If you do a Google image search for "broke me," you'll see something like this:
"Broke me" belongs in melodramatic speech about a love relationship. Where did that visualization of Trump come from? Kathy Griffin never had a love relationship Donald Trump — did she?! — so how could there have been an emotional reservoir from which "He broke me" could spring?
You might argue, it wasn't that kind of "broke me." It was like breaking a horse. She sees herself as a wild, untamed creature — galloping comedy, running free. And Trump tamed her. He got that saddle on her and he's riding her. No. I'm not seeing that.
She was in relationship mode. "He broke me" is of a piece with: I really loved him. But how can that make sense?! It made enough sense for her to stop and listen to herself and say it again and hear herself again and say it once more with overly passionate feeling, like a ham actress in a bad movie. Why?! Where did that come from?
One answer is: We (some of us) are experiencing Donald Trump as our boyfriend. We love him in a romantic way. It's easy to see that we felt like that about Obama. I wrote a post in 2014 about how I already had 54 post with my tag "Obama the Boyfriend." It is something that happens with political leaders, romantic fixation. It was especially strong with Obama, and we could see it and (often) confess to it, because he was outwardly so charming and attractive and we wanted to be seen loving him.
But Trump?! Could Trump's success — his bizarre, how-the-hell-did-that-happen? success — be explained as romantic love? Throughout the campaign season, I know, I always opposed Trump on the sheer merits, but I also observed myself rooting for him. It was absurd, and yet I saw it happening for months. I didn't want him to win, so what was this crazy elation when he did win? I asked myself that question over and over again and observed myself on the heightened scrutiny level of knowing I was doing it and that it was bizarre.
I'm not making a new tag for this. I'll just give it my old tag "Trump derangement syndrome." It's a love/hate relationship.
ADDED:
Posts
536 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 536 of 536TTR: "Yes you are - and you're using pejoratives and not understanding that evidence accumulates through repeated observation."
No I'm not.
At some point, your repeated observations must in time inform the development of a testable and falsifiable model which can "predict" future outcomes based on the complex variable inputs and, AND, when run in reverse "fit" the previously observed outcomes.
The current models do not.
They must constantly be significantly adjusted to "fit" the observable outcomes in the past and the astonishing lack of transparency with regards to the "raw" data, the "smoothed"/adjusted data and the models puts the lie to the "settled science" religious assertions.
Achilles:
Consider what can be attributed to a class based on principle or to individuals based on personal choice. All of those human and civil rights violations and criminal actions cited can be attributed to the American left through principled alignment and to individuals based on exceptions.
Americans, center and right, do not as a matter of principle (i.e. character) judge people based on the "color of their skin". That is a precept of the left's Pro-Choice religious/moral/legal philosophy.
TTR: "The eyewitnesses at Chernobyl told tales of how beautiful the sparkling electric blue aurorae were that swirled around the air outside of the buildings containing the reactor core."
Don't try laying the failure of the Soviet designed and operated graphite reactor failure at Chernobyl on anyone in the west.
That was a pure by-product of a Leftist Peoples Paradise.
For a lot of people, Kathy Griffin can't go wrong by blaming and criticizing Trump, no matter how ridiculous and unjustified the criticism. Dan Rather has been using this strategy as a way to put his scandal behind him, and it seems to be working for him.
Blogger Inga said...
"Full Moon seems to have gotten into the radioactive waste. And eaten it. Smeared it on his head, put it in his ears, up his nostrils. And in other orifices."
Some dogs bark, some snarl and some howl at the moon.
6/3/17, 2:12 PM
You guys are great! Making me smile. About the two dumbest, most childish insulterators imaginable. Gold, Jerry, gold!.
I kinda feel like a school yard bully, talking to you two. A nostalgic, but almost guilty pleasure.
Shhhhh, doggy, the moon is far away and won't hurt you.
David in Cal: "Dan Rather has been using this strategy as a way to put his scandal behind him, and it seems to be working for him."
Shhhh.
Inga thinks Rather is a "Brave Truth Teller".
That was one of the bigger instances of the left attempting to "hack" our democratic election processes with Fake News.
Rather's only mistake was pulling the trigger just about a week too early and the word got out that he and his gal pal had tried to pull a fast one on the American people.
Not to worry though lefties. Hollywood wrote the definitive air-brushed history on that one and they turned Rather and Mapes into "heroes".
"Brookzene keeps talking about Venezuela, apparently unaware that Venezuela signed the Paris Treaty: Nicaragua didn't. I guess all those south-of-the-border countries look the same to Brookzene, even when they're not on the same continent."
You are right. I mixed up Venezuela for Nicaragua.
Inga is apparently acquainted with dogs to some degree.
AGW, the Paris Accords, etc, not so much.
Drago:
re: Chernobyl meltdown
It was a quality control failure, which is a potential hazard not limited by ideology. Although, the centralized systems do operate with greater step sizes and in theory have an elevated risk of suffering catastrophic failure.
Brookzene: "You are right. I mixed up Venezuela for Nicaragua."
Why wouldn't Venezuela sign up for the Accords?
They con't have to do anything and they get free cash!
n.n: "Drago:
re: Chernobyl meltdown
It was a quality control failure, which is a potential hazard not limited by ideology."
You and I are going to have to agree to strongly disagree on whether or not ideologies which turn their people into slaves or more or less likely to be concerned with environmental hazards which could negatively impact their peoples health and safety.
Strongly disagree.
"Inga thinks Rather is a "Brave Truth Teller"."
Really, when did I discuss Dan Rather with you? My, but you are a manic doggy today.
"They con't have to do anything and they get free cash!"
This is your understanding of the Accords: everyone who signs them gets free cash from the United States. No wonder you are against them! You don't know anything about them.
I think Drago is trying to change the subject from AGW because TTR is cleaning Drago's clock.
Inga: "Really, when did I discuss Dan Rather with you? My, but you are a manic doggy today."
So todays complaint is that I'm posting too much. Right on top of your last complaint about my not posting enough for some reason.
I'm starting to think that it's not really about my posting frequency.
The saddest part for you, as it is everyday, is the relative frequency of anyone elses postings has no discernable impact on your base knowledge levels. You appear quite resistant to new knowledge acquisition and integration.
Inga: "I think Drago is trying to change the subject from AGW because TTR is cleaning Drago's clock."
Yes, its quite clear why you would come to that conclusion.
Kathy Griffin on Vulture, December 2016:
“... It’s not about trying to be an equal-opportunity offender anymore because Hillary got such a beat down. It’s his turn. So I’m happy to deliver beat down to Donald Trump — and also to Barron. You know a lot of comics are going to go hard for Donald, my edge is that I’ll go direct for Barron. I’m going to get in ahead of the game.”
