Sorry for the low rate of posts this summer. Lots of offline life going on. ;-)
Meantime, this paper by Hourdin et al on climate model tuning is very interesting and harks back to the FAQ we did on climate models a few years ago (Part I, Part II). Maybe it’s worth doing an update?
Some of you might also have seen some of the discussion of record temperatures in the first half of 2016. The model-observation comparison including the estimates for 2016 are below:
It seems like the hiatus hiatus will continue…
PS for Thomas, you should really read through a few pages of the results to get the whole picture.
Try this search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Wessex+institute%22+journal+bogus%3F
Mike, #289–
“In the time frame that IPCC 4 was suggesting ice-free by 2100 and Wang et al were predicting (their word, btw) 2037, I believe Wadhams was predicting/suggesting ice-free arctic by 2020.”
FWIW, Wadhams has repeatedly endorsed the 2007 Maslowski projection of ‘ice free in 2016, plus or minus 3 years.’ It was reported on in quite a few places–for instance, the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
This was distorted by denialists, especially after the minimum of 2013 showed some rebound from the 2012 minimum–they quoted it with the rest of the prediction window suppressed. (I have no idea how many times I’ve corrected that part of the meme, but it’s a lot by now!)
Dr. Maslowski’s work was based on a regional computer model:
Of course, the prediction window on this forecast closes after the minimum of 2019–only 3 months before 2020 dawns, give or take, so pretty close to what you said.
As to Dr. Wadhams, I think he does tend to overstate a bit. For instance, he said in the story quoted upthread that many people expected a new low record this year. From what I see, very few expect any such thing; most observers (based on the predictions made every year, and on the general debate to be found at Neven’s Sea Ice site–which I believe to be by far the best sea ice blog) expect to see a 2nd- or 3rd-lowest minimum. But this is all a choice between bad and worse; Dr. Serreze’s “death spiral” remains the best descriptor for the sea ice trajectory.
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year-robin-mckie-peter-wadhams-the-guardian/
Hat tip to the climate scientists at Twitter who posted and reposted that
http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year-robin-mckie-peter-wadhams-the-guardian/
Hat tip to the climate scientists at Twitter who posted and reposted pointers to that
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/23/the-dangers-of-crying-wolf-over-arctic-sea-ice-melt/
Hank,
Notice the bunny is a partisan. He’s part of the funny long ears with round poop club.
There’s fruitloops in every group. Trump is an anti-vaxer isn’t he?
It’s helpful to look beyond your own borders and cultural/ideological memes ocassionally.
Greens part of German Coalition Governments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_faction_(Bundestag)
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-german-greens-coal-power-years.html
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160825/1044642242/germany-parties-snowden.html
I want to begin by stating that the Greens join health and scientific experts in absolutely supporting vaccination as a safe, proven and critical preventative health measure.
http://greens.org.au/greens-call-review-no-jab-no-play-legislation
or “When in Rome do as the Romans do?”
Philanthropy – Do-gooders in 1790s London
http://www.economist.com/node/16886035
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapham_Sect
“And don’t fall into errors: in your sense of the word, they are not men. They are animals you don’t understand, and never could. Don’t thrust your illusions on other people. The masses were always the same, and will always be the same. Nero’s mine slaves and his field slaves. It is the masses: they are unchangeable. An individual may emerge from the masses. But the emergence doesn’t alter the mass. The masses are unalterable. It is one of the most momentous facts of social science. Panem et circences! Only today education is one of the bad substitutes for a circus. What is wrong today, is that we’ve made a profound hash of the circuses part of the programme and poisoned our masses with a little education.”
– D.H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Ch. 13
Another line from the classic book went something like: “The masses/workers need masters, and they want masters.” so said Lord Chatterly, a coal mine owner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
http://www.capitolium.org/eng/imperatori/circenses.htm
The more things change the more they stay the same.
“Ideology is a collection of BELIEFS held by an individual, group or society.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
imho Ideologies, Economic Theories, Political Theories are no difference than Theology
Relationships between Religious Belief, Analytic Thinking, Mentalizing and Moral Concern
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4805169/
Brian Cox article
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/
My work at CQU was wholly funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation, and this will continue to be the source of funding for my employment at the IPA.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/about/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/06/audit-general-dismisses-need-for/
Online opinion is run by the IPA neoliberal/neocon ideological rw think tank
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18459
http://ipa.org.au/
Funded by?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_of_Public_Affairs
George Bryant Macfie was described as a “medical doctor and philanthropist” and a “long-standing IPA member.” Announcing the grant, Macfie complained that “environmental activism” was akin to a new religion infecting science. “The crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine,” he said.
At the time Macfie held 634,846 shares in Strike Resources Limited, making him one of the top 20 shareholders. By 2010, Macfie had increased his shareholding to 800,000 shares. Strike Resources is a Perth-based mineral exploration company which is seeking to develop an iron project in Peru and the Berau Thermal Coal Project in Indonesia.
Jennifer Marohasy states on her website:
“In September 2015, I was appointed a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). This followed the termination of my adjunct position at Central Queensland University (CQU) on 1st July 2015 because my work was ‘not well integrated into emerging research clusters’.
My work at CQU was wholly funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation, and this will continue to be the source of funding for my employment at the IPA.”
http://theaimn.com/coalition-environment-committee/
http://businessprofiles.com/details/the-trustee-for-the-b-macfie-famil/AU-99575145446
IPA funded denial book includes John Abbot & Jennifer Marohasy in
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Climate-Change-Dr-John-Abbot-ebook/dp/B00S5L5Y0W
http://climatelab.com.au/the-team/
How on earth is John Abbot?
See Marohasy’s right eye in photo (partners in ….) :-)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Abbot/info
http://acquire.cqu.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/cqu:13399
Initially using this software for stock market trading …..
http://www.neurosolutions.com/apps/content/forecasting-monthly-rainfall-australia-0
The B. Macfie Family Foundation is noted as “funded by” on several published papers by both Abbot and Marohasy – unsure of how much goes towards starting, supporting expanding the ClimateLab and their various inter-connected money making activities which includes selling/marketing PhDs
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/dont-retire-start-a-phd-in-paradise/
John Nicol? – See Nicol’s pseudo-paper on GHGs https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPeV9KNDRZUjVZb1E
That John Nicol, good friend of infamous Prof. Bob Carter (rip – the heartland shill) and all that Tax-Deductible Foundation Cash coming out of WA? The John Nicol who has never bothered trying to get this Pseudo-Paper Accepted for publication in a Peer-Reviewed Science Journal?
