[Response: Hardware failure. Should be back up soon. In the meantime, use http://idn.ceos.org/ – gavin]
Thomassays
Hi Jim. I don’t accept it’s plagiarism when providing the source ref directly. Sure “..” or a block quote would help make it clearer but I have my valid reasons. It’s a comments board, readers’ responsibility prevails.
Purpose and the point is about #58 MA Rodger the Pedant Extremist. Trying to loosen him and his blocked thinking processes up a bit. :-)
Thomassays
BPL: Because they don’t adhere to Thomas’s program.
Wrong again. 10 out of 10 for consistency in failing to be a mind reader of others. :-)
So Barton, how does it feel and what is your reaction when someone tells you point blank you’re wrong?
That is called an open ended question without assumption or pre-judgement. Such questions can lead others to a greater self-awareness. “can”, it’s not guaranteed. :-)
119 BPL: This from the guy who disapproves of psychoanalyzing people online.
140 BPL: The master of not using personal insults strikes again.
Followed up with:
BPL: You are, once again, and as always, delusional.
BPL: No wonder K and Thomas are kindred spirits. They’re both clinical paranoids.
BPL: Which means you’re either completely ignorant of both candidates’ stands, or insane.
Let’s flesh this out a little: “Th 118: Pro-AGW/CC action people and scientists are more delusional and living in greater denial than the everyday science deniers are who voted for Trump and want the EPA and NASA/GISS/NOAA shutdown.”
For simplicity:
– didn’t see trump coming
– didn’t expect him to win
– still do not understand the core issues that influenced people to vote for him
– falsely believe these election results/voters were “in fact” influenced manipulated by Putin/Russia
– still don’t know why Trump won
– still don’t know why Hillary Clinton is “hated/detested” by a majority of Americans, even those who voted Democrat and Democrat registered voters who didn’t vote at all
– don’t understand the significance or the manipulative ideological drivers of CNN [a profound Hillary/Obama media group supporter] now interviewing President Assad for the first time since the civil war in Syria began.
– don’t get there is no difference in the dynamics drivers and methods between FoxNews and CNN
– don’t get that reason is 98% unconscious framing and cultural narratives – especially their own personal reasoning
– cannot recognize the direct similarities between climate science deniers and their own flawed thinking, judgement and behaviors
– can see the total lack of genuine evidence and ignorance of the facts behind opinions of climate science deniers but not in their own.
—
So where to from here? Some “hints” and “challenges”
– Can you suspend your personal beliefs and opinions for a short period of time?
– Become a blank slate about a subject and remain open-minded and prepared to learn something new and unexpected?
– Have you watched the 4 episodes of Century of the Self doco? http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/
– Have you noted “new ideas, names of people, and events” arising in the doco, or been REMINDED OF THINGS YOU HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT?
– Do you know how to plug in words and names from that documentary into Google Scholar or web search like Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud, Matthew Freud, Phillip Gould, Dick Morris, New labour, tony blair, cheney, clinton, marketing research, marketing psychology, unconscious, focus groups and neoliberalism and economic rationalism.
– Do you know all about and see the direct connections between the content of that documentary, and the potential research one could find to confirm it’s conclusions, and 50 years of lectures by Linguistics researcher Noam Chomsky, and his geopolitical ethical insights about the USA, and the scientific cognitive psychology research of George Lakoff and his peers over the last 25 years and how it all interconnects into a sustainable knowable whole?
– And many others? eg the Economics Professor who points out as plain as day the connection between climate denial and neoliberalism – what drives it, who’s behind it and WHY it works so effectively?
Especially when one integrates that knowledge with at least what Cook et al have been saying at skeptical science, in his published papers and on his University of Qld Denial lectures/interviews on Youtube?
Self-delusional, entrenched false beliefs, and denial is a fascinating topic.
That one way that self-delusion and denial manifests is outright refusing to click on link or stop long enough to allow NEW PROFOUND INFORMATION to come in, consider it seriously and carefully and grow in knowledge and self-awareness all at the same time, thereby becoming more effective in achieving one’s goals.
I have seen Bill and Hillary Clinton on tv screens for 25 years. I have also seen Hillary in lectures and interviews going back to when she was still a teenager.
Winston Churchill didn’t need a professional psychiatric analysis report to work out in a couple of years that Adolf Hitler was a narcissistic psychopath, insane and dangerous. Millions didn’t believe him either. But people can be oh so gullible and stupid and ignorant and so easily manipulated.
nigeljsays
Zebra @106
“That many of our more rant-prone commenters want is for Daddy (a fantasy government) to fix things, although they offer no practical way for that to happen.”
There is a risk of this. Sounds almost a libertarian view.
Governments can only do so much. This is commonsense. But it’s not good enough to say its all too hard to work out what they should do, or risky to let them do anything beyond a police force, and the safer bet is very small government. But neither is it acceptable to expect government to solve everything, because we know individual responsibility and initiative brings rewards.
I think we have to make some rational attempt to work out what governments should do, and where things are best pitched, despite the fact we are often irrational chimps at heart. We have to do our best, because the alternatives are pretty grim.
Like a lot of things in life the safest, most life enhancing course is often a balancing act between extremes. The role of government is probably the same.
In the end the solution to climate change will require a combination of individual responsibility and some pushing from the state. Think about it, if a huge chunk of ice breaks of somewhere or we see another big temperature spike, watch humanity go into action mode. Things reach tipping points all of a sudden, and this includes human responses to various situations.
nigeljsays
Thomas, you are very critical of Hilary Clintons character and motives, and rate her no better than Trump or Bush. She has certainly been caught out in a few lies, and they are bizarre lies, because why would you even make that stuff up? She also has unfortunatte hawkish foreign policy tendencies.
But I think she rates better than Trump or Bush on policies and is probably less likely to start WW3. I think Bill Clinton was ok as well, if you look at the economy, foreign policy,etc.
Are you sure you are not getting into a false equivalence thing, and just emoting your frustrations. Like a child saying I hate everyone? And everyone can be egotistical and wants to be remembered in the history books. It’s not a sin. Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good, you do this all the time.
106 zebra says: “What many of our more rant-prone commenters want is for Daddy (a fantasy government) to fix things, although they offer no practical way for that to happen.”
Actually that’s why Ronald Reagan won two terms as POTUS.
(but that’s another story, and probably too long ago to bother with even though it’s true.)
