THIS happening? Could Trump be embracing Global Climate Change?"

In truth he might be. He's sure got a lot of blank spots for me. But if he is, I suspect his position is more how can we adapt to the benefit of America rather than how can we stifle our own economy to transfer wealth to pals and over seas.

My money is still on keeping his opponents off balance.

JAORE said...

"What must be remembered is that the schools charge overhead.

When I submitted a grant application at Dartmouth 40% of of it was "overhead" for the University."

And all papers generated includes in the conclusion, "Further research is warranted".

Chuck said...

I'm seeing lots of thoughtful and even clever criticism of the popular religion of "global climate change" here. No surprise.

So where is the criticism of the Trumps' meeting with Gore? If Trump is going to make individual deals with favored companies, establish new federalized equal pay standards for females, create a new federal child care entitlement, engage with the Al Gore wing of the global warmists, and continue all of the various Obama Administration LGBTQ initiatives, are any of the Trumpists going to be disappointed? What if Trump doesn't scrap most of ObamaCare? And what if Trump doesn't really build a wall?

Tell you what. The first thing that Trump could do, to satisfy ALL of his major constituencies (conservative, labor, manufacturing) is to aggressively override every single thing about the Obama era EPA fuel economy standards for US autos. And the one constituency that he will piss off in doing that, are Ivanka and all of her liberal/green friends in Manhattan.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-auto-outsourcing-act-1480724745

Brando said...

"I don't think that's the case. And by rubes, I meant the media, protestors and liberal politicians."

Ah--I usually wear "rube" as a badge of honor for my lack of sophistication.

As for climate change, it's a subject better off dropped because it's unproveable and we can still have an environmental policy (cleaner water and air, more efficient energy use) without believing we're irretrievably warming the planet. I imagine there are more credible environmentalist moderates than Al Gore, who beclowned himself so well from 1992-2006 that I'd hoped he'd just be a laugh line like Howard Dean.

Bruce Hayden said...

Why does so much climate research supposedly, at least a little bit, support AGC/AGW/AGCC theories? Because that is where the money is. For a long time, it has been fairly well known that you can get a grant to study the effects of AGC/AGW/AGCC on most anything, or the effects of most anything on AGC/AGW/AGCC just by referencing AGC/AGW/AGCC in the grant proposal.

Now, a brief diversion. A decade or so ago, the local paper ran an expose that showed that a number of the tenured profs at the university where my kid is going for their PhD were only teaching one or two classes a year. This was esp. prevalent in STEM areas. Isn't their primary purpose teaching? Why so many slackers? Does tenure have to be reevaluated?

Then, when my kid got into a STEM program there (yes, with a healthy climate science emphasis, though that wasn't their fault, just where their research was), I found out a lot of the background. Less than 4 years ago, their advisor started as a tenure track prof with 2 grad students, funded by (faculty) start up funds and TAing. Now, they have almost a dozen in their group, including a couple post-docs, and a couple engineers to set up the experiments. It all comes from their advisor's success in getting funding. A lot of funding. The research ties a recent advances in physics to the university's strong climate science position (along with a number of climate agencies nearby in town). A lot of funding, and a lot of funding grants. But almost all of it is government funding. They have funding from all over the govt - NSF, DOE, ARPA, etc. And, all of that govt funding is controlled by (often liberal, esp. in this area) govt. employees, who are, ultimately controlled by politicians (Dem politicians over the last almost 8 years). The Dem politicians controlling the agencies providing the research funding wanted pro-AGW research, in order to justify bigger govt., more govt. spending, more graft, and more govt. power. And, that is what they have gotten.

To complete my digression, I found out why those profs could get by with teaching so few classes - they were swamped by their research, and were allowed to buy down their teaching requirements through research money, which is then used to hire lecturers and adjuncts to teach the classes. My kid's advisor, with a moderately sized research group, is working 50-60 hours a week overseeing the research, working to publish with their group to publish, going to conferences with them, teaching classes, etc. What must be remembered is that the schools charge overhead to do research. A lot of overhead. More than is needed to keep the lights on and pay the underpaid grad students. Which means that they are helping to fund the rest of the university - esp. areas that don't get much in terms of funding. Which is why they are allowed to buy down their teaching requirements with research money. And, it isn't all bad. Often the lecturers, in particular, are better teachers.

Michael K said...

Forcing the opposition to focus on how this brilliant, black man is unqualified for a job.

And, of course ignoring the fact that he grew up poor in Detroit, unlike so many black politicians who went to private school with Al Gore or Obama's kids.

He knows the formula.

Chuck said...

Mike said...
climate science is to science as is to justice

Not quite sure what quote you intended, Mike; but on that same note I once found an old book in the University of Michigan Law Library entitled, "Military Law is to Law, what Military Music is to Music."

Bruce Hayden said...

Your comment is excellent.

Deleted, tweaked, and reposted.

Mike said...

climate science is to science as social justice is to justice

Lewis Wetzel said...

William said...
I bet those people who designed the interior furnishings at the site of that Oakland fire believed in global warming but yet couldn't visualize the need for sprinklers and more exits.
Interesting observation. I suppose that inhabitants "ghost ship", if asked, would have put global warming high on the list of things that threatened them personally, and would have put "burning to death in my home" low on the list. Ironically, they could have done nothing to stop global warming, but they could easily have avoided the risk of burning to death in their home by simply choosing to live somewhere else.

Mike said...

Fixed it!

Mike said...

Chuck, I missed it by that much the first try.

Bruce Hayden said...