So I passed this ‘Paper’ onto some highly qualified ‘scientists’ years ago to check the Math and the Science behind it. They didn’t stop laughing for a week. Then they cried after realising the level of delusions and financing they were up against from the vested-interests and the global climate science denial campaign.
Money is very Motivating .. that’s why these dweebs keep bringing it up as an attack on the supposedly multi-millionaire climate scientists accused regularly of gouging the taxpayers of the world. … it’s called psychological projections and Unconscious Guilt.
Accusations of a Climate AGW/CC ‘Consensus’ is based on BELIEFS – same thing – The Science clashes withe the fanatical beliefs in their IDEOLOGY. Money is the their version of the Eucharist and Forgiveness.
Meanwhile the IPA (Australian’s version of SuperPACs/K-Street) and the B. Macfie Family Foundations of this world continue on their fanatical fundamentalist ‘Crusade’ to spread the Word of Their ‘God’ by manipulating the Governments and The People of this nation, and every nation because they can!
imo irrationally attacking The Greens and their ‘lack of forming a Government’ on their own is like burning your wife at the stake for burning your morning toast.
Only once in ~40 years has the Government of the day had a majority in our Senate. Now the LNP Government has 30 senators, Labor Opposition 26 and The Greens / Others 20 seats (or 26% including that Malcolm Roberts dude).
Only 2 or 3 Greens/Independents would turn the US Congress on it’s head, and with it the abuses of Corporate and Presidential power.
It seems to me that all climate scientists (and their supporters) have disagreements about this and that – especially regarding politics, climate projections, mitigation strategies and religion.
Thanks for the reminders of why I stay away from forums like EliRabbit et al. My fellow traveler is not my enemy. I have bigger fish to fry :-)
Into the Belly of the Beast
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/in-the-belly-of-the-beast
fwiw
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=69949
The El Nino, higher CO2ppm effects are not over yet.
One night doesn’t a climate science paper make, but an all-time record is still a record.
Brisbane weather: Hottest winter night on record for city
“At the moment it is … about 10 degrees above the average of 9.7 so pretty warm morning with that cloud cover around.”
But when 9am rolled around and the mercury had risen to almost 21 degrees C, it was official.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-weather-city-kicks-off-covers-on-warm-winter-night-20160823-gqzjt6.html
btw Brisbane is not inside Arctic Circle. :-)
@Thomas, #275
Thanks a lot for your response! The economic system encourages corruption all over the planet. There are literally millions of corruption crimes every single day. As long as the corrupted economic system does not change, nothing will change. We can never achieve any reasonable climate mitigation through corrupted economy. Money rules the planet, not reason. That’s the real problem.
@Thomas
Addendum to my last comment:
When I search for “corruption” on google, I get 139.000.000 results :-) :
https://www.google.de/?client=firefox-b#q=corruption&gfe_rd=cr
No, that’s not the way we can achieve any reasonable change.
@299
Ruddiman would disagree and push back AGW much further.
All that endless talk about climate change for many decades finally DISTRACTS from the real global killer number one:
A completely flawed global economic system of globalized injustice, exploitation, externalisation, corruption, ignorance and denial.
The DENIAL of that fact is much worse than any climate change denial and will finally lead to economic and civilization brakedown.
http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2016/08/12/whopping-exaggeration-by-coal-industry-about-black-lung-regulations/
“Google it.”
Oh. What’s Google? :-)
I guess I and everyone else ‘should not’ ask any questions here.
Oh boy. Grateful for your help, not your attitude.
Something is cooking of late, and not just the climate system.
154 Australian scientists demand climate policy that matches the science August 25, 2016
The letter says “governments worldwide are presiding over a large-scale demise of the planetary ecosystems, which threatens to leave large parts of Earth uninhabitable” and asks for “meaningful reductions” in greenhouse gas emissions and cuts to coal exports.
The letter, coordinated by Australian National University Earth scientist Dr Andrew Glikson, lays out a few facts.
https://theconversation.com/154-australian-scientists-demand-climate-policy-that-matches-the-science-64359
and
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/25/climate-scientists-write-another-open-letter-warning-of-unfolding-crisis-for-prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-to-ignore
What will it take for us to pay attention to climate change?
Look what has been happening lately around Australia’s coastline alone. If our home is girt by sea, as our national anthem says, then all the signs are that we are effectively burning the floorboards. Disaster after disaster is happening.
Think I’m being alarmist? Well, think about this—off Queensland, more than nine-tenths of the Great Barrier Reef has just been bleached. Perhaps a quarter of it has died and likely won’t come back.
Look up north in the Gulf—the worst mass die-off of mangroves ever seen, 10,000 hectares of it along great lengths of the coast.
Look off Western Australia—960 square kilometres of kelp forest has just disappeared. More than a third of it is now extinct.
And all of this has become evident in just the past six months alone. It’s as if our oceans have just suffered a massive stroke.
Climate change is not some nebulous political game that might affect our grandchildren. To be bluntly colloquial, it’s very bloody real, it’s right bloody here, right bloody now. It’s about as serious a challenge as we can face. We really urgently need to be all on the same page about this.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/what-will-it-take-for-us-to-pay-attention-to-climate-change/7749086
On the other side of the Pond.
Keeping a climate science-rejecting U.S. Senate
By Sue Sturgis August 25, 2016
Duke Energy’s biggest federal contribution by far — a hefty $150,000 — went to the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC focused on maintaining the chamber’s Republican majority.
The California-based oil giant Chevron has contributed $2 million.
Petrodome Energy, an oil and gas production company based in Houston $1 million.
Devon Energy, an Oklahoma-based oil and gas exploration and production company, donated $750,000.
Michael Smith, chairman and CEO of Freeport LNG, a liquid natural gas operation in Texas, contributed $500,000.
NextEra Energy, a Florida company whose subsidiaries include Florida Power & Light, which gets most of its energy from natural gas, contributed $250,000.