Thomassays
nigelj, re the Hillary and Bill show. I’m not so naive that I would expect anyone anywhere to believe me just because I say something. But my opinion is my opinion. And in my opinion it is very well grounded in historical evidence and hard facts and psychological science. It will take much more of the latter to convince to change or even be open to consider reviewing my opinion.
eg no agw/cc denier argument or “new evidence” is going to shake what I already know about it and accept as real and valid.
Let proffer two simple examples:
Both Obama and HRC where dead set against marriage equality/ gay marriage when senators and in Obama’s first term. They subsequently changed their public opinion not because of new evidence or new facts or new studies or a new realisation of what the UNDHR said back in 1948 nor based on their long term reading of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence and definitely not because they were national leaders of conviction but because they were both followers. Feel free to chase that down the rabbit hole by researching the topic historically.
Next there’s Bill and Hillary in 1994 versus pre-1992, then 2008, 2012, 2015 and 2016 on the issue of race relations, new laws they presided over, the Militarisation of US city police forces and what they have said publicly over the years and specifically the subsequent hiring of Dick Morris and using focus groups leading up to the 1994 midterms and the 1996 reelection campaign.
It’s complex historical issue for the US, and one doesn’t bake a cake using only one ingredient. But each ingredient is critical to the outcome of what you get once it comes out of the oven. AGW/CC is also only one policy issue too.
Feel free to research the matter of race and criminal law in the USA and Black Lives matter. Dates matter btw.
Only to help get you started (if interested) – pages chosen at random – I have not read them now – my research goes way back.
While your there on google and google scholar maybe have a very close look see what Barack Obama said, didn’t say, did and didn’t do from 2008 to 2017. Make your own choices and make up your own mind.
How people think and how they make their judgments is more important than the specific policy of the moment. Therein lays a distinct pattern of behavior and default positions and their deepest Values.
Two years of Presidential Primaries used to expose serious personal failings. Not so for decades.
Cheers
Thomassays
I think Bill Clinton was ok as well, if you look at the economy, foreign policy,etc.
So I take it you’ve forgotten about Bill’s multiple inactions that required US intervention but never happened, then the Bombing of Belgrade, creation of Kosovo out of nothing, and his unilateral actions of sending cruise missiles to kill Qaddafi and pharmaceutical factories in Africa?
The US would have done what it did no matter who was president in the 1990s. It’s called luck and the internet. Then came the dotcom crash, thanks Bill, and two decades later the GFC founded upon his repealing of Glass-Steagal and all the rest of manipulative crap the Democrats let through under Clinton.
That’s OK, we can’t remember everything. Like his inability to get his nation join the Kyoto Protocol too. :-)
The two pulses I described are definitely science fiction, in that they’re speculation on my part. They are derived from the idea that if the ice buttress for one of these big basins in East Antarctica were to go, you might get lots of ice sliding into the ocean very quickly, then sea level stabilizing after that most unbalanced ice is released. Then it might start sliding fast again when other buttresses float away, then again stabilizing, and like that.
Hansen is one of the more controversial experts in his field, and even to say where sea level was more than 100,000 years ago is really hard, because of various obscuring effects—lithostatic rebounds, etcetera. I would say his paper is a really artful cobbling together of multiple lines of evidence from many different fields. But everyone agrees that sea levels will rise, and every time they update estimates for the size and speed of that rise, they predict it happening faster and higher. That’s the reality we’re in, so I feel confident I was describing a realistic future, even if I wanted to portray rapid sea level rise also for its metaphorical financial aspects.
Thomassays
156 nigelj etc, maybe consider Obama and mass shootings, gun laws, deaths in police custody, and police shootings of unarmed non-dangerous civilians. If you were in his shoes, and black, what would you have said and done?
Compare that with what John Howard did after Port Arthur and how he went about it convincing his own side of politics, the nation and especially standing up in front of those people railing against him face to face and putting his case.
One shows true leadership the other doesn’t. Who backed in Hillary? And why is that so? Feel free to answer those rhetorical questions yourself and then think about agw/cc and the USA since 1992.
There’s no need to try to analyse my psychology via text on a screen. I got a brain scan done and a letter form my psychiatrist declaring I’m sane and well adjusted. Wanna see them?
Cheers :-)
Mr. Know It Allsays
136 – I have been wondering that
139 – BC had that only because of the dot.com bubble and a R congress
145 – that will work until those who produce goods figure out that your $ is just paper
On another note, what is the explanation from the 97% for past warm periods in the Arctic which included low sea-ice measurements?
Th 153: still do not understand the core issues that influenced people to vote for him
BPL: It doesn’t matter. You persist in thinking it was a failure in communications from the Democratic side. The Democrats won the popular vote 65 million to 62 million. Trump is in office not because of the potency and clarity of his message, but because the US is gerrymandered to keep Blacks, Latinos, and students from voting, and because of voter suppression laws also designed to keep Blacks, Latinos, and students from voting. So you can take your blame-the-victim philosophy and stuff it.
The GISTEMP LOTI anomaly for February is a bit of a shocker being posted as +1.10ºC. On the full monthly record, Feb 2017 is thus ranked =4th, bettered only by the first three months of 2016 and matching Dec 2015.
And it sits as the second warmest February on record, roughly halfway between top-place 2016 (+1.32ºC) and third-place 1998 (+0.89ºC) which was not far ahead of fourth-place 2015 (+0.87ºC). Without an El Nino to boost it, Feb 2017 surely rates as ”scorchyisimo!!!”
Charles Hughessays
Thomas says:
14 Mar 2017 at 7:10 PM
Wrong again. 10 out of 10 for consistency in failing to be a mind reader of others. :-)
So Barton, how does it feel and what is your reaction when someone tells you point blank you’re wrong?”
Thomas, telling someone they’re wrong and PROVING THEY’RE WRONG are two separate matters. Unfortunately you do not have the scientific knowledge to prove Barton is wrong, or anyone else for that matter. Take a hint son. You’re spamming and trolling and it’s obnoxious. If you were half as smart as you claim you would have figured this out by now. You lack the acumen and competence that should guide your behavior. Nobody is reading your links and I would wager that most of the people on this site are scrolling past your miles of rubbish.
nigeljsays
Thomas @159 & 160
Those criticisms of Hilary and Bill Clinton appear valid enough to me. Thank’s for the links, but one or two would have been enough. When I see a list of ten my eyes glaze over.
But you are cherry picking the bad stuff like a climate denialist.