FYI, a theory need not be true in order to be useful. A theory is useful so long as it makes useful predictions. It is valid so long as nobody can prove that it isn't. (e.g., Newton's universal theory of gravitation has been invalidated, but it still is useful.) Sometimes a theory has hidden features (e.g., General Relativity says that a singularity must exist in every black hole, but it also says that you can never look inside a black hole to see it.) If you can prove that virtual particles do not exist, then congratulations on your important contribution to physics.

I was struck by the same paragraph as Dr. K was. The problem with AGC/AGW/AGCC as theories is that they do not make useful predictions. They make predictions, true, but they are most often wrong. The climate predictions do not come to pass. Which is why they keep moving, from AGC to AGW, and now to AGCC (whatever that is). Normally, that would be sufficient to have the theories discarded. But, there is an added player here, and that is the govt. and the politicians running it. And, the predictions, absent any real confirmation, are useful for them. Not for predicting the future, of course, but, rather, for justifying spending and growth of government.

Freder Frederson said...

This was esp. prevalent in STEM areas. Isn't their primary purpose teaching? Why so many slackers? Does tenure have to be reevaluated?

At a research university, their primary purpose is research, not teaching. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Even in non-STEM fields, like law, the professors are supposed to be doing scholarly research. Granted, some professors (e.g. Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds) abuse their tenure and instead of performing research, spend all their time blogging and writing newspaper articles. My experience with STEM professors is that even though they are tenured and could coast, they are devoted to serious research.

Why does so much climate research supposedly, at least a little bit, support AGC/AGW/AGCC theories? Because that is where the money is.

Do you have any evidence to back this up. I would think that the fossil fuel industry has the wherewithal to back a lot more research than government. Of course the reason industry doesn't fund more research is that they are afraid of the results.

Henry said...

The fossil fuel industry funds a whole lot of research into how to find and extract fossil fuels. Different mission. Different scope.

damikesc said...

If he needs to reach out to Dems, he can start with Red State Dems like Senators Tester, Manchin and Heitkamp to provide some electoral cushion. Or liberals with relevance, like Schumer. Gore, though...

He allegedly is considering Manchin for Energy Sec.

As far as global warming, people often say to discount the "deniers" because of the money they spend.

They ignore that the pro-warming side DWARFS the money spent on the realist side. For example, in 2003, the pro-warming side got 9 times more funding than the realist side got --- in 8 years combined.

It only got worse as time went on.

Mike said...

I would think that the fossil fuel industry has the wherewithal to back a lot more research than government.

OMG. And you would be very wrong. The funding is 10:1 minimum in AGW favor without even considering government funding (which is always on the AGW side):

Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions. When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion’s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth.



JAORE said...

Being a Malthusian means never having to say you are sorry.

We're all gonna DIE by 2012!
- The Mayans

Did I say 2012? I meant 2019. We're all gonna DIE by 2019!
- The Mayans

The problem is no one would buy the need to chuck our a/c units, double our utility costs and cripple our economy unless the sky were falling. And telling us the sky WILL fall in, say 90 years is pretty much a BFD to many.

Think asteroids. Yep, one may hit us. In fact it is almost certain one will hit us. Might even wipe out all humans. But the range of impact dates range from tomorrow to millions of years from now.

That is enough to get us to spend a few millions on detection and tracking. Might even spare a few bucks for concepts of destroying/deflecting an incoming one.

But try to get people to change their life style substantially to build the Asteroid Defense System and you'll get chuckles.

Hence the climate change guys tell us the danger is nigh.

Katrina Cat 5 Hurricanes will be the norm..... but they are not.
Kids in England will never see snow again....but they have.
We only have until 2008.... er 2011.... er 2017....to make major changes or it will be TOO LATE. (In which case, party ON, Dude).



JAORE said...

Oil companies might well want to fund climate change studies. But to what benefit.

Any blasphemy against the Church of Global Climate Change is subject to retaliation that would make the Spanish Inquisition boys tremble in envy.

Scientist: Hey, I have solid evidence CO2 will NOT lead to a tipping point for climate change.

Al Gore, the High Priest: Liar! Charlatan! Lock him up!

Wait, his study was funded by Exxon. Hang him, lock up his wife and children. Burn his crops, salt the earth behind you. Then display his head on a pike for a lesson to all.

Hyperbole? Sure. But would you ever have expected AGs to threaten "deniers"?

Freder Frederson said...

OMG. And you would be very wrong. The funding is 10:1 minimum in AGW favor without even considering government funding (which is always on the AGW side):

And ExxonMobil earned $16.2 billion in 2015. They alone could outspend the environmental nonprofits if they weren't so busy buying back shares.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Freder Frederson said...
Of course the reason industry doesn't fund more research is that they are afraid of the results.

Nonsense, Frederson. The fossil fuels industry could make as much money selling and speculating on carbon credits as it makes from selling oil and speculating on its price.
You are mistaking AGW theory for science. It is not science, it is politics.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Well, thank God for communism! There were no giant oil companies in the old Soviet Union! What an environmentalist's paradise that must have been!

TwilightofLiberty.com said...

When it comes to climate change, the true believers are the Catholic Church. The 'deniers' are Galileo.

Michael K said...

Of course the reason industry doesn't fund more research is that they are afraid of the results.

Hilarious. Freder, like Cookie and a couple of our other leftists, thinks that private companies should be spending money on their favorite hobby horses.

Peter Drucker, when called in to consult on a company used to begin his inquiry with the question, "What is your business?"