I think Kathy Griffin deserves very bad thing that happens to her. She has earned it.
Secretary Mattis trolling Trump yesterday: "Bear with us. Once we have exhausted all the other possibilities we will end up doing the right thing."
Brookzene: "This is your understanding of the Accords: everyone who signs them gets free cash from the United States."
Actually, it's possible to explicitly derive what my understanding of the Accords is because I tell you explicitly what they are.
The Accords are a massive wealth transfer scheme masquerading as an attack on the dubious assertion that man-generated CO2 is a key driver for global climate change in a direction that is an existential threat to human existence.
Not all nations will receive free cash, just the vast majority of them who, simultaneously, don't have to do anything in the near term to reduce their emissions of CO2. In fact, most of them, the vast majority, get to create as much new CO2 as they like with the understanding that the US will cut its emissions to make up the gains elsewhere.
But go ahead and keep going. You're doing great though I can't predict how Inga will tie that information to canines.
Inga: "I think Drago is trying to change the subject from AGW because TTR is cleaning Drago's clock."
Toofless ran of to find solace inn his fudgepacker ice cream. Inga gonna meet up with Brother Buzz pretty soon.
Brookzene: "Secretary Mattis trolling Trump yesterday: "Bear with us. Once we have exhausted all the other possibilities we will end up doing the right thing."
He was not trolling Trump.
And apparently you are not fully up to speed on your Churchill quotes.
"Secretary Mattis trolling Trump yesterday: "Bear with us. Once we have exhausted all the other possibilities we will end up doing the right thing.""
That or trying to save his own ass. These honorable military men have a lot to lose if they get roped into defending Trump. They should resign and save their reputation.
"For a lot of people, Kathy Griffin can't go wrong by blaming and criticizing Trump, no matter how ridiculous and unjustified the criticism."
That's not what I saw following the coverage of this. I saw a lot of sane people who can't stand Trump for his lack of character who were really pissed at KG.
Inga: "They should resign and save their reputation."
LOL
Pissed at Trump for his lack of character, judgement, truthfulness, and education, that is. Hate to rub it in but...
At some point, your repeated observations must in time inform the development of a testable and falsifiable model which can "predict" future outcomes based on the complex variable inputs and, AND, when run in reverse "fit" the previously observed outcomes.
The planet cannot do this - for reasons that I figure would be obvious but apparently not. If you could order yourself another custom Earth #2 and conduct the same experiment with different variables - a control where we do not raise the atmospheric carbon by a third to an indefinite number, then you'd have yourself an experiment, my friend. But this is not practical and not ethical. There is no way to do the experiment differently because we only have one planet earth and can't get a bunch more to do this with.
So in the absence of "alternative evidence", scientists do the ethical thing. Take the sum of the evidence that's known about carbon chemistry, the evidence of how this happens on other planets/celestial bodies, the evidence of how things have changed from when carbon was low and cycled to higher concentrations to what we're doing with it now and the effect of all those on the temperature, and responsibly decide to stop the experiment and go back to a non-carbon polluting energy source such as those that are being developed. When you get too many early deaths in a drug trial, you stop the experiment. Too many adverse reactions with any medical intervention and or in the control group it's set up against, stop it - declare the results knowable enough to go ethically on what you know already, and proceed from there.
Brookzene: "I saw a lot of sane people who can't stand Trump for his lack of character who were really pissed at KG."
I would agree with your assessment of them being mad at KG. But the majority of complaints I saw did not centrally revolve around the act itself but instead how the act would play in a way to help Trump with those "stupid" "deplorables" and voters in general.
"He was not trolling Trump."
Sure he was.
"And apparently you are not fully up to speed on your Churchill quotes."
Nice try again, Brainiac.
Churchill Quotations for $500 Alex.
What is the latest attempt apologize to the world for Donald Trump's embarrassments from inside the White House?
That's it? 30 years ago, 49 immediate deaths. Wow, earth shattering anecdote. More likely to die by bee stings or shark attack.
6/3/17, 2:13 PM
Inga ignores the many, many Islamic terrorist attacks that have happened in the past 30 years but Chernobyl remains seared, seared in her memory. And the failures of Communist central planning mean that we should never consider nuclear energy.
"I would agree with your assessment of them being mad at KG. But the majority of complaints I saw did not centrally revolve around the act itself but instead how the act would play in a way to help Trump with those "stupid" "deplorables" and voters in general."
Aren't you trying to split some hairs here? Or do you really think we should all be like "I saw it television and I was sooo hurt and traumatized. Burn the witch!" I'm sure you were personally offended yourself.
Falsifiable used to be called "the principle of non-vacuous contrast" in phil 101. I think what was before Popper.
TTR, you wrote quite a bit but you fail to engage on the central point I am making: If the science were truly "settled", which your side has been screaming for quite some time now, we would be able to model in reverse what has happened because our understanding of the myriad of variables and factors and how those variables interact under different scenarios would be sufficient to match the already known past.
The models don't do that.
Thus, there must be significant variable ambiguity that still exists (we don't know all the important variables) AND we don't understand to a sufficient degree how those variables interact under different conditions.
You would have much more credibility if you admitted that instead of saying the "science is settled" ('cuz that would be a first, ever) and that no questioning of the theory is allowed and only a priestly caste of pre-approved voices can be listened to and that there are climate heretics who are competent climate scientists who must be driven from the forum all the while allowing the elites to act in ways contrary to the stated concerns while purchasing indulgences.
I have to admit that I am encouraged that more scientists feel emboldened to speak up about this REALITY of uncertainty and the degree of that uncertainty.
Brookzene: "Aren't you trying to split some hairs here?"
Well, yes. To be fair.
What does an Althouse thread converge to if you let it go on long enough without restarting it with another topic?
Godwin's law doesn't seem to apply here, I mean just taking it as an odd data point.
Are you people on crack today?
"Inga ignores the many, many Islamic terrorist attacks that have happened in the past 30 years but Chernobyl remains seared, seared in her memory. And the failures of Communist central planning mean that we should never consider nuclear energy."
Point out to me where I mentioned Chernobyl.
I scythed up a baby garter snake just now. Like all scythed snakes, it wound up straight atop the windrow to the left and scampered off, with an expression of surprise.
"The saddest part for you, as it is everyday, is the relative frequency of anyone elses postings has no discernable impact on your base knowledge levels. You appear quite resistant to new knowledge acquisition and integration."
Can't teach an old kitty new tricks...
Actually, it's pretty hard to teach a young kitty too.
Brookzene: "Churchill Quotations for $500 Alex.