Bill Clinton : During his presidency he got government debt down, economic growth was good, the economy was stable, crime rates fell, and he didn’t start a nightmare like the GW Bush invasion of Iraq. His reforms of social security were sensible enough. This is a good record, and at least some of this can be attributed to Clinton and / or the democratic congress. He was just a decent president. The good outweighed the bad.
In comparison under GW Bush the economic data was awful and so was everything else including climate change policies! This is when the rot set in on climate denial etc.
Declaration of bias: I would probably lean slightly more towards the democrats party if I lived in America, but not massively so. I can think of good republican presidents as well.
But I step back and look at the big issues, the economic and social data and it sure favours Bill Clinton. Does he have faults? yes about a million, but the big economic and social issues count for more.
You claim Obama was a follower, not an innovator, over the gay marriage issue. Maybe so, but Obamacare was innovative and not the policy of a “follower”.
Sure psychology is an important issue in politics, persuasion, climate change denial etc. I could’t agree more. I did stage 1 (introductory psychology) at University and did rather well at it. You are not the only person who has studied the subject.
nigeljsays
Thomas, just on your promotion of Ronald Reagon, and talk about how he opposed big government.
While Reagon said he opposed big government, under his presidency government actually got bigger, and government debt also exploded by trillions. This was the start of the debt problem.Just look up American public debt (government debt) on wikipedia.
So while he was a nice guy and did some good things, the legacy was “mixed”.
Research is ongoing in West Australia’s (Indian Ocean) coral reefs that are also showing bleaching and stress
Thomassays
157 prokaryotes, RE from ur site “We also noticed an influx of threatening comments at our videos, attacking the messenger or the format. Someone may have the objective to remove our climate channels from the internet.”
There is an organised and funded neoliberal agw/cc denial hasbara to do such things as harass you personally and make reports to youtube. fwiw you also need to know that youtube staff are incredibly incompetent and do not care about anything but their job. the execs care even less. Get a lawyer or forget it is my advice — if you don’t want to go crazy. These attacks are not going to stop.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Th 154
Interesting that you bring up Winston Churchill. He understood a central 2016 election issue which is also understood by many Americans who voted for Mr. T – even though a vast majority of T voters have no idea of WCs philosophy, they see the seriousness of the same problem. The problem is described here in the large paragraph that begins “How dreadful are the curses…” The importance of this issue was driven home by several heinous crimes which occurred during the election cycle. Voters saw those crimes and understood that Mr. T was the only candidate on either side which had the slightest inkling of the grave nature of the issue.
164 – BPL
Wrong. T is in office because he got the most EC votes. And people of color voted for him in greater numbers than recent R candidates. He loved the USA and wanted to help – he doesn’t need the job. She only cares about power and herself and that was blatantly obvious. People also knew there is little she could do to help with AGW.
3/15/2017 @ 3:27 pm pacific
Thomassays
Thanks KIA but I am more discerning and knowledgeable than needing to rely on a 1899 book by Churchill on the subject of Islam today. Be careful you’re not one of those being manipulated by the contemporary political usage/misuse of history.
Though I do agree with your summary that Trump loved the USA and wanted to help – he doesn’t need the job. While not forgetting that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and a genuine sincerity. I’m more interested in and focused upon how “the rubber meets the road”. aka the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I’d had a “gut full” of Obama within 2 years and the Clinton’s in the 1990s. :-)
Thomassays
Try this one on for size:
The South Australian government announced on Tuesday that it would address market failure with the time-honoured measure of government intervention.
In addition, the Weatherill government has chosen to continue to rely extensively on renewable energy.
(and follow the links for related recent news reports)
Dansays
172:KIA (sic)wrote: ” He loved the USA and wanted to help – he doesn’t need the job. She only cares about power and herself and that was blatantly obvious. People also knew there is little she could do to help with AGW.”
Truly that is one of the most disingenuous statements on this blog in years. Unequivocally. On many levels.
Th 160: then the Bombing of Belgrade, creation of Kosovo out of nothing, and his unilateral actions of sending cruise missiles to kill Qaddafi and pharmaceutical factories in Africa?
BPL: Notice how Thomas inevitably takes the Russian Party Line in all his foreign policy views? Or maybe it’s the Chomsky Party Line. The Serbs in former Yugoslavia and Al Qaeda were innocent victims of US Imperialist Aggression(TM).
KIA 172: T is in office because he got the most EC votes.
BPL: Yes, K, and he got the most Electoral College votes because millions of Americans were turned away from the polls and the voting districts were heavily gerrymandered by Republicans so they could win “winner take all” states easily. You might want to Google “REDMAP 2010.”
Like it or not, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Trump won the EC because millions of Democrats were prevented from voting. Those are the facts. Deal with it.
KIA @163 – You cannot be serious?! Quoting ex Prof. Judy as some sort of “expert witness” on the Arctic? Based on my own experience she has no grasp even of such simple matters as the the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by sea ice. See for example:
I don’t think I count as part of the “97%”, but regarding your specific question you seem to be referring to an article by Tony Brown rather than Judith herself? Which “past warm periods in the Arctic” are you referring to? What sort of “explanation” is it that you seek? Does this help at all?
The idea that the So-called President ‘loves’ anything or anyone but himself is more ludicrous than any other single assertion I’ve seen on RC, including those times I’ve amused myself by scanning the Borehole. Thomas’s “insane narcissistic war-mongering psychopath” tag applies much better to DT than to Hillary. That was apparent to many of us during the campaign, and has only become clearer as his Presidency has begun. Better hope it continues to become clearer to more of us, and that Killian’s hoped-for ‘backlash’ outweighs the actual damage done, which will clearly be enormous.
Vendicar Decariansays
Trump’s 2018 NASA Budget Request Would Scrap Asteroid Redirect Mission
NASA’s Earth Science division would receive $1.8 billion in 2018 under the proposed budget, which is $102 million less than 2017 funding levels, but four missions would be canceled outright.
Those missions include the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) satellite to monitor Earth’s ocean health and atmosphere in 2022; the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 experiment that would track carbon-dioxide levels from the International Space Station; the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) pathfinder Earth climate instrument for the ISS in 2020 time frame; and, finally, the Deep Space Climate Observatory(DSCOVR), a joint NASA-NOAA mission that is in orbit today and monitoring Earth from space. The OMB budget summary did not include details on why those four Earth science missions were singled out by the Trump administration.
apologies for interrupting the political discussions and personal feuds with a little simple climate data:
Daily CO2
March 14, 2017: 407.29 ppm
March 14, 2016: 404.48 ppm
Should we talk about climate stuff?