While over half of all Republicans in Congress reject or question the scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to climate change, that figure is 70 percent for the Senate.
https://www.facingsouth.org/2016/08/duke-energy-invests-keeping-climate-science-rejecting-us-senate
70% of Republican Senators reject the scientific consensus of AGW/CC
As Gavin often says #notrocketscience :-)
The question was “Why aren’t most US climate scientists standing behind Jill Stein / the Green Party?” (my comment #285)
The question is based on the fact (which I stated in my comment #286) that: “The Green Party platform has a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, here:
http://www.jill2016.com/platform (you can’t miss it, it’s right at the top)”
Here are the (non) answers which I got:
1. Hank Roberts #287 “people should vote for the lesser evil candidate, not the moral candidate that has a platform to fight climate change”
Hank, the question was about climate scientists, not popular vote.
2. Chris Dudley #290 false claim that Jill Stein does not support science. Or supports dubious science, because she quoted James Hansen (!).
3. Chuck Hugues #291 “Aside from all of that, how many times has Jill Stein run for President on the Green Party ticket? I’ve lost count.” Twice: 2012 and now 2016. Well, if you lose count after 2, I believe I don’t need to dismiss your other arguments, do I? And similarly to Hank Roberts, again, the question was about climate scientists, not votes or victories in past elections.
4. Thomas #293, #294. Thanks, particularly for the exact quote from Hansen’s paper. Unfortunately you don’t really address my question above.
In short, there seems to be some kind of doublethink going on among US climate scientists, who are unwilling/unable to openly support the only presidential candidate / party that has a platform with clear, immediately applicable and effective public policies to fight climate change.
The same kind of doublethink apparently prevents most US climate scientists from communicating clearly that we are in a state of global climate emergency (the obvious exceptions being James Hansen and his co-authors in the paper quoted).
Thank you all for your enlightening comments.
This sums up our completely flawed and corrupted economic system perfectly:
http://tinyurl.com/gtlv92v
” And so, while the end-of-the-world scenarios will be rife with unimaginable horrors, we believe that the pre-end period will be filled with unprecedented opportunities for PROFIT.”
310 Nemesis says: I get 139.000.000 results :-)
Ha, ya dreamin’ Nemesis, for I get “About 152,000,000 results”
Proof positive that My Google is bigger n better than Your Google – hehehe
[That’s a joke btw – Having a sense of humor means being able to laugh at—or at least see the humor in—life’s absurdities. Humour doesn’t mean the ability to be the target of verbal abuse / sarcasm without getting upset as if there’s nothing wrong in what was said and/or how or why it was said.]
The Government States:
http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-humour
Scientific Proof that my Kultcha is better than all your Cultures combined! So there. :-)
Geophysical Research Letters
http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/agu/issue/10.1002/grl.v43.15/
The rogue nature of hiatuses in a global warming climate
Authors: F. Sévellec, B. Sinha, N. Skliris
First Published:
8 August 2016
Vol: 43, Pages: 8169–8177
DOI:
10.1002/2016GL068950
Key Points
A global warming hiatus is extremely unlikely given the current global warming climate
The likelihood of a hiatus decreases under increasing global warming
The likelihood of a surge in temperature does not change under increasing global warming
What the Media pundits and RepDems never tell Americans: eg a small US Today survey results
24. Do the two major parties – Democrat & Republican – do a good job of representing Americans’political views, or do you think a third party or multiple parties is necessary?
Two parties – Democrat and Republican are
good enough 33.80%
A Third party is necessary 32.40%
Multiple parties are necessary 21.40% (combined 53.8%)
Undecided 12.40
OR Good enough = 33.8% – not good enough/not convinced = 66.2%
29. How would you describe your own political viewpoint – very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative?
Very liberal 6.10%
Liberal 16.70%
Moderate 34.10%
Conservative 25.70%
Very Conservative 13.80%
Other/Don’t Know 3.6%
Combined Liberal/Moderate = 56.9% – Conservative/Very = 39.5%
Ref: http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/2_17_2016_marginals.pdf
I would like to see a full blown Pew Research Survey on those kinds of questions.
Murdoch’s faux-Libertarian Corp. Randian bent comes through the WSJ
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-debate-stage-could-use-an-extra-mic-1471992282
http://www.wsj.com/articles/let-the-libertarian-nominees-into-the-debates-1472244364
No Greens, Social Democrats, Independents, Pro-Climate Science parties, thank you very much! :-)
More than half of Democrats (55%) say the Republican Party makes them “afraid,” while 49% of Republicans say the same about the Democratic Party. Among those highly engaged in politics – those who say they vote regularly and either volunteer for or donate to campaigns – fully 70% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans say they are afraid of the other party.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/
Unjustified Ideological Fear is no basis for a healthy functioning Democracy, imo.
2016 Campaign: Strong Interest, Widespread Dissatisfaction
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2016-campaign-strong-interest-widespread-dissatisfaction/
This is not merely a US based concern for people, it extends across western democracies, and is even worse in others poorly governed and afflicted with corruption. Two things of note; the US is very much Home Depot for climate science denial activism and global funding. And when the US sneezes the whole world gets a cold.
These things matter to clear thinking people who are not of the 4.3% of the global population who live inside the bubble of the USA. ~70% of Republican Senators outright deny the validity of climate science.
95.7% of the world’s population can not Vote them out, or in!
The SCOTUS is a reflection of the RepDems systemic abuse of power in the USA and (by using myth-making sophistry) the intentional manipulation of the American people, imo.
AGW/CC is a global problem that needs addressing. The US political system is standing in the way of practical solutions globally for all kinds of reasons. I simply wanted to point out that fact.
Be it Trump or Hillary Clinton, it will make zero difference to the world.
Bill Clinton (Dem) signed off on the repeal of Glass Steagall Act of 1933, that brought the whole world to it’s knees during the global financial crisis of 2007/08.
It’s the Congress and the whole political system that is stuffed.
And behind all that is Corporate self-interest and the corruption that comes with it.
CO2 July 2016: 404.39 ppm
Keep the Climate Science coming anyway.