He wrote that the reply was often a surprise as people often did not know. Freder certainly does not know what Exxon/Mobil's business is.

The Democrats' is winning elections. Nothing else. If AGW gets fools to vote for them, they have been successful.

If alarmist "research" professors get their grants funded, they are successful.

QED

Bruce Hayden said...

Do you have any evidence to back this up. I would think that the fossil fuel industry has the wherewithal to back a lot more research than government. Of course the reason industry doesn't fund more research is that they are afraid of the results.

Classic progressive delusion, but seriously, you have to be kidding. A week or two ago, the left was apoplectic about Trump proposing to eliminate climate research from NASA's budget, to the tune of maybe $300 million. An agency that probably shouldn't have been involved there in the first place (but Jim Hansen needed a job), and was founded essentially to do space exploration- that it doesn't have the money to do any more. There are well over a dozen govt agencies involve in climate related research - in my kid's dept alone, they have NSF, NOAA, NCAR, NIST, NREL, DOE, DARPA, some of the military services, etc. funding climate related research. And a couple of private companies (none of which are oil companies). You are comparing publicly traded companies constrained to pay dividends competing with the federal govt with a $3.8 trillion budget, controlled by politicians who see climate research as essential to increasing the size of govt, and, thus their power and wealth. Yes, almost 4 Trillion Dollars. Not billions, but trillions.

Chuck said...

Mike, at 12:36 pm. Yet another post I wish I had written. Ditto Bruce Hayden, just above.

But again, why no woodshedding of Ivanka in any of this?

Drago said...

Freder: "Of course the reason industry doesn't fund more research is that they are afraid of the results."

LOL

Alternatively, "industry" (businesses) probably spend most of their time and money attempting to grow the value of their business.

Unexpectedly!!

Todd said...

Freder Frederson said...
OMG. And you would be very wrong. The funding is 10:1 minimum in AGW favor without even considering government funding (which is always on the AGW side):

And ExxonMobil earned $16.2 billion in 2015. They alone could outspend the environmental nonprofits if they weren't so busy buying back shares.

12/6/16, 12:52 PM


Even if that amount is accurate ($16.2 Billion in 2015) what does it represent? Net profit, gross profit, earnings, what? Also, that is not actually relevant as ExxonMobil is a business. It is not a single person who is very wealthy. It (the business) has to pay the bills to stay in business and has to answer to shareholders. It has to keep the business running. It is not at all like a charity that does not pay taxes and gets grants and donations (i.e. other people's money) to spend as it sees fit. ExxconMobil has to focus on the business of making more money so the amount "earned" is not relevant to the much smaller amount of "excess profit" available to devote to "crap like that". Additionally, ExxconMobil still has to justify spending that money on "crap like that" as opposed to giving it out as dividend or investing in other ways that would more directly increase profits.

Drago said...

Freder thinks "science" is creating models that are shared with no one using data inputs that are not shared with anyone and basically making sure that no one can even attempt to replicate your "results"!

#LeftysNewScienceyThinking

Lydia said...

Of course Ivanka embraces climate change. Has everyone forgotten that she and Chelsea Clinton are close friends? Poor Ivanka. Her liberal creds need a bit of polishing.

There's also Trump's original position on climate change to consider -- from a June 2016 article, "A Yuuuuuge Climate Flip Flop":

"In the autumn of 2009, climate-concerned Americans held out hope that progress might be made at the United Nations’ annual climate conference, planned for December in Copenhagen. The new president, Barack Obama, and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be attending. It was the first time in eight years that a U.S. administration had recognized the reality of climate change.

It was in that environment that, in late November, a full-page ad appeared in The New York Times. The ad, an open letter, called on President Obama and Congress to finally pass legislation restricting greenhouse-gas emissions.

'We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today,' it read. 'If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.'

Below that text were 55 names. They included squishily liberal executives and various other famous people, like the CEOs of Patagonia, Timberland, Blue Man Group, and Chipotle; and Deepak Chopra, Martha Stewart, Kenneth Cole, and Ben and Jerry.

Someone else was on that list, too: Donald J. Trump, and his three children. That’s right: The Republican nominee for president supported urgent climate action before he opposed it."

Drago said...

Todd (to Freder): "Even if that amount is accurate ($16.2 Billion in 2015) what does it represent? Net profit, gross profit, earnings, what?"

Shhh. You'll just confuse the boy.

Titus said...

Why is it that all democrats believe in climate change and all republicans don't?

Are there any willing to cross to the other side? They would be the interesting ones.

tits and hog

Drago said...

Titus: "Why is it that all democrats believe in climate change and all republicans don't?"

Why do all democrats continue to misrepresent the actual question on the table and why is it that the most scientifically illiterate of the left are the most vocal in doing so?

Todd said...

Titus said...
Why is it that all democrats believe in climate change and all republicans don't?

Are there any willing to cross to the other side? They would be the interesting ones.

tits and hog

12/6/16, 1:46 PM


I think that is a bit of an over simplification. Most "conservatives" believe in climate change (who doesn't) but don't believe that man has had a significant effect on global climate. BIG difference...

Bruce Hayden said...

At a research university, their primary purpose is research, not teachinge. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Even in non-STEM fields, like law, the professors are supposed to be doing scholarly research. Granted, some professors (e.g. Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds) abuse their tenure and instead of performing research, spend all their time blogging and writing newspaper articles. My experience with STEM professors is that even though they are tenured and could coast, they are devoted to serious research.