Cheers
Mike
Charles Hughessays
162 >Thomas says: “There’s no need to try to analyse my psychology via text on a screen. I got a brain scan done and a letter form my psychiatrist declaring I’m sane and well adjusted. Wanna see them?”
No need Thomas. I happen to have that information right here:
These guys appear convinced Hilary Clinton lost the election due to a range of personal failings and denial about a range of things. They have noted the Democrats appear in denial about the reasons for the loss.
She lost for one main reason : The fbi email bombshell in the final week (which proved to be unfounded but too late, the damage was done). This was followed by about a 4 point drop in the polls, and this is easily enough to explain her loss in the electoral college result.
The fact she was ahead in the popular vote means its unreasonable to say she is universally hated.
I also have a problem with a system where somebody wins the popular vote, yet gets tripped up by some contrived electoral college.
Of course you are right that she was not hugely loved or popular either, and was flawed in some respects. The Democrats will have to review a number of things on candidate selection, or the same mistakes will be repeated.
I personally feel their worldview on globalisation and free trade is approximately right. Of course this hurts some people, but Hilary had some policies to help these people. She was drowned out by the Republicans yelling and screaming.
I struggle to see how Trumps approach with do any good economically or socially or in terms of helping low income people, and that’s before you get to his climate denial. Perhaps someone can explain how downgrading the environment makes America great again because it sure beats me.
Trumps idea of great is too much angled towards belligerent military values and that sort of thing. Many people no longer see this as the defining characteristic of greatness. I support having a strong military, within reason but there are other important qualities of greatness. Many people are looking for leadership on environmental matters.
MartinJBsays
BPL, I’m pretty sure gerrymandering does not directly impact the general election for president. Within states, delegates are typically rewarded by popular vote of the entire state on a winner-take-all basis (with a couple of exceptions where some portion of delegates are chosen pro-rata). But, again, voting districts don’t really matter for the general election.
At least not directly… The gerrymandering has enabled state legislative majorities that have subsequently gone on to restrict voting rights in various ways, generally disenfranchising minorities and the poor. I think it is very likely that such voter-suppression efforts helped turn the election.
Mr. Know It Allsays
182 – Mike
Sure Mike, I’ll call your bluff. Here’s some climate stuff for everyone to feast their eyes on. It’s a graph showing 800,000 years of temperature and CO2 variations. As you can see, unless you are politically motivated and extremely biased, temperatures have varied in cycles long before man made the first wheel or drilled for oil. This graph is a legitimate rock-solid foundation for doubting that humans are causing global warming. AGW “may” be real, but data such as this is legitimate scientific evidence that it “may” not be real.
[Response: On the contrary, it’s evidence that climate is sensitive to orbital forcings and greenhouse gases, that feedbacks are real and substantive, that much higher sea levels occur with only slight increases in Arctic temperature, that abrupt climate changes can occur in the north atlantic, and our activities have pushed CO2 levels beyond anything in 800,000yrs, and maybe many millions of years. You’re welcome. -gavin]
Vendicar Decariansays
“When it comes to climate change, the president
Regarding the question as to cliamte change, I think the president was fairly
straight forward.
We’re not spending money on that any more.
We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. So that
is a specif tie to his campaign.” – Mick Mulvane white house budget director
March 16, 2017
Charles Hughessays
mike says:
16 Mar 2017 at 11:55 AM
“apologies for interrupting the political discussions and personal feuds with a little simple climate data:”
Mike, one of the problems with the political punditry on this site is that the people doing most of the feuding don’t seem to have a basic understanding of government. They don’t understand why Bernie Sanders lost the nomination and Hillary Clinton won and they’re not making the connection between “Climategate” and the hacking of the DNC. Like it or not Climate Change is a political problem. If we can’t make sense of the politics of Climate Change we have no chance of surviving it.
I think we have a few bad actors on here as well who are clogging up the thread with off topic nonsense and they’re getting away with it; dragging the discussion further and further off course. For some reason there seems to be much less moderation and policing of the comments and unfortunately, the only people who can reign it in are the people running the site.
About the only thing I’ve learned lately is that Thomas had a brain scan and the doctors weren’t able to find anything.
I hear you. It’s Trump, not Hillary Clinton, who has proposed putting American troops on the ground in Syria–and who is in a position to do it. That’s all we need, Americans fighting alongside the Russians to keep a genocidal fascist in power.
Solar Jimsays
RE: 181. We already know why those science missions are not included. The administration, as well as the broader GOP, does not “believe in science,” but does believe in plutocracy, both fossil and fissile, along with a militant agenda (via these fuels of war).
Thomassays
181 Vendicar Decarian, a quick note about common sense and equity. Nasa’s earth sciences giss conglomeration does much work on global warming climate change and effects. I cant see how that’s only the responsibility of the US taxpayer to burden. The Budget has been screwed for decades and while that isn’t NASA’;s fault there should be wiser heads prevailing. This comment has nothing to do with Trump or his budget.
Going back to the UNFCCC and the IPCC both were set up to fail. They have. A genuine IPCC would be internationally funded with genuine real working climate scientists withe tools they need to do their job eg “hiring staff and satelites and buoys from Nasa/Giss and other nations.
It’s not like that because geopolitics and geo-economics is far more important than doing real science to present real evidence and genuine truths to the global public backed up by every national govt standing behind the work of a “genuine real and effective” UNFCCC / IPCC system.
They win every time you know that, don’t you? Well you should by now. There’s no excuses left for pretending anymore.
nigeljsays
Thomas @191
“Nasa’s earth sciences giss conglomeration does much work on global warming climate change and effects. I cant see how that’s only the responsibility of the US taxpayer to burden.”
I disagree. It is best funded by the tax payer. The private sector doesn’t have a great record of research in the pure sciences, and public tax payer funding is best. This has long been recognised by economists. The amounts are a tiny part of governments budgets. Science is too important to start restructuring this sort of thing.
Business group funding would also lead to concerns about vested interests.
Maybe you are thinking its best to send the bills to the fossil fuel companies? This might be tempting, but it’s not quite right.
“A genuine IPCC would be internationally funded with genuine real working climate scientists withe tools they need to do their job”
Not a good idea. This would centralise everything under one umbrella, and invite accusations of a giant conspiracy organisation pushing an agenda and towing a politically correct environmental line. We already get plenty of this, but your proposal would triple it!