What is the latest attempt apologize to the world for Donald Trump's embarrassments from inside the White House?"
The idea that you know what the Philosopher Warrior "Mad Dog" Mattis was attempting to do is laughable.
Oh, I see, it wasn't Inga, it was some other leftist dim bulb.
Inga: "Point out to me where I mentioned Chernobyl"
Inga is correct here. There is just about zero chance of Inga parroting anything that hasn't appeared on Maddow or Democrat Underground and there is zero chance of those lunatics knowing or understanding anything about that.
This is a case where Ingas demonstrated ignorance of anything except apparently canine allusions plays in her favor.
Did Griffin think up the stunt or was it imposed by her Hollywood masters? We'll never know.
One thing for sure is that she still doesn't think it's important to acknowledge that others besides Trump and his family were outraged. "He" broke me. Not "they" broke me - whatever she meant by broke" - but "he", one person. Trump. The outrage was wide and deep and "they" broke her. And, then, the people Griffin thought were backing her, backed off just like the people backing Colin Kaepernicke. Sad
Well, the Dem candidate for President did bark like a dog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovYnLL9Yow
TTR, you wrote quite a bit but you fail to engage on the central point I am making: If the science were truly "settled",
As a provisional form of knowledge, science is never "settled." But that doesn't mean that gravitation isn't "settled" enough to not build buildings upside-down. The settling is what people have settled on accepting as solid enough to proceed from. Some people figure that the moon landing isn't "settled." That the JFK assassination isn't "settled." It's about the definitions that people accept or, in the case of the right-wing, refuse to accept because they will never define them - as I stated. They will never say what needs to be found out about AGW for them to accept it because they emotional think the theory and reasoning is "evil".
For 97% of scientists to process that it's sound enough to not quibble with the basics, that's fine. The basics are all laid out there. We don't have the temperature extremes of space, the fluid dynamics of our atmosphere is what allows for that, and the heat capacities of the constituent components of that atmosphere are known. They're constants. So what was predicted - that increasing the most heat retaining of them will lead and has in the past has led to average temperature increases - is now coming to pass.
There is no p-value, there is no t-test, there are no hundreds of planet earths on which to run the experiment under the control variables to find out if you've got a 95% confidence level achieved. This is it. It's the best evidence we've got, and if the DOD and NASA - whose track record on learning and understanding and working with planetary bodies exponentially dwarfs that of Republican congress critters or their paymasters who fund them and the denialist industry - I say it's good enough for any decent person to accept.
"The saddest part for you, as it is everyday, is the relative frequency of anyone elses postings has no discernable impact on your base knowledge levels. You appear quite resistant to new knowledge acquisition and integration."
The saddest truth for you is that you have nothing of value to teach. It's canned right wing bullshit. I've heard it ad nauseum.
wildswan: "Did Griffin think up the stunt or was it imposed by her Hollywood masters?"
She probably consulted with Robbie Mook, Jennifer Palmieri and the rest of the outstanding Clinton team.
Inga: " It's canned right wing bullshit."
LOL
Inga still thinks that each nation didn't set their own targets in the Paris Accords!
She probably thinks there are "toothy" penalties for not hitting those targets too!
She is lost without a Colbert-like director telling her what to think.
Inga: "Point out to me where I mentioned Chernobyl"
Inga is OK with nuclear. Good to know
"The idea that you know what the Philosopher Warrior "Mad Dog" Mattis was attempting to do is laughable."
Oh I think it was pretty evident he was trying to excuse the buffoon Trump in front of the rest of the western world. A dim might have other ideas.
Fullmoon: "Inga is OK with nuclear. Good to know"
Nope.
She is good with Russian nuclear power. She would also be okay with islamic nuclear power.
American nuclear power? Not a chance.
Brookzene: "Oh I think it was pretty evident he was trying to excuse the buffoon Trump in front of the rest of the western world."
Oh, I have no doubt that you think you have the measure of Mattis' intellect and intent. Of that I have no doubt at all.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
TTR, you wrote quite a bit but you fail to engage on the central point I am making: If the science were truly "settled",
As a provisional form of knowledge, science is never "settled." But that doesn't mean that gravitation isn't "settled" enough to not build buildings upside-down. The settling is what people have settled on accepting as solid enough to proceed from. Some people figure that the moon landing isn't "settled." That the JFK assassination isn't "settled." It's about the definitions that people accept or, in the case of the right-wing, refuse to accept because they will never define them - as I stated. They will never say what needs to be found out about AGW for them to accept it because they emotional think the theory and reasoning is "evil".
For 97% of scientists to process that it's sound enough to not quibble with the basics, that's fine. The basics are all laid out there. We don't have the temperature extremes of space, the fluid dynamics of our atmosphere is what allows for that, and the heat capacities of the constituent components of that atmosphere are known. They're constants. So what was predicted - that increasing the most heat retaining of them will lead and has in the past has led to average temperature increases - is now coming to pass.
There is no p-value, there is no t-test, there are no hundreds of planet earths on which to run the experiment under the control variables to find out if you've got a 95% confidence level achieved. This is it. It's the best evidence we've got, and if the DOD and NASA - whose track record on learning and understanding and working with planetary bodies exponentially dwarfs that of Republican congress critters or their paymasters who fund them and the denialist industry - I say it's good enough for any decent person to accept.
6/3/17, 2:54 PM
Doom and gloom, but 49 people died 30 years ago because of poor engineering so we can never have nuclear power to easily solve the carbon problem. What a moronic contradictory position.
"Well, the Dem candidate for President did bark like a dog:"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WovYnLL9Yow
But she can't snarl like you. Try to learn how to make a hyperlink.
TTR: "For 97% of scientists to process that it's sound enough to not quibble with the basics, that's fine."
And here you go again.
Lets test this a bit, since we are all "reality based".
Who makes up the 97% of scientists?
What, exactly, do they agree about? Specifically.
What, exactly, do they not agree about? Specifically.
What is up with those other 3%? What is it they disagree about?
Jesus what's the moon-barker's obsession with nuclear energy? Was he Homer Simpson in a former life and in need of rehabilitating his contribution to the industry and its image? There are even other ways to make nuclear safer like reprocessing spent fuel but in the absence of that and given his inability to give a shit about what to do with the waste or how to make the earth seismically immune to Fukushimas he's just doing more of his chest-beating "I hate renewables!" routine. We might even develop thorium or come up with fusion. But you don't do those much more ambitious goals by declaring the most obvious and quickly developing innovations off-limits. Renewables are employing half a million in CA alone. Moon-barker thinks a fraction of those jobs in coal country need to be given golden calf treatment but wants to throw a much larger percentage of his own state's workforce out of work due to his hatred of how the energy industry works and is changing, or the left's and center's ability to embrace that. Weird.