Tell that to the undergrads who have 100 other students with them in a lot of the STEM core classes. One of the classes that my kid TAed had 3 TAs, since there were over 100 in the (core) class. They had office hours, and the profs typically did not. And was very thankful that I had sent them to a non-research college for their undergraduate degree, with classes of 10 or 20 (ok, physics and math self select, but...) Most people look at flagship universities in their states, and see the tens of thousands of undergraduates, and the sports teams, and not the small numbers of grad students actually involved in research. Which is why that expose I mentioned was so explosive. The school may have Nobel Laureates on the faculty, but you aren't likely to get classes with them until and unless you are in a PhD program there. The scandal was supposedly that the state and the undergrads were funding a bunch of lazy academics who sat around all day pontificating, at our expense. Which wasn't the case at all - much of research in STEM pays for itself, plus, allowing profs to spend their time in research, which made the university more money than if they just mostly taught. But that is STEM, with billions upon billions being spent on that research being spent every year by our federal govt.

As Ann pointed out the other day, most academic publications are pretty bogus. Who reads law review articles? I do some, in IP, esp patent law, but mostly because I have been involved in policy for an engineering society for several decades. I doubt that most patent attys read even one paper a decade. And much of academic publishing is no better - something that produces little of any worth, but helps get tenure. It's purpose seems mostly to impress other academics. Very incestuous.

damikesc said...

And ExxonMobil earned $16.2 billion in 2015. They alone could outspend the environmental nonprofits if they weren't so busy buying back shares.

Unlike those groups, Exxon actually has a business to run and product to provide to paying customers.

Hell, the US government makes more on a gallon of gas than Exxon does.

But again, why no woodshedding of Ivanka in any of this?

She's essentially powerless.

Michael K said...

The Republican nominee for president supported urgent climate action before he opposed it."

I know quite a few people, including a friend who is a newspaper science reporter, who changed their mind when the EAU scandal broke showing how the data was manipulated and the dishonesty that surrounded AGW. He wrote a post on my blog at the time in 2009.

It's a little bit like Hillary Clinton. If you could stay a fan of hers in spite of all the lying and dishonesty that says more about you than her.

The same goes for"Global Warming" and the current euphemisms as the truth leaks out.

Michael K said...

The school may have Nobel Laureates on the faculty, but you aren't likely to get classes with them until and unless you are in a PhD program there.

That is why it was revolutionary when Feynmann decided to teach a freshman class at CalTech. Much of it was over the heads of the first year students and it was packed with grad students but it was an example of why great scientists could be great teachers.

I was very fortunate to got to a medical school that was NOT focused on research at the time.

I also took my Engineering courses at a University that was not focused on research. The Physics department did some but teaching was the emphasis for faculty. Much of that has changed and not for the better.

Brando said...

"But again, why no woodshedding of Ivanka in any of this?

She's essentially powerless."

Powerless? That's not how I'd describe the person who has the president's ear and trust more than anyone else. If she advises him to do or not do anything, I'm betting that carries more weight with him than what Preibus, Sessions, or even Bannon or Conway advise.

Unknown said...

Love it. So your guy who said global warming was a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, now has Ivanka as his global warming tzar, with Al Gore advising her. Hahahahahaha, oh too too rich. Ivanka is far from powerless.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

Idiot Inga weighs in.

Ivanka is far from powerless.

It is her husband who is powerful, not her. Pay attention.

mockturtle said...

I suspect Ivanka will have much more of a role in Trump's presidency than will Melania, who is uncomfortable with public speaking and political gatherings. It wouldn't be the first time a daughter has served as de facto 'First Lady' but it's usually been in cases of widowhood.

Unknown said...

Senile curmudgeon Michael K never leaves this blog's comments section. As you should know there are medications available for Alzheimer's. You still seem to be obsessed by someone named Inga, does he/she live in your poor aging brain?

Unknown said...

Ivanka is as powerful as her husband and her father. She is the unelected leader of the US, pay attention you senile imbecile.

OldManRick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
OldManRick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FullMoon said...

Unknown said... [hush]​[hide comment]

Ivanka is as powerful as her husband and her father. She is the unelected leader of the US, pay attention you senile imbecile.


Yep, gonna be first woman president, if Donald's plan works out.

OldManRick said...

Freder Frederson said:

ExxonMobil earned $16.2 billion in 2015. They alone could outspend the environmental nonprofits if they weren't so busy buying back shares.

Somebody doesn't understand stocks.

Exxonmobil has 4.147B shares outstanding - See https://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/shares_outstanding

Current price is $87.66 per share - See https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=exxonmobil%20stock

That's a return of $3.91 per share or 4.4% - if all the profit is returned to the investors and none is reinvested in the company.

Anyone who gives you total profits and complains about it, is trying to sensationalize the profits without giving you any real ability to analyze if the profits are out of line. Total profits are not the key figure, return per share is. A return of less than 4% per share either in profit or growth sends investors to other stocks. The buy back is an attempt to manage the return per share and share value. Math is hard, economics is hard, wild claims about total profits are easy (and pointless) and should be treated as "fake news".

Mike said...

ExxonMobil earned $16.2 billion in 2015

Wow. Can't liberals read a balance sheet?

They spent over $31B in exploration in the same 12-month period. What's your point? And by the way, how much of ANYTHING do all the weenies who work for the Sierra Club and Greenpeace CREATE with all that cash?

Mike said...

Link to ExxonMobil Press Release.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Wait a minute. Is her name is Ivan-ka? If so she may be a Russian plant? And does her website push Trump Vodka?

Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of a Russian hacker.

Rockport Conservative said...