We should stay with climate scientists working independently all around the world, and the IPCC is just a review organisation. Its actually worked ok. I sense your frustrations, but the problems are more related to politics in the sense of denialist campaigns by vested interests, and politicians grid locked by campaign donors. Your proposals don’t alter this.
And of course people like Trump are a problem. It would be good to hear a little more criticism of Trump from you, because right now I’m wondering if you are actually a Trump supporter.
Sure I agree the Democrats need some home truths, but if it worries you lobby them directly. And people resent having their noses rubbed in things, you are over doing it and the democrats know they got some things wrong. Unless you have a very specific constructive suggestion, what is to be gained?
Right now Trump and his team is the problem, and this needs stating over and over.
Mr. Know It Allsays
184 – nj – fbi file was a factor, but so was cheating on Bernie and on Trump. Many factors for both T & H gave it to him. Electoral system is our system for good reasons. T will bring common sense to environmental enforcement – no more $75K/day fine for building a pond on your property, etc. IF he gets economy working that will help the poor. He will not harm the environment – congress will not let him even if he tried.
185 – MJB – agree, gerrymandering had nothing to do with T win
186 – good response Gavin, thanks.
187 – VD – since climate science is “settled” we can probably scale back the money to study it, right? maybe for at least the next 4 years we’d be better off spending more on trying to find solutions other than trying to mandate unpopular changes to our transportation systems, etc – what do you think?
189 – BPL – Obama put troops on the ground in Syria in 2016
190 – SJ – Why study climate science – it’s settled, right? Move on to other things like solving the problem using science, not mandates on cars which the people don’t want.
3/17/2017 @12:37
KIA 186: temperatures have varied in cycles long before man made the first wheel or drilled for oil.
BPL: By similar logic, natural causes such as lightning started fires for billions of years before man even appeared on the scene. Therefore, there’s no such thing as arson.
Nobody is reading your links and I would wager that most of the people on this site are scrolling past your miles of rubbish.
Pretty much true, speaking for myself. I am scrolling a lot lately. Practice does seem to make it easier to spot the worthwhile comments that briefly appear, waving hopefully, before they’re carried away on the frothing flood. I resist the temptation to overextend that analogy 8^D.
NOAA have posted their February Global Analysis which shows a global temperature anomaly of +0.98ºC, the second warmest February on record (as per GISTEMP) behind Feb 2016 (+1.20ºC) and ahead of Feb 2015 (+0.88ºC) and Feb 1998 (+0.86ºC), so not quite as impressively positioned ahead of the pack as it is in GISTEMP. NOAA’s February sits as the 7th warmest monthly anomaly in the full record (4th in GISTEMP).
One set of comparisons in NOAA that are more impressive than GISTEMP is the number of the warmest anomalies than have occurred 2015-17. It is not until you get down to =15th on the full NOAA record that you now find the first monthly anomalies not 2015-17 (=15th Jan 2007) The next is =21st (Feb 1998), these months the peak temperatures from past El Nino years. In GISTEMP the first of these ‘less-recent’ months is 10th (Jan 2007) with six such ‘less-recent’ months in the top 20 where NOAA has just the one.
So no question that for a non-El Nino year, 2017 has begun “scorchyisimo!!”
I note also that BEST has posted for February at +0.912ºC, again second warmest Feb behind 2016 (+1.091ºC) and ahead of 1998 (+0.804ºC) and 2015 (+0.752ºC), with Feb 2017 the 6th warmest anomaly on the full record. The highest-ranked ‘less-recent’ month in BEST is 8th (Jam 2007) with six ‘less-recent’ months in the top 20.
Thomassays
166 MA Rodger says: “Without an El Nino to boost it, Feb 2017 surely rates as ”scorchyisimo!!!””
Sure does. And how’s that CO2 and CO2e ppm tracking MA?
Including at the stations beyond Mauna Loa in the Pacific where ENSO resides.
Thomassays
typo sorry … Absolutely certain I ‘DO NOT’ say or think that.
Thomassays
167 Charles Hughes, telling someone they’re wrong and PROVING THEY’RE WRONG are two separate matters. Think harder about that pronouncement. :-)
Thomassays
168 nigelj says:
“Thank’s for the links, but one or two would have been enough. When I see a list of ten my eyes glaze over.”
You must have difficulty reading RC articles by the scientists then. And Google must be a frightening experience for you. :-)
“But you are cherry picking the bad stuff like a climate denialist.”
Nope you’re wrong again. As I said that subject was but one example of multiple issues I was suggesting is self-evident to those who care to look at the whole of it. That ONE example was offered up as a counter to the pre-existing CHERRY PICKING and default EMOTIONAL BIAS that has already been happening here since November from some quarters.
I am not going to apologize for being unbiased and well informed. Nor for already researching these matters last year and before. I cannot unknow what I already know for certain is part of the “puzzle” others have trouble dealing with rationally.
Bill Clinton : The 9/11 hijackers arrived under Clinton’s watch. How far down the rabbit hole to you want to go?
“The good outweighed the bad.”
– That’s an opinion based on cherry-picking. It’s you who is acting like climate science deniers do. You’re ignoring the actual basis for my “opinion” – the evidence to the contrary eg the repeal of Glass-Stegal and it’s direct effect upon billions of people around the world.
You’re ignoring the historical facts and evidence contained in the doco http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/ and the academic papers written about this general subject matter under discussion here – the manipulation of public opinion and voters.
I could provide some links, but way too many people here are afraid of new information coming in. They cannot cope apparently with “ideas” that counter their existing “beliefs” about the world. That’s also AGW/CC Denialism:101 btw.
‘snipped the rest’ – you are missing the point again. It’s not about Bill Clinton, it’s about America. And studying a psychology subject at uni decades ago does not equate with being up to date in 2017. eg you’d know that the studies showing the % of corporate execs who could be deemed narcissistic psychopaths/sociopaths is the same as the % found in the prison population today.
I wonder what the % is in the group of western politicians today and the last 2 decades? The hard data on up-to-date climate science from a million peer-reviewed papers will never address that problem.
Not when the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Morris and the IPA in oz, or Heartland in the US are part of the picture.
Has the Global Change Master Directory page been disabled? Does not seem accessible. Anyone know the story?
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/
[Response: Hardware failure. Should be back up soon. In the meantime, use http://idn.ceos.org/ – gavin]
Hi Jim. I don’t accept it’s plagiarism when providing the source ref directly. Sure “..” or a block quote would help make it clearer but I have my valid reasons. It’s a comments board, readers’ responsibility prevails.