Not only that, Drago - but you forgot to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Poll any number of scientist you can recruit to quibble with what I said about CO2, the atmosphere, other planets, heat retention and the relationship between historical fluctuations of CO2 and temperature and what is happening now. I predict that about, say, I don't know - 97% will agree with me.
If you can't attack any of those basics then I think we're done here. We were actually done before that, at the point where you refused to define what would get YOU to accept what everyone sensible sees as settled.
You have no personal definition, you have no stake - your arguments are not in good faith. I'd say sell them to the extraction industries but even they're seeing the writing on the wall now. You're just arguing to see where you can go with something that you yourself probably don't even believe and to stake the future of habitable human life on the planet on that is something that don't lack the morals and decency to do. We've already gone ten rounds on it. Find someone else.
I'm a scientist and I say climate science has no adult peer review, based on a couple of places climate science intersects stuff I know about.
TTR: "Not only that, Drago - but you forgot to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
Lets make it easier.
What specific study/survey/analysis established the 97% consensus and, simply, what methodology was used.
This should be a very simple question to answer since this has been bandied about for so long.
TTR, if you are going to assert a consensus, you ought to at least be able to refer to the base study/survey on which you base that.
Oh, well there's the one variant data point that you and the denailism industry rely on: Hardin. A guy with a questionable relationship to his chickens.
I think what Trump is doing, inadvertently, is revealing people to themselves, and it isn't flattering.
The country is on the edge of a precipice; people can see what they are doing and either stop or plunge headlong into the silliness that they are desperately trying to avoid looking at.
But they can't avoid it. It drives them to distraction.
I not only assert a consensus, I assert that you can't get a sizeable number to contest what I said specifically about CO2, heat-retention properties, astrophysics, the water cycle, and every other bit that those of you who refuse to define the evidence that would satisfy you might decide to look knowledgeable enough to reject without expectation of laughter.
If you won't say what evidence YOU want to see, then I have no reason to debate YOU. You're arguing on someone else's behalf. Apparently without pay.
I'm not getting paid, I just like this planet and the state in which it's more or less existence since settled habitation. If you don't, then boy I guess we're not going to find much to agree on.
TTR: "If you won't say what evidence YOU want to see..."
I simply asked which study/survey you based your 97% consensus assertion on.
That's it.
That was all.
And you're pitching a bit of a fit.
I find that interesting.
Blogger The Toothless Revolutionary said...
to stake the future of habitable human life on the planet on that is something that don't lack the morals and decency to do.
But if the choice is between nuclear and killing the planet and everything on it, you go with killing the planet. Genius.
And, is there some evidence research and development on renewable energy is coming to a halt? Jeez, you're dumb.
That 97% is bullshit. Everybody knows it. Been debunked for years.
AReasonableMan said... 6/3/17, 10:57 AM
19 instances of right-wing terrorist attacks causing 51 fatalities since September 11, 2001.....
A 2010 suicide attack by airplane in Austin, Texas (1 killed)
The Insane Manifesto Of Austin Texas Crash Pilot Joseph Andrew Stack.
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
Very few people residing in the real world would consider the above to come from a "right-wing terrorist."
Since you asked:
1. You can't solve the Navier Stokes equations, which govern the atmosphere. In three dimensions, motions go to smaller and smaller scales, leaving any computational grid inadequate. You need the small scale motions because they act back on large scale motions as a sort of ersatz viscosity. Climate science deals with this by introducing "effective viscosity." That isn't physics and it doesn't work. A peer reviewer would point that out very fast.
(In two dimensions the motions do not cascade towards the small, and in fact something called vorticity is conserved and provides a method of solving the NS equations in two dimensions. In two dimensions, vortices cannot kink; in three, they can and do. Weather prediction code is good for about as along as it takes major vortices to kink.)
2. You can't distinguish a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle you have to eliminate. The eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode and render every data point useless for the purpose. This is a hard mathematical fact. Climate science though is always finding trends and not cycles. Curious, since aeons of cycles is what there's evidence of in the past. Another peer reviewer point that's never made.
So, I'd estimate, 97% of climate scientists would believe anything. Peer review in actual science is much harder to get past.
Furthermore, the claims made in abstracts — short summaries of academic papers — often differ from those made in the papers themselves. And Oreskes’s analysis did not take up whether scientists who subscribe to anthropogenic global warming think the phenomenon merits changes in public policy.
97 percent myth
"What does an Althouse thread converge to if you let it go on long enough without restarting it with another topic?
Godwin's law doesn't seem to apply here, I mean just taking it as an odd data point."
I'm beginning to think that Godwin was an optimist. Since mid-2016 and the influx of more energetic but stupider lefty commenters, all Althouse threads show a marked propensity to converge on the exact same set of people spitting the exact same set of childish insults at each other.
The old guard isn't blame-free either – haven't you people been on the Internet long enough to realize that arguing with idiots is a fool's errand?
That's it.
That was all.
And you're pitching a bit of a fit.
I find that interesting.
You know what I find interesting? The future of life and civilization on this planet.
What an interesting moment for you to get carried away in with such philosophical abstractions as the unknowable nature of reality. We don't have a different take on science (if you even have one), or largely held, reasonable, well-informed opinions. We have an interest in and concern for the future of life and civilization on this planet that I share with many if not most people, and that you don't. And that's what it comes down to. You asserting your right to not only be a nihilistic postmodernist, but to specifically employ postmodernist nihilism to attack science and any interest in its role in keeping human civilization and the life it depends on sustainable. That's what bothers you.
You're worried about something you can't calculate but with enormous financial and political power. How is that likely to operate, in a typical social setting.
I mean with other than disinterested scientists.
It's sort of like a free market but without the mutual gain for people not working the system, in structure.
Okay, we'll chalk that one up to you simply repeating the 97% consensus number without having looked into what that actually meant.
Personally, I find the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency survey interesting since it was conducted in 2015 and surveyed 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields.
Now, that survey of climate scientists revealed that 30% of respondents believe that less than half of the observed global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity or that they did not know.
Here's the link:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
You know TTR, in my education (quite technical) and work experience I was always required to demonstrate, with evidence, that what I was asserting could be validated on a technical and financial basis so perhaps it just comes more naturally to me to proceed from an evidence basis as opposed to appeal to authority basis that you demonstrate.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
You know what I find interesting? The future of life and civilization on this planet.
Unless the solution is the evil nuclear power. Let 'em die, you say, no nuclear because-storage.
@ TTR
Can the computer models that predict the future be used to trace what we ALREADY KNOW happened in the past.