316 Andrew says: The question was “Why aren’t most US climate scientists standing behind Jill Stein / the Green Party?” (my comment #285)
Sorry Andrew, I thought it was a rhetorical question. Seriously, I did. I few ideas that come to mind immediately are:
– it’s dangerous self-defeating for the scientists to publicly endorse a particular Political Party.
– why? because it politicizes the “science” and themselves as playing “partisan” politics.
– therefore as shown in a recent post, scientists tend to address issues to those in “power” like the PM of the day, irrespective of what Party they belong to.
– some/most/all scientists may disagree with Jill Steins Policy Proscriptions in that manifesto. They have a right to disagree with the Greens ideas.
– Scientists mostly realise that government and politics is all about “competing national interests” that go far beyond climate science. By placing their “opinion” on the greens AGW/CC policy or Jill Stein as President by default they align with all their policies. Same goes for repubs/dems/labor/lnp/social democrats etc.
Therefore, when scientists speak out it is typically to whoever is currently the Government of the day, or at Committee hearings etc. That is by default non-partisan.
Of course the scientists could make a comment that they support or are encouraged by the kinds of “Policies for AGW/CC action” as shown by the Greens, but even that will automatically drawn severe criticism for them engaging in the Election cycle in a partisan and very biased way … it will therefore undermine their reputation for being “unbiased scientists” and they will be attacked by every other Politician on the earth, and possible be black banned from further invites to Committees or being asked for their “advice” on the implication of developing policies into the future by the Government of the day.
I’m sure there are other reasons too to avoid endorsing Jill Stein for President that I have not thought of. I did make a long post (not sure if it will show up) about more important aspects to the US political process and how that is interfering in good policies being implemented to combat agw/cc and following the guidance of climate science; plus one with polls about the political parties there. These types of issues are, imo, far more critical than the Jill Stein situation you raise, and why no one knows about such policy ideas, and the emergency aspect.
Oh then there’s the Media ….. Best.
Andrew,
In my opinion, Jill is keeping up with the science better than any other candidate and has embarrassed Chris Mooney and Andy Revkin by having a better grasp than they, two other non-scientists whose profession is to be up-to-date.
Th 320: Be it Trump or Hillary Clinton, it will make zero difference to the world.
BPL: What’s more, men and women are the same sex. Dogs flew spaceships. The Aztecs invented the holiday. EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!
RE: Andrew says:
27 Aug 2016
Of course you omitted the part of my quote where I stated ‘you have to win elections…’
The Green Party, for all of their well meaning intentions are not viable as a political party. Jill Stein got a whopping 469,620 or 0.36% of the popular vote in 2012. Ralph Nader garnered just over 2% in 2000 handing the election to George W. Bush. Other than electing Mayor’s and School Board members they’re not much use. Bernie Sanders otoh did a lot help shape the Democratic party platform but he ran as a ‘Democrat’ because running as an independent simply would not work.
I’m not a scientist but I would imagine most scientists do not engage in wishful thinking. For now at least we have no choice but to work within the system we have. A landslide win in November by Hillary Clinton has the real possibility of winning back the House and Senate for Democrats along with the ability to appoint Supreme Court justices who will uphold environmental laws.
Donald Trump is doing everything he can to ensure Hillary wins but he can’t do it alone.
Thomas, #320–
“Be it Trump or Hillary Clinton, it will make zero difference to the world.”
I don’t know how you can say that.
Trump would:
–Incentivize fracking;
–Incentivize coal;
–“Cancel” the Paris Treaty (as he can’t do so unilaterally, he would have to settle for pulling the US out).
Clinton would:
–Increase US solar PV deployment by a factor of 8x;
–Make permanent the wind power tax credit;
–Continue current EPA policy directions, including those by which the Paris targets are to be met;
–Move forward with the Clean Air Plan.
Trump says:
–Coal is a ‘clean fuel’ and “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
Clinton says:
–Climate change is “”an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/08/where_clinton_trump_stand_on_energy_climate_change_131129.html
I don’t see how the contrast on climate policy could be much starker, honestly. Thomas, if you think that the US president’s views and plans make “zero difference”, then all I can say is that you are in a very, very tiny minority.
Original question was: “Why aren’t most US climate scientists standing behind Jill Stein / the Green Party?” (my comment #285)
The question is based on the fact (which I stated in my comment #286) that: “The Green Party platform has a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, here:
http://www.jill2016.com/platform (you can’t miss it, it’s right at the top)”
If I may add, the green Party is the only party with a platform that recognizes the state of climate emergency the world faces now, and includes a comprehensive plan to fight climate change and transition the US to a zero net carbon emissions economy ASAP.
A new round of non-answers:
Barton P Levenson #297 apparently prefers to slander Jill: “Because Jill Stein is, in some respects, an anti-science nut.”
Actually Dr. Jill Stein is a practicing medical doctor who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Medical School. The slandering and obviously false claim that she is “anti-science” comes from the pharmaceutical industry lobby, because Jill had the audacity to denounce a revolving doors policy between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. And of course the CTR trolls have jumped on this false claim all over social media.
Thomas #321 “Sorry Andrew, I thought it was a rhetorical question.” Then comes a lengthy argument about why climate scientists must remain neutral and above the lowly details of US politics and public policies. Boring and phony.
And I am not buying it. Climate scientists are still citizens just like everybody else and they will cast a vote on Election Day. Many of them have kids, the future of which depends in part on what candidate gets elected on November 8.
So I am really asking this question to climate scientists and not to CTR trolls: “Why aren’t you, ladies and gentlemen of the climate scientist profession, sticking out your necks just a little bit for the next 9 weeks, to support the only candidate that wants your children and grandchildren to have a future – that is Jill Stein / Green Party?”
> In my opinion, Jill …
Please consider posting more in your blog, which is linked to your name (it hasn’t been updated for some years now)
There is science worth discussing, on politics, other than opinions.
Try this, from AGU Earth’s Future:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000362/abstract
Perhaps relevant to their proposed terminology:
Cognitive Dissonance is a common human psychological state. It just is, and it happens to us all because it is in our nature. http://skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html I think the Dunning-Krugar effect is related to CD and various whacko beliefs, conspiracy theories, and denial.