Purpose and the point is about #58 MA Rodger the Pedant Extremist. Trying to loosen him and his blocked thinking processes up a bit. :-)
BPL: Because they don’t adhere to Thomas’s program.
Wrong again. 10 out of 10 for consistency in failing to be a mind reader of others. :-)
So Barton, how does it feel and what is your reaction when someone tells you point blank you’re wrong?
That is called an open ended question without assumption or pre-judgement. Such questions can lead others to a greater self-awareness. “can”, it’s not guaranteed. :-)
119 BPL: This from the guy who disapproves of psychoanalyzing people online.
140 BPL: The master of not using personal insults strikes again.
Followed up with:
BPL: You are, once again, and as always, delusional.
BPL: No wonder K and Thomas are kindred spirits. They’re both clinical paranoids.
BPL: Which means you’re either completely ignorant of both candidates’ stands, or insane.
Ref: https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/delusional-disorder
Let’s flesh this out a little:
“Th 118: Pro-AGW/CC action people and scientists are more delusional and living in greater denial than the everyday science deniers are who voted for Trump and want the EPA and NASA/GISS/NOAA shutdown.”
For simplicity:
– didn’t see trump coming
– didn’t expect him to win
– still do not understand the core issues that influenced people to vote for him
– falsely believe these election results/voters were “in fact” influenced manipulated by Putin/Russia
– still don’t know why Trump won
– still don’t know why Hillary Clinton is “hated/detested” by a majority of Americans, even those who voted Democrat and Democrat registered voters who didn’t vote at all
– don’t understand the significance or the manipulative ideological drivers of CNN [a profound Hillary/Obama media group supporter] now interviewing President Assad for the first time since the civil war in Syria began.
– don’t get there is no difference in the dynamics drivers and methods between FoxNews and CNN
– don’t get that reason is 98% unconscious framing and cultural narratives – especially their own personal reasoning
– cannot recognize the direct similarities between climate science deniers and their own flawed thinking, judgement and behaviors
– can see the total lack of genuine evidence and ignorance of the facts behind opinions of climate science deniers but not in their own.
—
So where to from here? Some “hints” and “challenges”
– Can you suspend your personal beliefs and opinions for a short period of time?
– Become a blank slate about a subject and remain open-minded and prepared to learn something new and unexpected?
– Have you watched the 4 episodes of Century of the Self doco?
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/
– Have you noted “new ideas, names of people, and events” arising in the doco, or been REMINDED OF THINGS YOU HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT?
– Do you know how to plug in words and names from that documentary into Google Scholar or web search like Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud, Matthew Freud, Phillip Gould, Dick Morris, New labour, tony blair, cheney, clinton, marketing research, marketing psychology, unconscious, focus groups and neoliberalism and economic rationalism.
– Do you know all about and see the direct connections between the content of that documentary, and the potential research one could find to confirm it’s conclusions, and 50 years of lectures by Linguistics researcher Noam Chomsky, and his geopolitical ethical insights about the USA, and the scientific cognitive psychology research of George Lakoff and his peers over the last 25 years and how it all interconnects into a sustainable knowable whole?
– And many others? eg the Economics Professor who points out as plain as day the connection between climate denial and neoliberalism – what drives it, who’s behind it and WHY it works so effectively?
Especially when one integrates that knowledge with at least what Cook et al have been saying at skeptical science, in his published papers and on his University of Qld Denial lectures/interviews on Youtube?
Self-delusional, entrenched false beliefs, and denial is a fascinating topic.
That one way that self-delusion and denial manifests is outright refusing to click on link or stop long enough to allow NEW PROFOUND INFORMATION to come in, consider it seriously and carefully and grow in knowledge and self-awareness all at the same time, thereby becoming more effective in achieving one’s goals.
Mmmmmmmm. I wonder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6bjqdll7DI
(smiling)
I have seen Bill and Hillary Clinton on tv screens for 25 years. I have also seen Hillary in lectures and interviews going back to when she was still a teenager.
Winston Churchill didn’t need a professional psychiatric analysis report to work out in a couple of years that Adolf Hitler was a narcissistic psychopath, insane and dangerous. Millions didn’t believe him either. But people can be oh so gullible and stupid and ignorant and so easily manipulated.
Zebra @106
“That many of our more rant-prone commenters want is for Daddy (a fantasy government) to fix things, although they offer no practical way for that to happen.”
There is a risk of this. Sounds almost a libertarian view.
Governments can only do so much. This is commonsense. But it’s not good enough to say its all too hard to work out what they should do, or risky to let them do anything beyond a police force, and the safer bet is very small government. But neither is it acceptable to expect government to solve everything, because we know individual responsibility and initiative brings rewards.
I think we have to make some rational attempt to work out what governments should do, and where things are best pitched, despite the fact we are often irrational chimps at heart. We have to do our best, because the alternatives are pretty grim.
Like a lot of things in life the safest, most life enhancing course is often a balancing act between extremes. The role of government is probably the same.
In the end the solution to climate change will require a combination of individual responsibility and some pushing from the state. Think about it, if a huge chunk of ice breaks of somewhere or we see another big temperature spike, watch humanity go into action mode. Things reach tipping points all of a sudden, and this includes human responses to various situations.
Thomas, you are very critical of Hilary Clintons character and motives, and rate her no better than Trump or Bush. She has certainly been caught out in a few lies, and they are bizarre lies, because why would you even make that stuff up? She also has unfortunatte hawkish foreign policy tendencies.
But I think she rates better than Trump or Bush on policies and is probably less likely to start WW3. I think Bill Clinton was ok as well, if you look at the economy, foreign policy,etc.
Are you sure you are not getting into a false equivalence thing, and just emoting your frustrations. Like a child saying I hate everyone? And everyone can be egotistical and wants to be remembered in the history books. It’s not a sin. Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good, you do this all the time.
Another month another YouTube channel termination http://climatestate.com/2017/03/15/another-month-another-youtube-channel-termination/
106 zebra says: “What many of our more rant-prone commenters want is for Daddy (a fantasy government) to fix things, although they offer no practical way for that to happen.”
Actually that’s why Ronald Reagan won two terms as POTUS.