Haven't had time to read all the comments, but has anyone quoted this article from Forbes? http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#498a739d171b
There is scientific consensus on climate change, but not the one you hear about.

Mike said...

Imagine earning $1.6B per year just for fretting about global warming and not having to produce squat for it! Being a liberal weenie activist means access to stupid money apparently.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Ivanka is as powerful as her husband and her father. She is the unelected leader of the US,.."

Why does the left hate powerful women?

Nonapod said...

To put things in perspective, the entire oil industry collects somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.2 - 1.3 trillion in revenue annually. Meanwhile all the world governments collect well over 13 trillion in tax revenue annually, 10 times what the oil industry takes in.

There's just no comparison, government is where all the real money is. People will fight hard for a piece of that pie.

damikesc said...

Powerless? That's not how I'd describe the person who has the president's ear and trust more than anyone else. If she advises him to do or not do anything, I'm betting that carries more weight with him than what Preibus, Sessions, or even Bannon or Conway advise.

She's his daughter. I don't foresee her having sufficient influence to do much, personally.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

People here who don't see Ivanka as having a great deal of influence with her father surely haven't been paying attention. Where have you been, under some rock for the last year? Interesting that some of you folks would like to think that liberal Ivanka will have no role in her father's administration. She will, which actually gives me some hope.

Qwinn said...

Hey Unknown,

Trump won't be President for another 6 weeks. I think I'll let him actually be Prez for a couple of weeks before starting to tally the "broken promises".

What's your excuse for Obama not closing Gitmo for 7.9 years?

JPS said...

Bruce Hayden, 12:00 and 1:56:

I don't know. You are right about a lot, but I add it up somewhat differently.

We (I am a STEM professor at a research university) do have a shockingly light teaching load. One class per semester has been pretty standard at the universities I've been a part of in different capacities. But I learned a long time ago that research isn't separate from teaching. Much of my teaching is through research: I'm giving undergraduate students their start in research, and some of them are going on to be rock stars. (That's to their credit not mine, but I played a role and I'm proud of that.) I am teaching graduate students to be Ph.D. scientists. (Whether we need so many, or whether the government isn't paying for more than can find productive employment, are worrisome questions it is impolitic to ask under a lot of circumstances - because any organization wants to grow.)

When I pursued this career it was obvious looking at those who'd made it that you need to be a *very* successful researcher but merely a passable teacher to get tenure at research-oriented universities. But my advisors when I was a student, and my colleagues now, were excellent classroom teachers. Partly because they know the material and love it; partly because they're driven perfectionists who would consider it shameful to do a bad job at anything they do.

As for me, I'm finishing my mere one course soon. I could easily have spent all my working time on it (that's during the day and at home, at night and on weekends), gotten nothing else done while trying to do it really right, and my students still would have been asking for more. Out of necessity I went for the 80% solution because I'm not allowed to get nothing else done, but I have really tried to treat my classroom students as though I work for them (which I do) and they have first call on my time.

As for government funding: The government has made itself nearly the only game in town, just as Eisenhower not-so-famously warned. I believe if private industry wants the Ph.D.s we train for them, they should pay for more of them. They don't because why would you, if you could get the taxpayer to do it? It's rational - but it's not, to repurpose that dread buzzword, sustainable.

Unknown said...

Some more reverasals, thanks Ivanka! I'm sure Ivanka and hubby are encouraging Trump to go and appear at some more rallies so they can get down to the business of governing. Whew, what a relief.

No torture, no killing of terrorists families.
No prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

Mike said...

What's your excuse for Obama not closing Gitmo for 7.9 years?

Or for not having the most transparent admin in history?

Or the most ethical one?

Or the whole "bend the cost curve" crap?

Or ending the war in Iraq (that's a biggie!)?

Or comprehensive immigration reform?

Or slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the blind?


Oh wait. Did he promise the blind would walk or see?

Unknown said...

On the contrary, I like Ivanka quite a bit. I'm happy she is so influential. I have to laugh at you dupes though, you actually believed what Trump said during his campaign was what he would follow through on during his Presidency. He pretty much is tossing you climate change deniers and Trumpites under the bus. Just what you deserve.

So hey, tell me again how he will repeal Obamacare? How about that big beautiful wall? What happened to deporting all those Mexicans? Hahahahaha!

Mike said...

Which reminds me of when Obama said that deficits were un-American, and unlike that evil GWB he was going to REDUCE the deficit.

Sonofabitch doubled it instead. So unless Trump doubles it again the debt curve starts bending in 45 days or so.

Unknown said...

How about draining the swamp? All those Goldman Sachs hires, hahahahahaha!

Lewis Wetzel said...

AGW, AGCC requires believing that all of the following is true:
-The climate is changing catastrophically in the medium and long term.
-There are things human institutions can do to avert or mitigate the catastrophe of this medium and long term catastrophic climate change.
-The things that human institutions can do to avert or mitigate medium and long term climate change will be worth the cost of doing them.

All of these statements are tendentious. They are arguments that need to be made, not facts to be stated.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes . . ." :)

Michael K said...

"You still seem to be obsessed by someone named Inga, does he/she live in your poor aging brain?"

If you aren't Inga, you give a damn fine imitation although I don't recall her being quite so nasty, But, of course, Hillary lost the election resoundingly so the left has gone nuts.

The attacks on Kellyanne, for example are typical leftist venom.

The fact that she, unlike a couple of other leftist women who ran presidential campaigns, actually won is making them crazy.

The loonier are calling Ben Carson dumb.

I understand you are unhinged and make allowance for limited leftist vocabulary.