As such denial of climate science, any science, shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Many social science psychology papers have been written about these kinds of related matters. And intelligence (IQ) is not a determining factor in this. It’s also easier to recognize CD in others than in our own thinking ime.
John Cook et al UQ (skepticalscience) recently produced a new series of videos to help people see the many causes/processes of denial about AGW/CC. eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ
Here’s another about Critical Thinking (with much more humour and really bad acting) Are you stupid? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OedkyxEqtA
The thing is that these kinds of presentations are unlikely to really help the ones who need it most. Similar to repeatedly telling deniers they need to look at the scientific literature, they won’t, but I like telling them anyway. :-)
They just will not believe it even if they did. Research suggest the only thing that overcomes CD and similar matters is the individual working on themselves consciously. Changes like that cannot be forced upon anyone. It requires surrender.
This isn’t a criticism of John Cook for getting this info out, because over time it will help some people of course. Simply put these approaches have a greater impact of reinforcement on those who are already aligned with the state of the science.
Meanwhile those who do accept the science remain not in agreement about what or how to deal with it. This is where other issues come into play like one’s political ideology cultural norms and so on. Yet CD also comes into play with political views too.
Cook’s ideas especially can’t help the denier activists such as http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/ (and Brian Cox) also at http://climatelab.com.au/the-team/ with her partner John Abbot (originally from the UK). He has had his “neural networking climate forecasting” ‘papers’ published at WIT as well as Marohasy.
For more info about them and the IPA in Oz see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU
Marohasy says that IPA/OLO article of hers had 13,000 reads over 6 days, I don’t believe her. It is possible for the network of denialist websites always cross link to each others “wunda stories” which triggers all kinds of things via google page ranking. Money also buys good marketing and SEO advice. Slap a famous person like Brian Cox into a story title and it’s all ‘fires up’ to bring traffic. But, #Hits do not equal acceptance of the content either. I suspect that’s a version of Marohasy’s own Cognitive Dissonance at work. You see where that fits in, right?
I ‘believe’ that Human Belief is kind of the strongest force in the Universe. Sometimes nothing can shake it’s grip. We all kind of know that already and so when people like Cook do what they do it can only help on the margins. Essentially it reinforces the acceptance of those not needing to be convinced. Sounds great, the effectiveness to generate real change in people’s contrary beliefs however is minimal.
Marohasy and Jim Inhofe aren’t going to watch Cooks videos nor be swayed by them. Yet it’s people like Inhofe who are the ones with the political power to create generational change in society. Not Cook. Being “right” and being backed by science is so often irrelevant.
Even more critical than political power alone, as mentioned before, is that the changes in the US civil rights situation in the 60s was the ACLU et al winning their cases in the Federal Courts, not MLK or the protesters.
The old ‘separation of powers’ system eg https://youtu.be/X-buzVjYQvY (with Oz humour – I think I’m a Hobbesian lol) Which maybe why I am such an opinionated bore when it comes to 21st century Politics. :-)
For example, and I am not pointing fingers at anyone, here are what I believe could be cognitive dissonance triggers:
Being first doesn’t mean best – think of the Wright Brothers aeroplane and 1776.
It’s great to be proud of one’s nation and heritage, but those who actually have the right to be really proud were living in the 18th century not the 21st.
Contrary to popular belief the Founding Fathers were not gun loving 2nd Amendment rednecks, nor members of the NRA ideology as so many these days are. There’s strong evidence the US was actually founded upon the core human value of Empathy (and Community aka the Common Wealth!)
eg hear Mathematician, Cognitive scientist, Linguist George Lakoff’s politics talk starting here 24 mins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCXxc_M9EmE&feature=youtu.be&t=24m30s
Quoting: “there is no linear left to right order” and “there is no ideology of the moderate” and “how people vote is usually determined by how their parents voted” – surely John Cook, you or I cannot change that?
and note “mirror neurons” @28:30; and then Obama’s narratives about Empathy in 2008 (I’m not pushing him nor the Dems, this is about the psychology/rhetoric itself.)
Please Note @31:00 to 34:00 Lakoff speaks on Lyn Hunt, self-interest, Adam Smith (whose ideas have been hijacked/twisted in 20thC), the US Declaration of Independence (DoI), France, Age of Reason, and Empathy; quoting “our government was based historically on empathy and not on interests”
Can you recognize possible Myths and Sophistry of today inherent in that historical research … and perhaps a little cognitive dissonance as a result within yourself, especially if you’re American?
Cognitive Dissonance con’t:
So a few rhetorical questions about why it’s so hard to implement evidence based responses to AGW/CC nationally or globally:
– Where does it say in the US DoI or Constitution that a 2 party system is superior to either a one party system or an 8 party system?
– How come the US President is restricted to 2 terms yet Senators are not, and where is the logic in that? (Ted Kennedy was a Senator for almost 47 years, Jim Inhofe has been in the Congress for 30 years!!!)
– If it’s such a great ideal then why aren’t CEOs and Board members also restricted to 2 x 4 year terms if shareholder voting is a fair honest democratic process too?
– Who decided that a party needed to obtain 5% of the vote or they are kicked out of the democratic process at all levels of voting from local County Sheriff up to the Presidency?
– Why isn’t this cut-off set at 1%, or 3%, or 8%, or even 30%?
– Where is the evidence and reasoning behind this institutionalized control over who can and cannot put themselves forward for public office?
– Was it entirely based on the self-interests of power brokers inside the RepDems two party system who erected this barrier by convincing “the people” using sophistry it was for their own good and self-interest?
Disclaimer: From afar, I view the RepDems as an undemocratic congealed single mass of corrupted self-interests, and not as a viable system of Government for/of/by the People. Apparently, many people in the US agree with me while others not.
– Who pushed through the belief into Law that Corporations have a ‘free speech right’ under the Constitution?
– Corporations cannot Vote in elections because they are not a Person/Citizen with Voting Rights, right? Free speech is in the Bill of Rights for Individual Citizens and not for Non-person legal entities.
Quoting: “Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.” https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights
– Does the US DoI say: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”?
For there is not a single word about Corporations in the DoI, nor the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, right?
– Why are US citizens precluded from running for President if they were not Born in the USA? Surely that is self-evidently undemocratic, against the Bill of Rights for individual US citizens, and possibly racist/xenophobic?