(but that’s another story, and probably too long ago to bother with even though it’s true.)
nigelj, re the Hillary and Bill show. I’m not so naive that I would expect anyone anywhere to believe me just because I say something. But my opinion is my opinion. And in my opinion it is very well grounded in historical evidence and hard facts and psychological science. It will take much more of the latter to convince to change or even be open to consider reviewing my opinion.
eg no agw/cc denier argument or “new evidence” is going to shake what I already know about it and accept as real and valid.
Let proffer two simple examples:
Both Obama and HRC where dead set against marriage equality/ gay marriage when senators and in Obama’s first term. They subsequently changed their public opinion not because of new evidence or new facts or new studies or a new realisation of what the UNDHR said back in 1948 nor based on their long term reading of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence and definitely not because they were national leaders of conviction but because they were both followers. Feel free to chase that down the rabbit hole by researching the topic historically.
Next there’s Bill and Hillary in 1994 versus pre-1992, then 2008, 2012, 2015 and 2016 on the issue of race relations, new laws they presided over, the Militarisation of US city police forces and what they have said publicly over the years and specifically the subsequent hiring of Dick Morris and using focus groups leading up to the 1994 midterms and the 1996 reelection campaign.
It’s complex historical issue for the US, and one doesn’t bake a cake using only one ingredient. But each ingredient is critical to the outcome of what you get once it comes out of the oven. AGW/CC is also only one policy issue too.
Feel free to research the matter of race and criminal law in the USA and Black Lives matter. Dates matter btw.
Only to help get you started (if interested) – pages chosen at random – I have not read them now – my research goes way back.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/25/julius-jones/black-lives-matter-activist-says-clintons-passed-p/
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/13/bill_clinton_continues_to_defend_1994_crime_bill_that_fueled_racist_mass_incarceration/
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-tragic-politics-of-crime/392114/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33545971
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/bill-clinton-and-the-1994-crime-bill/
https://newrepublic.com/article/129433/clintons-war-drugs-black-lives-didnt-matter
https://thinkprogress.org/hillary-clinton-says-she-agrees-her-role-in-mass-incarceration-was-a-mistake-eaa5b1b523c#.pa7594vr6
While your there on google and google scholar maybe have a very close look see what Barack Obama said, didn’t say, did and didn’t do from 2008 to 2017. Make your own choices and make up your own mind.
How people think and how they make their judgments is more important than the specific policy of the moment. Therein lays a distinct pattern of behavior and default positions and their deepest Values.
Two years of Presidential Primaries used to expose serious personal failings. Not so for decades.
Cheers
I think Bill Clinton was ok as well, if you look at the economy, foreign policy,etc.
So I take it you’ve forgotten about Bill’s multiple inactions that required US intervention but never happened, then the Bombing of Belgrade, creation of Kosovo out of nothing, and his unilateral actions of sending cruise missiles to kill Qaddafi and pharmaceutical factories in Africa?
The US would have done what it did no matter who was president in the 1990s. It’s called luck and the internet. Then came the dotcom crash, thanks Bill, and two decades later the GFC founded upon his repealing of Glass-Steagal and all the rest of manipulative crap the Democrats let through under Clinton.
That’s OK, we can’t remember everything. Like his inability to get his nation join the Kyoto Protocol too. :-)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/q-a-kim-stanley-robinson-explains-how-he-flooded-manhattan/
156 nigelj etc, maybe consider Obama and mass shootings, gun laws, deaths in police custody, and police shootings of unarmed non-dangerous civilians. If you were in his shoes, and black, what would you have said and done?
Compare that with what John Howard did after Port Arthur and how he went about it convincing his own side of politics, the nation and especially standing up in front of those people railing against him face to face and putting his case.
One shows true leadership the other doesn’t. Who backed in Hillary? And why is that so? Feel free to answer those rhetorical questions yourself and then think about agw/cc and the USA since 1992.
There’s no need to try to analyse my psychology via text on a screen. I got a brain scan done and a letter form my psychiatrist declaring I’m sane and well adjusted. Wanna see them?
Cheers :-)
136 – I have been wondering that
139 – BC had that only because of the dot.com bubble and a R congress
145 – that will work until those who produce goods figure out that your $ is just paper
On another note, what is the explanation from the 97% for past warm periods in the Arctic which included low sea-ice measurements?
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/#comment-310902
3/15/2017 @2:25 AM Pacific
Th 153: still do not understand the core issues that influenced people to vote for him
BPL: It doesn’t matter. You persist in thinking it was a failure in communications from the Democratic side. The Democrats won the popular vote 65 million to 62 million. Trump is in office not because of the potency and clarity of his message, but because the US is gerrymandered to keep Blacks, Latinos, and students from voting, and because of voter suppression laws also designed to keep Blacks, Latinos, and students from voting. So you can take your blame-the-victim philosophy and stuff it.
Th 154: people can be oh so gullible and stupid and ignorant and so easily manipulated.
BPL: But not Thomas. He is above it all, perfectly aware at all times.
The GISTEMP LOTI anomaly for February is a bit of a shocker being posted as +1.10ºC. On the full monthly record, Feb 2017 is thus ranked =4th, bettered only by the first three months of 2016 and matching Dec 2015.
And it sits as the second warmest February on record, roughly halfway between top-place 2016 (+1.32ºC) and third-place 1998 (+0.89ºC) which was not far ahead of fourth-place 2015 (+0.87ºC). Without an El Nino to boost it, Feb 2017 surely rates as ”scorchyisimo!!!”
Thomas says:
14 Mar 2017 at 7:10 PM
Wrong again. 10 out of 10 for consistency in failing to be a mind reader of others. :-)
So Barton, how does it feel and what is your reaction when someone tells you point blank you’re wrong?”
Thomas, telling someone they’re wrong and PROVING THEY’RE WRONG are two separate matters. Unfortunately you do not have the scientific knowledge to prove Barton is wrong, or anyone else for that matter. Take a hint son. You’re spamming and trolling and it’s obnoxious. If you were half as smart as you claim you would have figured this out by now. You lack the acumen and competence that should guide your behavior. Nobody is reading your links and I would wager that most of the people on this site are scrolling past your miles of rubbish.
Thomas @159 & 160
Those criticisms of Hilary and Bill Clinton appear valid enough to me. Thank’s for the links, but one or two would have been enough. When I see a list of ten my eyes glaze over.
But you are cherry picking the bad stuff like a climate denialist.
Bill Clinton : During his presidency he got government debt down, economic growth was good, the economy was stable, crime rates fell, and he didn’t start a nightmare like the GW Bush invasion of Iraq. His reforms of social security were sensible enough. This is a good record, and at least some of this can be attributed to Clinton and / or the democratic congress. He was just a decent president. The good outweighed the bad.