Have a lovely day !

Unknown said...

Michael K, I don't know why you think you should be treated with respect when you were very disrespectful in your first comment directed toward me. Fair warning, if you address me disrespectfully, expect the same, doubled.

EDH said...

Bill said...
Gore is the Hogarthian embodiment of something else.

Don't Hogart that joint, my friend.

mockturtle said...

Mike said: They spent over $31B in exploration in the same 12-month period. What's your point? And by the way, how much of ANYTHING do all the weenies who work for the Sierra Club and Greenpeace CREATE with all that cash?

Yeah!! Not a damned thing! They don't know where capital comes from. Well, except from their parents.

Robert Cook said...

"When it comes to climate change, the true believers are the Catholic Church. The 'deniers' are Galileo."

It's too soon to be congratulating yourself for being Galileo. Wait 100 years and see what conditions are like then. If everything is hunky dory, then you can call yourself Galileo.

FullMoon said...

Robert Cook said...

"When it comes to climate change, the true believers are the Catholic Church. The 'deniers' are Galileo."

It's too soon to be congratulating yourself for being Galileo. Wait 100 years and see what conditions are like then. If everything is hunky dory, then you can call yourself Galileo.


Global Warming gonna be added to this list of "How ignorant were our ancestors"

The Great Swedish Witch Panic Of 1664

Ancinet cases of mass hysteria

The event was one of the most horrible incidents in Swedish history.

The great Swedish witch panic lasted from 1664 to 1676. According to ancient historical accounts, as a child lay sleeping, the witch who was usually a neighbor was said to enter the room after shrinking and crawling through the keyhole or walking through a door. The child was escorted to the roof and placed on the belly of a farm animal which was hovering upside down. Together they flew to Blåkulla (“Blue hill”) and picked up more children on their way.

Blåkulla was a legendary meadow where the Devil held his Earthly court during a witches’ Sabbath. Flames from hell shot through a hole in the floor as people sat eating cursing and paying respect to the devil. The devil asked the child if he or she would serve him and all they could say was yes. The child’s finger was cut and the devil took some blood. Later the children were given gifts, such as knives to kill their parents and books of curses. A witch brought the children home before the morning. Later hundreds of children were convinced they had met the devil.

The story is based on real events. More than 500 children witnessed they had been abducted during the night by Satanists and taken to Blåkulla where devil worshippers held their annual meeting.

Read more: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/10-incredible-and-bizarre-ancient-cases-of-mass-hysteria/#ixzz4S6Gq0r8E

Michael K said...

" I don't know why you think you should be treated with respect "


I would much prefer that you not address me at all. You add nothing, unlike some other commenters, and you are sounding unhinged,

SukieTawdry said...

So, on what kind of environmental regulation does Ivanka intend to primarily focus? Is she looking to expand the regulatory state or does she intend to start dismantling its excesses? I'm wary of wealthy dilettantes. Hope she doesn't turn out to be one. One thing that concerns me about Ivanka is her fast friendship with Chelsea Clinton.

@Mockturtle: I suspect Ivanka will have much more of a role in Trump's presidency than will Melania, who is uncomfortable with public speaking and political gatherings. It wouldn't be the first time a daughter has served as de facto 'First Lady' but it's usually been in cases of widowhood.

Since Melania will stay in NYC so their son can finish the school year and the Kushners are moving to DC, it's probably safe to say Ivanka will assume some of Melania's duties at least in the short term.

JPS said...

Robert Cook:

"It's too soon to be congratulating yourself for being Galileo. Wait 100 years and see what conditions are like then. If everything is hunky dory, then you can call yourself Galileo."

This is absolutely the most conservative comment you've made here. I like it!

Drago said...

Unknown: "How about draining the swamp? All those Goldman Sachs hires, hahahahahaha!"

If you've got a sewage problem you gotta hire plumbers.

I'm sorry that these basic truisms are difficult for you.

Trumpit said...

I want to know what Trump Inc.'s carbon foot print is. If it is too "yuge" he should be forced to take steps to drastically reduce it. Science is based on something called the Scientific Method. It's been so many years, I'd have to refresh myself as to what the Scientific Method is. For many months, the New York Times would state daily what the chance of a Clinton victory in the Nov. 8th general election was. It was always in the high 80 percent to low 90 percent probability. This was not a failure of science, it was a failure of a particular group of pollsters using statistical methods. The pollsters should be run out of town as hopeless. Science especially social science relies heavily on probability and statistics. Scott Adams doesn't know what he is talking about with regard to science, imo. Scientists present their research and draw conclusions base on logic and math, e.g. statistical methods that give a probability of likelihood. There work has to follow the Scientific Method and the experiments have be designed to be repeatable. No scientist is using a hunch or guesswork to reach their conclusions. In Summary, I find Mr Adams to be basically a fool who spouts nonsense not unlike Trump himself.

exiledonmainstreet said...

It's amazing that Unknown/Inga has a plant in Trump Tower, who tells her exactly how much influence Ivanka has on Trump. I'm sure that plant texts Unknown and gives her the inside scoop. Of course, I'm sure the pictures on the walls also speak to Unknown and tell her that Mike Pence is going to make women go to church and have babies, so she's got the inside scoop.

Trump is literally driving you people insane - and I just love it!

Drago said...

Trumpit: "There work has to follow the Scientific Method and the experiments have be designed to be repeatable. No scientist is using a hunch or guesswork to reach their conclusions. In Summary, I find Mr Adams to be basically a fool who spouts nonsense not unlike Trump himself."