Yes or no, if you please.
Inga, I would strongly discourage you from reading the document at the link. You'd be lost in the first few sentences.
On the other hand, I'm sure you have a couple of canine quips you'd like to use at this point so you can feel as though you are "contributing".
Birkel: "@ TTR
Can the computer models that predict the future be used to trace what we ALREADY KNOW happened in the past.
Yes or no, if you please."
The answer is no, which is why TTR deflected to the we-don't-have-another-planet-for-testing-purposes ploy.
We don't even have a handle on what the extent of what we don't know happens to be.
But the "science is settled", or something.
Drago said...
n.n: "Drago:
re: Chernobyl meltdown
It was a quality control failure, which is a potential hazard not limited by ideology."
You and I are going to have to agree to strongly disagree on whether or not ideologies which turn their people into slaves or more or less likely to be concerned with environmental hazards which could negatively impact their peoples health and safety.
Strongly disagree.
Communist ideology believes that the perfect man can be created through social engineering. Western ideology, heavily influenced by Christian thought, recognizes all men as being imperfect. The perfect man can operate anything, however touchy and twitchy, safely, because the perfect man doesn't make mistakes. In the West, engineers believe firmly in Murphy's Law.
The graphite reactor design in Chernobyl has a positive temperature co-efficient of reactivity. What this means is- if the temperature goes up, you get more reactions, which drives the temperature up further, which causes more reaction, and if you lose control for even a little bit- you're not getting it back.
All U.S. licensed reactors are required to have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. As temperature goes up, fewer reactions occur, lowering the heat added, so temperature starts to drop, or adds less rapidly. If you lose control, it tends to self correct. Hence, at Three Mile Island, despite the reactor operators best attempts at causing a full meltdown, they weren't able to succeed. They weren't actually trying to cause a full meltdown, but many of the actions they took would have been taken if they had been trying to. They forgot a basic rule which led them astray. Unless you have a very good reason to believe your instruments are lying, they're telling the truth. There were a bunch of temperature reading pegged high, and the operators assumed they were lying. The instruments were pegged high, because the readings were high out of their calibrated range, because even under the worst imagined operating circumstances, the temperature WASN'T SUPPOSED TO GET THAT HIGH. I forget which corollary to Murphy's Law it is, but no matter what mistakes you plan for, someone is going to make one you didn't think of.
Computer models tuned on the past do very well predicting the past. They get it exactly.
In a curious paradox, unless the physics is actually right in the model, the better it does with the past the worse it does with the future.
It's the curve-fitting paradox.
Gospace: "The graphite reactor design in Chernobyl has a positive temperature co-efficient of reactivity. What this means is- if the temperature goes up, you get more reactions, which drives the temperature up further, which causes more reaction, and if you lose control for even a little bit- you're not getting it back."
You have just described the positive feedback loop the AGW alarmists claim exists relative to CO2 levels in our atmosphere even though CO2 and Methane levels LAG (not LEAD) increasing temperatures in the past.
But hey, the "science is settled" and don't you heretics ask any more questions lest we break out the burning stake to drive the point home for you.
@ rhhardin
I defer to you in some regards. However, I know the predictive models do quite a terrible job tracing the past. And the models that trace the past accurately have widely varying predictions about the future.
Paradox, indeed.
Until one introduces the "trying to amass power by present-day politicians" variable. Then the equations yield 97% agreement within the politician/scientist population.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Renewables are employing half a million in CA alone
And the utilities are begging consumers to stop using power just prior to the upcoming partial eclipse because all those solar cells producing all that wonderful solar generated electricity in the middle of the day- are going to stop. And they're producing enough power that online conventional power sources can't just ramp up and cover the sudden loss.
That just means they didn't tune them on the past. They could have.
The models have all sorts of coefficients that need values, knobs as it were.
You can formalize running the past through and finding the values for all the knobs that match the past best. If you have enough knobs, you can match the past perfectly.
Essentially you're curve fitting.
As with fitting the DJIA's last 100 values with a degree 99 polynomial, you exactly reproduce the DJIA for those 100 points. The 101st point will be wildly, extremely and hopelessly wrong.
If you'd used a degree 1 polynomial, you'd miss the 100 points somewhat but the 101st point would be reasonable.
Better in the past, worse in the future, unless the model's physics is right.
Since the sun will go supernova at some point, TTR, we need to get off it ASAP.
The continents will also collide.
And the moon is slowly moving away from us and we need that ball to balance us.
I can't believe you didn't know that.
Don't you watch any sciency stuff?
Our destiny is in the stars.
Fund the Mission to Mars!
The final frontier, baby!
These poor children, throwing a tantrum in the middle of ToysRus, noticed by everyone, and everyone looking somewhere else, mother totally lost, not a mother at all. These folks are costing the party every election for the next decade if not more, similar to Roosevelt cleaning the table until until Reagan. We are entering the Trump era, where people and their pride of self matter more than a village with their street commissars. probably a dynasty no less. Anchored by this kind of behavior that we all turn our eyes away from and walk in the other direction. Pretty sad state. Next A Bernie party. Not only are they the stupid party, they are the party of stupid bullies. And no one likes a bully. As. T. said long ago "this isn't hard, "just care about outcomes, not the how. Why buy everyone a home, when it can't make them middle class. Measuring the wrong things get you wrong outcomes. Pubs may be stupid but they now how to measure. It's not the number food stamps, but the people raised out of poverty because there are a lot of jobs to choose from so they don't need food stamps
I'm sending all my stuff in morse code. It will reach Aldebaran's planet in 50 years, where it will be safe.
Already stuff I sent as a 12yo is safely there, though scribblings of limited value probably.
@ rhhardin
I understand exactly what you are saying. It's why people who use charts to project the future of the stock market have no better odds of prediction that do monkeys throwing darts. Chaotic systems might not look chaotic if we fully understood all the inputs. We don't.
GIGO
TTR: "Renewables are employing half a million in CA alone"
At what cost and crowding out what other jobs?
The Soviet Union and East Germany had "full employment". How'd that work out?
And let me guess, you'll try to argue that those examples are terrible since the "renewables jobs" are not equivalent.....until you consider that without government is the one forcing it down the markets throat and subsidizing it like crazy at the cost of other options.
rhhardin, You ought to sharpen your scythe.
It's razor sharp but snakes offer no resistance. They just go with the grass.
You know TTR, in my education (quite technical) and work experience I was always required to demonstrate, with evidence, that what I was asserting could be validated on a technical and financial basis so perhaps it just comes more naturally to me to proceed from an evidence basis as opposed to appeal to authority basis that you demonstrate.