It’s not the 18th Century anymore when Monarchies ruled the world with spies and intrigue, unless one also thinks of Corporations as being Principalities. :-)
– Did Abraham Lincoln say at Gettysburg: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth” or not?
So can others see how myths, sophistry, dunning-krugar effect, denial, self-interest, confirmation bias, corruption, and cognitive dissonance (and John Cook’s Videos content!) so often go together no matter what the topic is?
And what’s behind all of this? I’d suggest it is the power of entrenched cultural and individual beliefs.
While Marohasy is spewing her usual guff in the echo chambers about Cox, Gavin, BOM and Nasa/Giss, much more truth is being put out … and it’s working:
Letter on behalf of 2,000 scientists about the GBR is sent to PM
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/06/26/scientists-send-coral-reef-plea-aust
Open letter to the Prime Minister on the climate crisis, from 154 scientists
https://theconversation.com/an-open-letter-to-the-prime-minister-on-the-climate-crisis-from-154-scientists-64357
“Scientists are not known for their political activism, said James Cook University professor Terry Hughes”
It’s the right time for them to become even more famous for their political activism – and I do not ‘partisan politics’, more akin to how MLK approached things – a pox on all your houses perhaps! :-)
Surely this is undeniable: Climate Scientists are individuals, citizens and voters too!
And Corporations are not: https://www.google.com/#q=corporate+corruption
Go hard I say to the scientists and give No Quarter! https://www.google.com/#q=no%20quarter&rct=j
– fully 70% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans say they are afraid of the other party.
Didn’t Abe say: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
Refs see #320 https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/comment-page-7/#comment-659627
I think that #316 Andrew raises some really key questions there, and expresses the building frustration of so many people globally. Especially with the apparent ‘wet-lettuce’ approach of the UNFCCC Paris ‘agreements’ yet to be ratified let alone acted upon.
Please check out Prof. Kevin Anderson for critiques about the lack of logic and practicality of that COP agreement aka sophistry.
Perhaps what the world needs is a higher caliber of Politician being brought into the mix.
I’m thinking of a ‘Scientists for Freedom’ Party or an ‘Academic People’s Front’ :-)
I’m thinking of Richard Alley or a Michael Mann for President instead of the political careerist clowns that have been put up in 2016. At least they are smart and honest, ethical and not beholden to special interests with $ billions.
And so ends my ‘rant’ for the day, aka The Gospel according to St Thomas
(smiling warmly)
And each to thine own self be true.
Interesting updated information about cosmic rays and cloud cover recently published: http://phys.org/news/2016-08-solar-impact-earth-cloud.html Seems that there might be some need for tweaking some of the models after all, though I don’t see this as all that significant in changing global climate dynamics. Since it will no doubt be grabbed and exaggerated by the denialists, I’d be interested in hearing from those in the field, i.e. any contextualization of these conclusions that might be helpful for the rest of us.
Thanks in advance,
Ken
263 nigelj, re trolling, thanks mate, I didn’t notice that before or your other recent comment.
Re 320 you are perpetuating a myth in saying the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was responsible for the 2008 crash. The Act separated retail and investment banking. The crash began at Lehmann Brothers, which was purely an investment bank.
Thomas, #320:
“I would like to see a full blown Pew Research Survey on those kinds of questions.”
You may find this of interest:
https://zcomm.org/zcommentary/americans-progressive-opinion-vs-the-shadow-cast-on-society-by-big-business-by-paul-street/
Americans’ Progressive Opinion vs. “The Shadow Cast on Society By Big Business”
including:
“* Seventy-one percent of Americans think the US should participate in the Kyoto Accord on global warming (CCFR, 2004).
* Ninety-three percent of Americans support minimum standards in international trade agreements for working conditions and 91 percent support minimum standards for environmental protection.”
#297, BPL:
“A 285: Why aren’t most US climate scientists standing behind Jill Stein / the Green Party?
BPL: Because Jill Stein is, in some respects, an anti-science nut.”
False.
http://www.snopes.com/is-green-party-candidate-jill-stein-anti-vaccine/
Dr. Jill Stein’s popularity surge during the Democratic National Convention led to rumors that she opposes the use of vaccines.
Kim LaCapria – Updated: Aug 01, 2016
BPL: “Stein is good on global warming, but Hillary is also good on global warming”
False. Hillary is a warmonger and, as you should know, the military-industrial complex is one of the very worst polluters, FF-guzzlers and CO2-generators. (That is apart from the very serious risk of confrontation with Russia, eventuating in global nuclear war, under a neocon Hillary administration. Nuclear war may not impact climate change, but it may have minor negative effects on the environment and life on planet earth.)
Stein wants to dismantle — incrementally, of course, as needs must be — the MIC; Hillary will support and expand it. Stein’s “Green New Deal” is a fantastic idea and indeed the only proposal that even begins to seriously address climate change at the necessary fundamental level, in context with concurrent serious economic issues. Hillary does not even come close. No other candidate comes close. Stein is the candidate, the ONLY candidate, of sanity and, quite possibly, survival. Period.
#221 Chuck Hughes: “How much time do we have before sh*t REALLY hits the proverbial fan?”
Probably not long. Which is why only the kind of fundamental change proposed by Stein et al (including but not limited to climate-related change) has a snowball’s chance of heading it off, if it is not already too late.
You will note that I said nothing about the practical possibility of electing Stein, which is of course poor — just like the practical possibility of getting CO2 down to 350 in any reasonable timeframe is poor. I only said what I said: she is the ONLY candidate whose proposals are consistent with sanity and, quite possibly, survival. There is no reasonable alternative to this point of view.
#321 Thomas:
“– it’s dangerous self-defeating for the scientists to publicly endorse a particular Political Party.”
They should not, and do not need to, endorse a particular party.
They should, and need to, speak to the matter of the extent to which party positions and policies correspond to generally-accepted scientific fact as regards climate, environment, and possibly other areas. For example, on a scale of 1-10:
Republican, Trump: 1
Democrat, Clinton: 3
Stein, Green: 8
They should NOT say: “everyone should vote green”.
They SHOULD say: “the Green party’s positions and policies, with respect to environment and climate [and perhaps other areas, depending], rate an 8 of 10 in terms of correspondence with what we generally agree to be scientific fact.” Or words to that effect. The number is a suggestion, which is probably close.