LOL

You probably have no concept at all the degree to which you have just demonstrated how astonishingly uninformed you are in regards to the shenanigans the AGW crowd has been to manipulate the data, hide the data, hide the methodologies, etc.

But do go on and keep lecturing us from your position of hopeless ignorance. In your defense, you are not the worst leftist here in that regard.

#NotTheDumbestLeftist!

Bad Lieutenant said...

Brando said...
"But again, why no woodshedding of Ivanka in any of this?

She's essentially powerless."

Powerless? That's not how I'd describe the person who has the president's ear and trust more than anyone else. If she advises him to do or not do anything, I'm betting that carries more weight with him than what Preibus, Sessions, or even Bannon or Conway advise.
12/6/16, 2:21 PM


Then of course, attack her! Woodshed her, whatever that means. Adults do that, right? Yes, we lesser minds can only bow to your genius.

One reason for Trump to put his family in positions of power and influence is because, unlike the Republican establishment as embodied by Chuck, he can trust them. they understand him and he them. That said, possible pet projects aside, anybody thinking that Donald Trump is going to be led by the nose by his wives or children is not getting it.

Unknown said...

Michael K, when you stop being a horse's ass to any liberal who dares to comment here, I will then stop addressing you. It's your choice.

Unknown said...

Liberal Ivanka is more powerful than Trump himself. I love it.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Liberal Ivanka is more powerful than Trump himself. I love it."

Maybe Ivanka can use that power to stop the seas from rising. You know, like lefty-earth-messiah obambi did!

Obambi was also able to make red lines disappear!!

If obambi can stop the seas from rising and make public pronouncements disappear, why doesn't he just cool the earth?

#WhyDoCommunityOrganizersHateTheEarth??

Bad Lieutenant said...

Trumpit,

In Summary, I find Mr Adams to be basically a fool who spouts nonsense not unlike Trump himself.
12/6/16, 6:44 PM


If it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid.

If it's foolish but it successfully predicts the nomination and election of the President, it isn't foolish.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown, your tears and rage are so sweet.

You're not fooling anybody.

Original Mike said...

"Unknown: "How about draining the swamp? All those Goldman Sachs hires, hahahahahaha!""

The swamp isn't on Wall Street. It's in government.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Adams predicted a Trump win when idiots like Trumpit were laughing at him.

Who's the fool?

Trumpit, you and the "experts" you believed in were proved wrong one month ago and you have learned nothing from it.

Well, morons never learn from experience.

Unknown said...

Admit it, her influence over Trump makes you people nervous. She is a liberal woman interested in issues that are important to liberals. She is her father's favorite, obviously. She should and probably will keep her father from doing any of the crazy things he promised you dupes.

Unknown said...

Tears and rage? You dummy, I'm laughing at how things are progressing. Looks like Trump won't be doing anything without checking with Ivanka first. I'm not worried, but you should be.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Ah, I shouldn't be so hard on Unknown. She posted a zillion links here "proving" that TRUMP STOLE THE ELECTION!!! because of course, all those blue collar worker in PA, MI, and WI had no reason, no reason at all to vote against Hillary. She wet her pants when Jill Stein asked for recounts (I hear Trump picked up a few votes in Wisconsin BTW). She got her hopes up soooooo high but by now it's dawned even on her that the recounts will accomplish nothing except padding Jill Stein's bank account.

So now she's jumped on "Ivanka's in charge!!!"

Gee, I wonder if Ivanka picked Mattis and Bannon and Sessions and Priebus. If so, good for her. I can't wait to see who she picks to head the VA.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Ivanka's pick! Mad Dog Mattis! Yay!!!

Unknown, you sad, deluded fool. You brainless twit.

Michael K said...

"I can't wait to see who she picks to head the VA."

VA ? What's that ?

Even Google is looking for someone who can speak Republican.

The left, I refuse to call them "Liberal," is still wandering around in a daze.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I'm not nervous in the slightest. I've been happy and optimistic and filled chock full of schadenfreude for the past month.

Hey, dummy - we won, remember?

Unknown said...

I'm sure she and her husband have the final say, no matter who Trump surrounds himself with. He obviously trusts her more than any of the people he uses, then discards. She will always be in his life, they won't be.

Unknown said...

What is the funniest of all us that you people think you won. No dummy, liberals won. Trump is no conservative, neither is his daughter.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Hey, why is this Japanese dude talking about investing $50 billion in America?

Why didn't he do this during the past 8 years? Whatever could have happened to make him decide investing in America now is a good bet?

Michael K said...

"What is the funniest of all us that you people think you won."

I try to avoid feeding the troll but this is just too fat a target.

Let's watch what happens the next four years,

Delusions are not funny but it is hard not to laugh at fools. Even privately.

Unknown said...

Michael K, hopefully you'll still be here in four years.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"No dummy, liberals won. Trump is no conservative, neither is his daughter."

Yeah, they were rioting in Oakland the day after the election and screaming "not my president" because Trump's a liberal. College snowflakes needed puppies and coloring books and safe spaces because Trump's a liberal. You and Trumpit are having daily grand mal seizures in the comments section here because Trump is a liberal. Pence was booed because Trump is a liberal.

It's entertaining to see just how much you can lie to yourself and others. And it's not even a good, plausible lie. It's just rubbish you want desperately to believe.

Just wait til Trump starts picking Supreme Court Justices. You'll see how liberal he is.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Michael K, hopefully you'll still be here in four years."

He'll probably last far longer than you will. You're so filled with hatred and delusional lies, I expect you to burst a blood vessel in your rage one of these days.