Like I said - go produce a second or second set of hundred earths upon which to play out the control conditions for these variables and there's the evidence that you - as a postmodern nihilist unconcerned with the future of sustainable life on the planet lest it disrupt your gleeful disregard - must be clamoring for.
You've devolved into ad hominems and the nutcase idea that one planet must be made into an engineer's system simply in order to accept what all the chemical and physical and geologic and biologic evidence tells us. You have this fallacy of pretending that you must know "EVERYTHING" about something in order to know some things - even quite important things - about it. That's asinine. You can call that an appeal to authority but it's simply an appeal to the evidence that's actually, you know, there - as opposed to the evidence that you must have been waiting for, if you could ever define what it would look like.
And it's also the priority you lack when it comes to life in general. You have some authority that says the history of human destruction of the environment has been self-correcting without regulation, when it hasn't. Because you're certainly not listening to the evidence on that.
You're being a technocrat. Obviously the earth in the state that brought about agriculture and sustained civilization is not a value of yours. Where's your systematic technical financial basis for insisting that human activity can never mess those things up.
It doesn't exist. You're arguing non-evidence against evidence and then claiming that the evidence you don't like is not as sound as your non-evidence. Like I said, not worth debating.
I have a debilitating condition. Every time I hear or read someone talking from authority that comply or we and our children will all die." That D@mn Monty Python loop "Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition kicks in. It sure gets old. All these childish tantrums save when it has real costs. Like disaappearing a great man like Michael Crichton who truly loved us all, every man woman and child, book burning and the like (and preventing the the earth reaching its max carrying capacity of intellects necessary when we are forced to us to find shelter on the planets and travel to the stars. Guess what the max carrying capacity is? All the world's population today could live in multi story spacious condos, schools offices hospitals, and factories and the malls and parks could be built into the walls of the Grand as well as the Thorium MSRs needed to power it all in better than Bronx comfort. plus be fed to excess.. And If you like to use glass (melted and recast) you could do the same on big island of Hawaii with room to spare,leaving the rest of the world vacant save for farms. Just like allowing people to vote with their wallets is just abhorrent to many. So what is Capital about capitalism? I won't bother since most of you just won't care. and "worse' here I as speaking from authority, so here comes those d@mn cardinals in red hats again. What's even more embarrassing is what their production budget for a year was less than a weeks food service for today's productions and shows. Such is life and the human condition, embrace it, love it and do the best you can and we'll love you for it, good and bad. Says my mother, speaking from her edge of the martian crater.
My guess: it was just something Gloria Aldred (or is it her daughter?)told her to say in hopes of swinging public sentiment. It doesn't actually mean anything, at least in this case.
TTR: "Like I said - go produce a second or second set of hundred earths upon which to play out the control conditions for these variables and there's the evidence that you..."
Uh, the models should work in reverse for already known data points. They don't.
I don't blame you for studiously avoiding that point.
You use lots of words to avoid that. For obvious reasons.
You can't even tell us which survey you rely on for your 97% consensus assertion. The reality is you don't have one. You simply accepted, at face value, that assertion and lets face it, that is an easy one to say, wait just a minute, let me drill down here for about 5 minutes (because that's all it takes).
But the "science is settled", or something.
Well, that's what YOU say (still deceptively pretending away my 2:54 PM post), and you do it to distract from your implied assertion that your own NON-SCIENCE is superior, or settled, or whatever you call it. But this isn't some dopey engineer's project where you have to perfect the precision but are way off the mark in terms of accuracy. You've ignored away all the valid premises, denied the conclusion, neglected to produce a single countervailing bit of reasoning, let alone a theory or argument, and all in the service of a utopian, fictive ideal of perfectly precision perfect systems-based knowledge that perhaps comprises some dopey standard in your field but that people who have no other option but to go off of common sense and every bit of available knowledge (instead of the unavailable knowledge that you prefer) would be destructive postmodernist nihilists to avoid or dismiss.
Your priorities are simply different. You hate the natural world and insist on applying the standards of anal-retentive project management with no actual goal to the entire planet.
TTR: "You have some authority that says the history of human destruction of the environment has been self-correcting without regulation, when it hasn't."
I do?
That's great!
Uh, who was that authority again?
@ TTR
Is "you're being a technocrat" supposed to be an insult? Are conservatives supposed to be disarmed by that sort of verbal slight?
TTR: "Well, that's what YOU say (still deceptively pretending away my 2:54 PM post), and you do it to distract from your implied assertion that your own NON-SCIENCE is superior, or settled, or whatever you call it."
I do?
That's great!
Uh, what was that non-science I've been asserting as superior again?
Uh, the models should work in reverse for already known data points. They don't.
I don't blame you for studiously avoiding that point.
You use lots of words to avoid that. For obvious reasons.
The reasons are obvious. The more you ignore the more of what you ignore I'll write.
Who needs models anyway? The data is in plain sight.
You can't even tell us which survey you rely on for your 97% consensus assertion. The reality is you don't have one. You simply accepted, at face value, that assertion and lets face it, that is an easy one to say, wait just a minute, let me drill down here for about 5 minutes (because that's all it takes).
I'll leave you to fixate on that part. The part where you think scientists suddenly became paid-for engineers and created the planet on their own. And are therefore beholden to explaining every aspect of it while being told that the aspects of it that they do know must be thrown out until they do.
Which again, is stupid bullshit. Some evidence is impressive enough to act on without indulging some anal-retentive engineer's pretended, utopian need to know every single bit of information about his "system" - as if that were even possible.
You'd be a real charm in a clinical trial. Rejecting calls to end a trial early no matter how many people it was killing or however many people left it for intolerable side effects. "STOP! YOU MUST CONTINUE! THE NUMBERS AREN'T THERE YET!"
ROFLMAO.
TTR: "The reasons are obvious."
Yes, they are.
Uh, what was that non-science I've been asserting as superior again?
The non-science of your project management engineering the earth.
TTR: "The part where you think scientists suddenly became paid-for engineers and created the planet on their own."
Note again: TTR was simply asked what survey he based his acceptance on the 97% consensus figure.
In order to avoid that question, everyone else becomes a nihilistic hater of life on Earth.
I wonder if that was a successful tactic employed by TTR to avoid test taking in school.
Once engineers contribute more knowledge than scientists is when I'll take seriously their claim to knowing better when to stop or start messing with the natural variables of the earth - which they see as a system that is either completely under human control or under no human control at all. But nothing in between.
science: temperature data from surface stations that are manipulated before the data is fed into models that cannot track the past known data but somehow manage to predict the future, only costing a few trillion dollars to fight
non-science: satellite data that showed warming of Venus, Earth and Mars until 1998 and shows all three planets not warming since
I like this game.