In other words, they should say what they are properly qualified to say. It is up to the voters to consider that assessment, or not, or weight it, as they deem appropriate.
The scientific community has an obligation to do this. They do not work in a vacuum.
A useful reference, worth recollecting:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/015838.html#2248518
HadCRUT have posted for July with the (yawn) warmest July on record, an anomaly of +0.736ºC which is equal to the June anomaly. The first 7 months of 2016 average +0.87ºC which compares with +0.75ºC average for the present record for a full calendar year – 2015. Thus for 2016 to gain warmest year on record, the last 5 months of the year must average above +0.57ºC. The last time a final half of a year failed to be so warm was all the way back in 2013 which continues to suggests something about the confidence expressed for 2016 gaining that “scorchyissimo!!” status.
In the table below, all 19 months are in the top 30 warmest months with 15 of the top 20 also featured in the last 19 months data. (The missing 5 months of the top 20 occurred during peaks of the 2006/07, the 2002 & the 1998 El Ninos.)
2015.. 1 … +0.688ºC … 21st
2015.. 2 … +0.660ºC … 28th
2015.. 3 … +0.681ºC . 22nd
2015.. 4 … +0.656ºC … 30th
2015.. 5 … +0.696ºC . =18th
2015.. 6 … +0.730ºC … 14th
2015.. 7 … +0.696ºC . =18th
2015.. 8 … +0.732ºC … 13th
2015.. 9 … +0.784ºC …. 9th
2015. 10 … +0.820ºC … 7th
2015. 11 … +0.810ºC … 8th
2015. 12 … +1.010ºC … 3rd
2016.. 1 … +0.908ºC … 5th
2016.. 2 … +1.061ºC … 2nd
2016.. 3 … +1.063ºC … 1st
2016.. 4 … +0.918ºC … 4th
2016.. 5 … +0.690ºC . =20th
2016.. 6 … +0.736ºC … =11th
2016.. 7 … +0.736ºC … =11th
The alarmists at NASA and the Guardian all getting all excited about the current heat wave. here is what Guardian has to say:
“The planet is warming at a pace not experienced within the past 1,000 years, at least, making it “very unlikely” that the world will stay within a crucial temperature limit agreed by nations just last year, according to Nasa’s top climate scientist.
This year has already seen scorching heat around the world, with the average global temperature peaking at 1.38C above levels experienced in the 19th century, perilously close to the 1.5C limit agreed in the landmark Paris climate accord. July was the warmest month since modern record keeping began in 1880, with each month since October 2015 setting a new high mark for heat.”
Gavin sounds a little too excited with this quote: “Maintaining temperatures below the 1.5C guardrail requires significant and very rapid cuts in carbon dioxide emissions or co-ordinated geo-engineering. That is very unlikely. We are not even yet making emissions cuts commensurate with keeping warming below 2C.”
Gavin is starting to sound like me and Chuck! Can some of you cooler heads here help talk him down?
Bill McKibben is talking about a war on global warming, but I think the war analogy is tired and part of the mindset that created our problem (if we really have one, right?)
I think it makes sense to consider our species’ situation to be dire, but not serious. I have a friend who always started popping vitamin C tabs during acid trips. Yup, Vitamin C, that will take the edge off. Everybody remain calm, everything is not going to be alright.
Cheers
Mike
flukey low CO2 day on Aug 29 with only 1.03 ppm increase of 2015 daily average
Daily CO2
August 29, 2016: 399.46 ppm
August 29, 2015: 398.43 ppm
Like the spikey days that show 4 ppm and above, these happen, but they are essentially noise. weekly average appears to be headed back down under 3 ppm increase, and I think monthly average for August is likely to be about 3 ppm also. I think what we are seeing there is the beginning of the EN bump in the 2015 readings, so rise from 2015 to 2016 will look less alarming and some will misunderstand/misrepresent the year on year numbers as indication of falling emissions or progress of some sort. I think this is really pretty simple: if the ppm number is going up, it’s not good for us. We have to move the needle the other way now or at least, stop the needle movement up. I don’t think we are going to do that, but that is what is needed. This is why I think our situation is dire, but not serious. We need to do something quite radical and we aren’t willing or prepared to do it. This is where we get the pie in the face. It’s that moment! Enjoy, don’t worry. Everybody is going to get a piece of the pie. Pis on the way, baby!
Mike
FYI:
University of Sussex press release:
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressrelease/id/36547
Full article at Climate Policy website:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2016.1179616?scroll=top&needAccess=true
Kevin,
Based on the current growth rate and continuing cost reductions, Clinton’s solar goals are pretty lame. Much much more could be done.
Capitalism 3.0 – A GUIDE TO RECLAIMING THE COMMONS by Peter Barnes
“I’m a businessman I believe society should reward successful initiative with profit. At the same time, I know that profit-seeking activities have unhealthy side effects. They cause pollution, waste, inequality, anxiety, and no small amount of confusion about the purpose of life.
“I’m also a liberal, in the sense that I’m not averse to a role for government in society. Yet history has convinced me that representative government can’t adequately protect the interests of ordinary citizens. Even less can it protect the interests of future generations, ecosystems, and nonhuman species.
“The reason is that most though not all of the time, government puts the interests of private corporations first. This is a systemic problem of capitalist democracy, not just a matter of electing new leaders.”
https://archive.org/details/Capitalism_3.0_Peter_Barnes
Stephen Hawking:”Greed and Stupidity are what will end the Human Race… but don’t feel too bad guys, Professor Hawking still hasn’t figured out women:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtNdlqgAh7c
“Be it Trump or Hillary Clinton, it will make zero difference to the world.” Comment by Thomas
I wasn’t taking you very seriously to begin with but with a comment like the one above I’m doing my best to scroll past your lengthy fulminations or whatever you want to call it.
As for Dr. Jill Stein, I expect her vote totals to be less than they were in 2012. Al Gore is endorsing Hillary Clinton as is anyone with any hope of doing anything about Climate Change. Jill is not Presidential material and never will be. Being a Physician does not make you a world leader. Dr. Ben Carson proved that. You may as well vote for Joe the Plumber. By your absurd ‘logic’ it won’t make any difference to the world.