Get that blood pressure checked, dearie. It must be sky-high right now.

Unknown said...

Flynn himself is next.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/politics/michael-flynn-son-trump.html?_r=0

"WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday fired one of his transition team’s staff members, Michael G. Flynn, the son of Mr. Trump’s choice for national security adviser, for using Twitter to spread a fake news story about Hillary Clinton that led to an armed confrontation in a pizza restaurant in Washington.

The uproar over Mr. Flynn’s Twitter post cast a harsh spotlight on the views that he and his father, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, aired on social media throughout the presidential campaign. Both men have shared fake news stories alleging that Mrs. Clinton committed felonies, and have posted their own Twitter messages that at times have crossed into Islamophobia."

Drago said...

Unknown: "She is a liberal woman interested in issues that are important to liberals"

LOL

Yes, a supposedly sentient being actually wrote that.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Yes, a supposedly sentient being actually wrote that.

12/6/16, 8:20 PM

SAVE US, IVANKA!!!!

Drago said...

Unknown: "What is the funniest of all us that you people think you won. No dummy, liberals won."

LOL

Well, that certainly explains all the lefty riots, self-admission to psych wards, refusal to accept the results of the election, threats to flee the country, weeks long crying sessions, public proclamations of fear and terror, massive proliferation of safe spaces (and playdoh/crayon/dolls/candle therapy) for the lefties and the non-stop criticism (dialed up to "11" over every tweet), etc.

Can you imagine what might have happened if the liberals had lost?!

Unknown said...

Oh mah lord, Mr. Exile, hahahaha! Laughing at you now. It's kind of pathetic how badly you want to see liberals gnashing their teeth and tearing their clothes. Sorry to disappoint you. It's you people who are in for a rude awakening, Trump isn't the popullist hero you think he is. He's been a Democrat and liberal for many years.

Drago said...

Unknown would do well to read this: "http://theweek.com/articles/665446/how-conservatives-outintellectualized-progressives".

But he/she won't, because...duh.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Can you imagine what might have happened if the liberals had lost?!

12/6/16, 8:25 PM

I will have a great deal of fun reminding Unknown over the next 4 years that she won.

I like it when the liberals win like this. The GOP controls the House, the Senate and most State governments. That's because the liberals won.

Drago said...

Unknown: "Oh mah lord, Mr. Exile, hahahaha! Laughing at you now. It's kind of pathetic how badly you want to see liberals gnashing their teeth and tearing their clothes."

Why didn't you just say so?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"It's kind of pathetic how badly you want to see liberals gnashing their teeth and tearing their clothes."

What the hell? I've been watching liberals gnashing and tearing their clothes for a month now. That's exactly why it was one of the best Novembers ever.

Bigly entertaining.

Drago said...

I am getting so tired of all this #Winning! Just as Trump promised!

When the conservatives win, I win!
When the liberals win, I win!

Thus far this Trump/Unknown era is aces! ACES I tellya!

Drago said...

I have to admit I have been partaking of The Young Turks pain-porn of late.

But I can quit anytime I want!! Really, I can!!

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
exiledonmainstreet said...

Drago, that's good, but this is my personal favorite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grD_IINiH9c

"The Sounds of Silence" is a nice touch.

Unknown said...


No I predict it will be liberals and Democrats who will be laughing the hardest. You folks are going to turn into liberals, just you wait. Old Trump will be in favor of one liberal policy after another and you people will not your heads in agreement. Trump is the Trojan Horse, that's my suspicion. After all, Bill Clinton told him to run for President, lol!

Lewis Wetzel said...

exiledonmainstreet said...
. . .
What the hell? I've been watching liberals gnashing and tearing their clothes for a month now.

And they will curse Comey, but not Hillary. No secret server, no Comey, no Trump president (by their lights). What an awful, horrible woman!
Don't be in denial, liberals! Trump is president because of Hillary's cupidity and her long-established history of combining private and public business into one giant money making machine for Hill and Bill.

Drago said...

Unknown: "No I predict it will be liberals and Democrats who will be laughing the hardest."

That thought and some warm cider should keep you comfortable this winter.

LOL

Unknown: "You folks are going to turn into liberals, just you wait"

Not unless you drop our IQ's down about 20 points and drag pods into our bedrooms while we sleep!!

mockturtle said...

Great link, Drago! Nothing cheers me more this Christmas than those beautiful memories!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Drago said...
I have to admit I have been partaking of The Young Turks pain-porn of late"

Watching the Young Turks on Election Night is like crack cocaine.

You learn stuff from that video too. Like Ben Mankiewicz informing us that "The Founding Fathers owned slaves and died in their 40's. They weren't geniuses."

Yeah, what is writing the Declaration of Independence compared to the glory that is Ben Mankiewicz?

Drago said...

Unknown: "Old Trump will be in favor of one liberal policy after another and you people will not your heads in agreement."

He still seems like "new Trump" to me.

If he just gives us about 5 things we want (including the supreme court, significant tax relief, repeals obamacare, etc) I can accept the rest.

We all knew we were getting a populist.

Well, not all of us knew that. The left was pretty obtuse about the wave that was coming to hit them....and the lefties, as demonstrated on this blog, show no signs of emerging from their intellectual cocoons...so that next wave will hit them again.

Unexpectedly!

mockturtle said...

Drago warned: Not unless you drop our IQ's down about 20 points and drag pods into our bedrooms while we sleep!!

Yeah, watch out for those pods!!!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 238   Newer› Newest»