TTR: "The non-science of your project management engineering the earth."
Outcome: The models don't work in reverse.
Hypothesis: Drago must be some sort of engineering project manager.
In order to avoid that question, everyone else becomes a nihilistic hater of life on Earth.
Nope. You became that twenty comments back when you avoided defining your terms of debate.
TTR: "Nope. You became that twenty comments back when you avoided defining your terms of debate."
I simply asked you what you based your acceptance of the 97% consensus assertions.
I wonder if that was a successful tactic employed by TTR to avoid test taking in school.
Oh yeah. Speak for yourself and whatever avoidance tactics you love to carry out. You're the one who can't even define what you think of as an acceptable stake when it comes to tinkering with the variable inputs into planetary ecosystems.
You're about as trustworthy a test proctor as Torquemada.
I simply asked you what you-
And I simply asked you about a thousand other things pertinent to the discussion that you just ignored or dismissed.
So I figure the balance sheet allows me at least one or two things out of your many irrelevant distractions to brush away.
Your whole taking on the issue at hand is about how much you can deny away, anyway. So whining about whatever you persist on that I don't have time for is especially rich and hypocritical. As usual.
TTR: "You're the one who can't even define what you think of as an acceptable stake when it comes to tinkering with the variable inputs into planetary ecosystems"
My position is that there are significant gaps in our understanding of what, exactly, all the critical variables are and what the interactions of those critical variables between each other are which is demonstrated, conclusively, by the failure of the models to approximate past known climatic conditions.
QED
The models don't work so I hate the planet. #ImpenetrableLogic
I wonder how all those satellites got into geosynchronous orbit.
Probably more of that non science.
TTR: "And I simply asked you about a thousand other things pertinent to the discussion that you just ignored or dismissed"
So the rule is I ask one question and that question is to be ignored until your thousands of questions are answered to your satisfaction.
Got it.
@ Drago
The only important value is whether centralized government absorbs more power unto itself. The measurements are clear on that variable.
Leftists, man.
My position is that there are significant gaps
Significant to what exactly? Significant to someone for whom no evidence is obviously good enough? That's not a standard worth engaging.
in our understanding of what, exactly, all the critical variables are-
Here they are:
1. Temperature-regulating gases
2. How much more of them are in the atmosphere.
Pretty complicated, huh?
-and what the interactions of those critical variables between each other are which is demonstrated,
Oh, three gases. I think we know how they interact with each other well enough to know what MORE of one will do.
And what are you saying anyway? That N2 and O2 and CO2 chemically react with another enough to change the issue? HIlarious.
conclusively,
Again, define "conclusively," Mr. No Science is ever completely settled.
Fuck. Simply define what you mean by conclusively. What does "conclusively" mean to the only person whose opinion on the fate of the nature of the planet matters: Drago.
..by the failure of the models to approximate past known climatic conditions.
There was no failure. Ice core measurements of CO2 align remarkably smoothly with what is known about past climate.
You are missing the forest for some invented trees that you are hallucinating in your field of vision, anyway. Why does Venus have a higher surface temperature than Mercury? Again, another blindingly obvious insight into the relationship you're denying.
QED
Not quite.
The models don't work so I hate the planet.
I don't even know what "models" you're talking about and it's obvious that you think planetary conditions are worth tinkering with for the heck of it without proving conclusively that they're not changing things unsustainably. The burden of proof is on the tinkerer when it comes to something that big. Not on us planetary conservatives. As such, you've proved that you don't value sustainable planetary conditions. Would you accept someone subjecting one of your kids to an experiment without them showing the proof of how safe a reasonable person can expect it to be? If yes, then you hate/don't care about your kid. Same with what you're doing to the atmosphere.
So the rule is I ask one question and that question is to be ignored until your thousands of questions are answered to your satisfaction.
Got it.
You could simply answer a single one of those thousands if proving your good-faith engagement with the issue mattered to you.
But I guess they overwhelmed you so ignored them all.
TTR: "
Here they are:
1. Temperature-regulating gases
2. How much more of them are in the atmosphere.
Pretty complicated, huh?"
Well, you ought to contact all those model creators because apparently you possess insight they clearly lack.
Kind of insulting to them really. It's all so simple, so why do the models keep coming up wrong?
It could be that there are "signficant" variables and variable interaction understanding gaps, or it could be that there are project managers in the world who want everyone to die.
I admit your "logic" does go round the bend here and there.
TTR: "You could simply answer a single one of those thousands if proving your good-faith engagement with the issue mattered to you."
Says the guy who wouldn't answer my one simple question which doesn't involve anything remotely complicated.
Why do Project Managers hate the world and want it to die?
Perhaps the Russians are commanding it thru their Macedonian intermediaries.
Here are the things that matter: Atmospheric gases, the amount of the atmosphere they compose, their heat capacity.
But apparently Drago wants to construct a diorama out of them. Or some type of a "model."
Here's the thing: You use the word "model" to propose that something more complex or complicating than it is is what's been studied and concluded.
How much study is required to know if you'd rather insulate your house with polyurethane or Pepsi?
You're either being intentionally obtuse or assuming that more overcomplication needs to go into something than is necessary.
As Einstein said: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
You can't figure out how complicated you want things to be. Just complicated enough to deny basic physical relationships that you can't change and won't be able to change. Unless you lived in an alternative universe.
Says the guy who wouldn't answer my one simple question which doesn't involve anything remotely complicated.
Or even pertinent - assuming you understand the basic scientific principles involved as well as you'd like me to believe.
I didn't particularly want Kathy Griffin fired -- but it was necessary.
I actually envy her lack of inhibition and total feeling of freedom. She felt she could do whatever she wanted, so long as it broke no laws.
I'd like to feel that way. But I can't.
I can't feel that way, because I know the progressive mob is always scalp-hunting, and that I am not free to say or think as I might like.
They rule part of my brain -- my very fear of them limits my thoughts, creates inhibitions and limitations in me which I did not choose for myself, but were forced upon me from without.
I have become, partly, a recruit in the Social Justice Warrior army. Their dicta, their demands, their fury is always alive inside of me.
I know to fear them. And so I must self-censor.
My fear of their power makes part of my own brain their appointed warden for the rest of my head.
So a big part of my anger is in seeing Kathy Griffin act as a totally free spirit and free agent, able to do what she likes just because she thinks it's funny, or "edgy," or whatever.
It makes me angry to see her living a life where she can just do something without fearing the consequences -- but I can't.
And neither can you.
My hatred of Kathy Griffin isn't a hatred of her -- it's a hatred of the vicious caste-based system which says she has more rights than Sean Hannity, and more rights than you, and more rights than me.