326 Andrew says: “Boring and phony.” Oh really, how nice, get stuffed then.
Says: “And I am not buying it.” I wasn’t selling anything. You asked a QUESTION Numbat (Myrmecobius fasciatus), I answered.
Next time you ask a question here, imagine this in your mind’s eye – https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/41/af/55/41af5548b9a17db2cc6b49350cd97543.jpg – it’s from me rotflmao
Please would the moderators increase the time interval between batches of comments ? Considering the season, the next set might be published, say, in the second or third week of November. For it seems that those who can least bide in peace before seeing their words of wisdom published in these august pages are also least worth reading. Replies from those who cannot refrain from immediate rebuttal are usually as unrewarding. That would winnow out all but the most dedicated fanatics with the longest memories, at which point the borehole beckons.
In fact, why not make the borehole postable to ? Why should your honest, hardworking troll have to run the gamut of elitist moderation before slithering into the (narrow, i grant you) abyss ?
In fact, the borehole link could go directly to, say, reddit.
sidd
325 Kevin McKinney, I have no problems being in a minority, if that is where I am. I’d rather be correct and honest than merely be ‘appealing to popularity.’
I said “Be it Trump or Hillary Clinton, it will make zero difference to the world.”
Kevin says: “I don’t know how you can say that.” Then maybe ask me what’s behind that comment? Jumping to assumptions never helps, ime.
Kevin you say: “Trump would” and “Clinton would” xyz. Where is your evidence for that? Is it based solely on their “words” during an election campaign?
For I don’t believe either of them myself. Beware making predictions especially when it is about the future. I think one might need to go back to Roosevelt to find a President who truly honored their election promises (smile)
eg GW Bush said he would stop the US being ‘the policeman’ for the world, then hired a hundred+ AIPAC/Neocons in his administration and the rest is history…(eg Paul Bremer is still living in self-delusion) and welcome to ISIS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/rise-of-isis and global jihadi terrorists. Obama has been no better. There is little to no connection between his election rhetoric and reality imho.
That being said, my comment was in the context of responses/action to confront AGW/CC. I still say, imo, neither will make any difference to the world in that regard. Both are beholden and both will have next to no power to change anything of any global significance.
Much more power and control abides in the Congress and Governors imo, though I could be wrong.
323 Barton P Levenson, if I was you, I’d be seeking some help.
332 DP says: “Re 320 you are perpetuating a myth in saying the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was responsible for the 2008 crash. The Act separated retail and investment banking. The crash began at Lehmann Brothers, which was purely an investment bank.”
Um DP, research some genuine historical facts and expert analyses and then get back to me. One issue immediately exposes your lack of knowledge: The Glass–Steagall Act also is used to refer to the entire Banking Act of 1933, after its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass (Democrat) of Virginia, and Representative Henry B. Steagall (D) of Alabama. This article deals with only the four provisions separating commercial and investment banking […] the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 that limited securities, activities, and affiliations within commercial banks and securities firms […] later there were issues with Insurance, to whit Governor Spitzer was seriously addressing in Congress before he was outed engaging a professional expert of another kind. And then there was the Home Mortgage market. I do not think I said GS Act repeal was “solely responsible”, did I?
In fact I was actually pointing out another US “political ideology” myth of the ‘left/right’ and not addressing economics per se. If you want to talk about those total twits Bernanke and Greenspan and the myths of Neoliberal Economic theory, let me know. :-)
333 alan2102, thanks, no surprises there hey? the U.S. citizenry stands well to the left of America’s Orwellian corporate media and political class on numerous key issues. Now ain’t that the Truth! :-)
* 69 percent of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health coverage to all U.S. citizens (Gallup Poll, 2006).
* 80 percent of Americans support a government-mandated increase in the minimum wage (Associated Press/AOL Poll, December 2006).
* 86 percent of Americans want Congress to pass legislation to raise the federal minimum wage (CNN, August 2006).
* 71 percent of Americans think that taxes on corporations are too low (Gallup Poll, April 2007).
* 66 percent of Americans think taxes on upper-income people are too low (Gallup Poll, April 2007).
What do Americans do then? Vote in the RepDems ‘one party system’ show all over again.
Personally I’d prefer an appointed body of “Philosopher Kings” in charge of the Senate to negotiate the lunacy out of the communication the People’s House Reps and the President. 21st century western Democracy really sucks imo.
Not much better where I live but as we all know how gravity works, the Planets revolve around the Sun. (smile)
334 alan2102 says: Stein’s “Green New Deal” is a fantastic idea and indeed the only proposal that even begins to seriously address climate change at the necessary fundamental level, in context with concurrent serious economic issues. Hillary does not even come close. No other candidate comes close. Stein is the candidate, the ONLY candidate, of sanity and, quite possibly, survival. Period.
Agree. I wanted to to see it repeated because of Cognitive Dissonance –
Description
This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.
Dissonance increases with:
The importance of the subject to us.
How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.
Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm
CD doesn’t only afflict climate science deniers, but everyone. :-)
Recent News:
“The Victorian State Government (in Oz) is introducing legislation to permanently ban exploration and development of unconventional gas in the state, including coal seam gas and fracking.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/victoria-to-ban-csg-fracking-and-unconventional-gas-exploration/7796944
http://www.echo.net.au/2016/08/victoria-bans-csg-fracking-good/
3 other States are not far behind this step. Protesting works better than Advertising ever can – Govt of the people, for/by etc http://www.lockthegate.org.au/
Yet another group marketing itself everywhere:
A Statement by Viv Forbes, Founding Secretary of “Clexit” (Climate Exit)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-not-settled/5543172
Like cutting the head off a hydra another two heads grow back. Nevertheless these groups are still all essentially powerless and a distraction from the main game.
“New to science” black corals filmed off Tasmania reef @60m-80m (262 feet) depth
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/08/new-to-science-black-corals-filmed-off-tasmania
There’s an AGW/CC science aspect to this, in that these black corals (the tree one that appears white in video – that’s white fur over the black skeleton btw) are ~600 years old so they can study their skeletons like tree rings in relation to the ocean environment.
Scientists are clever buggers … Victor is not. :-)