If keeping some of my diminished amount of freedom means that I have to thuggishly begin taking it from others -- so be it.
I didn't make the rules.
TTR: "Renewables are employing half a million in CA alone"
2015 Total System Electric Generation in Gigawatt Hours for California. In 2015, California consumed 295,405 GWh. California In-state generation accounted for 196,195 GWh. Over a third of California's 2015 electricity consumption- 33.6%- was imported from out of state.
@ TTR
Are the sun's normal cycles important in your analysis as to whether or not the central government accrues more power? I'm relatively certain if the sun is going through a minimum -- such as the Maunder minimum -- the models about what is happening in the Earth's atmosphere will require more power be delivered to the central government.
I'm also relatively certain that if the sun is about to produce much more energy the answer will be an accrual of power to the centralized government.
Grab your carry on.
@Birkel - I think that went right over TTR's head. His understanding of the "science" seems to begin and end with "CO2,is a greenhouse gas", and so we are all going to die. Never mind that when solar energy, volcanic activity, Pacific currents, and CO2 are tested, the other three statistically almost completely explain the rise I temperature with essentially one of it ring depedet on CO2 concentration. Or that without the positive feedback from the models that he ignores, and ignoring everything else, the greenhouse warning from CO2 alone is essentially negligible.
What a strange thread. Somehow it's gotten into Global Warming, Paris Treaty, Chernobyl, Solar Energy, Communism, China, Socialism, and Venezuela.
And I thought the original post on the use of "he broke me" was enough to comment on.
The more I read on Kathy Griffin, I am still not 100% grocking why this was the straw that broke the camel's back.
She has tried so hard to be edgy politically including:
1. Insulting Sarah Palin's son with Down Syndrome.
2. Saying she would go after Baron instead of his Father.
3. Comments about GWB when he was President.
And enough other people have called for Trump's assassination. Or the use of GWB head on spike in Game of Thrones.
Is the back lash because of Isis had made beheading super evil? Vs. the classical Greek image of the Medusa's head cut off?
ISIS condemns Kathy Griffin for cultural appropriation
Or because the right has started to start online mobs against unacceptable behavior, as the Left has done for quite a while?
Or because Trump's response has been so restrained?
And on a sadder note, the Rodeo Clown who made fun of Obama, has had a very hard time financially after.
https://dailyheadlines.net/2017/06/exclusive-interview-with-tuffy-gessling-life-after-the-obama-mask/
On Solar - Huge Fan, but we need to go back to the R&D stage to make the cost lower so it's more competitive. Cost reduction has been very exciting, but more is needed. And storage is an issue that is ignored, with battery technology so far badly lagging the advances. Putting Solar into production that the technology is not cost competitive does not make sense to me. Yes, I know that the more you produce the lower the cost. And China has done an amazing job of reducing cost. I have also read a few years ago of the toxic issues in production of solar cells (semiconductor doping uses a lot of not very nice chemicals). A huge area of energy efficiency, that is reducing electricity demand, is LED lighting, amazing costs reductions have taken place there.
Chernobyl - No idea about the technology, but for some reason Communism had a huge negative environmental impact. East Germany vs. West Germany is a sad example of that. For core science, the USSR had a great reputation. There seems to be some exciting developments in Nuclear that I hope work out - Pebble Reactors, etc. And Fusion seems to be, as usual, another 10 years away.
China - still in the low margin commodity part of production with a lot of challenges ahead. Where the US is higher up on the value chain. China's has advantages and disadvantages vs. the US economy. We will see what happens in the next few years - I pray both do well. Amazing the reduction in poverty in China.
Venezuela - My prayers for the common people, and I believe the US should stay out of it.
Paris Treaty - Each US state can choose their own path. Texas can go one direction, and CA another. The beauty of Federalism. I suggest check back in 4 years to see what happens. Will Trump get a 2nd term? Will the US economy improve? Will the US continue to reduce emissions due to fracking, while Europe is shown to be hypocrites in actual reductions, and the Asia and Africa emissions increase dramatically? The great thing in the US system, is every 2-4 years, through voting, you can change the countries direction theoretically if the average voter feels we are going in the wrong direction. I would group myself in the Scott Adams block, I agree with his comments on the economic issues.
Renewable drivers, throwaway technology, intermittent energy production, large-scale environmental disruption. The green blight. It's probably sufficient to power abortion chambers and Planned Parenthood.
His understanding of the "science" seems to begin and end with "CO2,is a greenhouse gas",
Nothing else is as relevant to the issue.
..and so we are all going to die.
Glad you find that funny. I guess we can now safely conclude that you're not worth discussing this with. Unless you're sure the consequences are serious, you can't engage. So don't.
Never mind that when solar energy, volcanic activity, Pacific currents, and CO2 are tested, the other three statistically almost completely explain the rise I temperature with essentially one of it ring depedet on CO2 concentration.
Yes, I will nevermind them because they've all ben debunked.
Or that without the positive feedback from the models that he ignores, and ignoring everything else, the greenhouse warning from CO2 alone is essentially negligible.
Denialists misuse terminology like nobody's business. Talk about a positive feedback loop. The warming is causing the release of more methane. But it's hard to see ice melting when ideology blinds you to the facts and evidence all around you.
533 comments and counting. This is absurd.
534,Luke
rcocean said...
I find some much of the new jargon weird and off-putting. "He broke me" "woke" "White privilege".
Sounds like it came from people who speak English as a 2nd language.
6/3/17, 10:55 AM
👍 Newspeak, brother.
@ Ray
My operating theory is that Kathy Griffin did not go rogue on this issue, but rather was the willing pawn used to develop a Sistah Souljah moment. If that is true - and it's a theory based on what I know of the past behaviors of the establishment Leftists - then your queries are answered.
@ TTR
Your belief that solar cycles are unimportant is amusing in its absolute disavowal of facts. Warming was detected - by satellites - on Venus, Earth and Mars. The warming on those planets occurred in parallel up to 1998. Since 1998 each of the three planets has shown no warming. And to Leftists a base desire to accumulate power to a centralized government is more important than the recognition that the sun doesn't give a shit about your ignorance.
Grab your carry on.
Bad Lieutenant said...
rcocean said...
I find some much of the new jargon weird and off-putting. "He broke me" "woke" "White privilege".
Sounds like it came from people who speak English as a 2nd language.
6/3/17, 10:55 AM
cisgender, along with cismale and cisfemale.
One is either male or female. Don't need additional letters to identify as such. If you're one or the other, but refuse to recognize reality, then you can add modifiers. But I'm not going to play the game and call myself anything other then male.
Post a Comment