In comparison under GW Bush the economic data was awful and so was everything else including climate change policies! This is when the rot set in on climate denial etc.
Declaration of bias: I would probably lean slightly more towards the democrats party if I lived in America, but not massively so. I can think of good republican presidents as well.
But I step back and look at the big issues, the economic and social data and it sure favours Bill Clinton. Does he have faults? yes about a million, but the big economic and social issues count for more.
You claim Obama was a follower, not an innovator, over the gay marriage issue. Maybe so, but Obamacare was innovative and not the policy of a “follower”.
Sure psychology is an important issue in politics, persuasion, climate change denial etc. I could’t agree more. I did stage 1 (introductory psychology) at University and did rather well at it. You are not the only person who has studied the subject.
Thomas, just on your promotion of Ronald Reagon, and talk about how he opposed big government.
While Reagon said he opposed big government, under his presidency government actually got bigger, and government debt also exploded by trillions. This was the start of the debt problem.Just look up American public debt (government debt) on wikipedia.
So while he was a nice guy and did some good things, the legacy was “mixed”.
Stopping global warming is only way to save Great Barrier Reef, 46 scientists warn
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7645/full/nature21707.html
Research is ongoing in West Australia’s (Indian Ocean) coral reefs that are also showing bleaching and stress
157 prokaryotes, RE from ur site “We also noticed an influx of threatening comments at our videos, attacking the messenger or the format. Someone may have the objective to remove our climate channels from the internet.”
There is an organised and funded neoliberal agw/cc denial hasbara to do such things as harass you personally and make reports to youtube. fwiw you also need to know that youtube staff are incredibly incompetent and do not care about anything but their job. the execs care even less. Get a lawyer or forget it is my advice — if you don’t want to go crazy. These attacks are not going to stop.
Th 154
Interesting that you bring up Winston Churchill. He understood a central 2016 election issue which is also understood by many Americans who voted for Mr. T – even though a vast majority of T voters have no idea of WCs philosophy, they see the seriousness of the same problem. The problem is described here in the large paragraph that begins “How dreadful are the curses…” The importance of this issue was driven home by several heinous crimes which occurred during the election cycle. Voters saw those crimes and understood that Mr. T was the only candidate on either side which had the slightest inkling of the grave nature of the issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_War#1899_unabridged.2C_two-volume_edition
164 – BPL
Wrong. T is in office because he got the most EC votes. And people of color voted for him in greater numbers than recent R candidates. He loved the USA and wanted to help – he doesn’t need the job. She only cares about power and herself and that was blatantly obvious. People also knew there is little she could do to help with AGW.
3/15/2017 @ 3:27 pm pacific
Thanks KIA but I am more discerning and knowledgeable than needing to rely on a 1899 book by Churchill on the subject of Islam today. Be careful you’re not one of those being manipulated by the contemporary political usage/misuse of history.
Though I do agree with your summary that Trump loved the USA and wanted to help – he doesn’t need the job. While not forgetting that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and a genuine sincerity. I’m more interested in and focused upon how “the rubber meets the road”. aka the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I’d had a “gut full” of Obama within 2 years and the Clinton’s in the 1990s. :-)
Try this one on for size:
The South Australian government announced on Tuesday that it would address market failure with the time-honoured measure of government intervention.
In addition, the Weatherill government has chosen to continue to rely extensively on renewable energy.
But the lizard brain faction of the right – encompassing the Australian’s opinion section, certain thinktanks, and the dominant faction of the Coalition – is furious.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2017/mar/16/south-australia-shows-up-the-federal-government-and-rightwing-commentary
Using the ‘right words’ is important. :-)
(and follow the links for related recent news reports)
172:KIA (sic)wrote: ” He loved the USA and wanted to help – he doesn’t need the job. She only cares about power and herself and that was blatantly obvious. People also knew there is little she could do to help with AGW.”
Truly that is one of the most disingenuous statements on this blog in years. Unequivocally. On many levels.
Th 160: then the Bombing of Belgrade, creation of Kosovo out of nothing, and his unilateral actions of sending cruise missiles to kill Qaddafi and pharmaceutical factories in Africa?
BPL: Notice how Thomas inevitably takes the Russian Party Line in all his foreign policy views? Or maybe it’s the Chomsky Party Line. The Serbs in former Yugoslavia and Al Qaeda were innocent victims of US Imperialist Aggression(TM).
KIA 172: T is in office because he got the most EC votes.
BPL: Yes, K, and he got the most Electoral College votes because millions of Americans were turned away from the polls and the voting districts were heavily gerrymandered by Republicans so they could win “winner take all” states easily. You might want to Google “REDMAP 2010.”
Like it or not, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Trump won the EC because millions of Democrats were prevented from voting. Those are the facts. Deal with it.
KIA @163 – You cannot be serious?! Quoting ex Prof. Judy as some sort of “expert witness” on the Arctic? Based on my own experience she has no grasp even of such simple matters as the the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by sea ice. See for example:
“The David and Judy Show”
I don’t think I count as part of the “97%”, but regarding your specific question you seem to be referring to an article by Tony Brown rather than Judith herself? Which “past warm periods in the Arctic” are you referring to? What sort of “explanation” is it that you seek? Does this help at all?
https://skepticalscience.com/past-Arctic-sea-ice-extent.htm
While the Trump budget mounts a frontal assault on the EPA, the GOP caucus attacks from the flank:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/how-to-gut-the-epa-in-the-name-of-honesty/519462/
Trump, KIA, Dan, BPL:
The idea that the So-called President ‘loves’ anything or anyone but himself is more ludicrous than any other single assertion I’ve seen on RC, including those times I’ve amused myself by scanning the Borehole. Thomas’s “insane narcissistic war-mongering psychopath” tag applies much better to DT than to Hillary. That was apparent to many of us during the campaign, and has only become clearer as his Presidency has begun. Better hope it continues to become clearer to more of us, and that Killian’s hoped-for ‘backlash’ outweighs the actual damage done, which will clearly be enormous.
Trump’s 2018 NASA Budget Request Would Scrap Asteroid Redirect Mission
NASA’s Earth Science division would receive $1.8 billion in 2018 under the proposed budget, which is $102 million less than 2017 funding levels, but four missions would be canceled outright.
Those missions include the Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE) satellite to monitor Earth’s ocean health and atmosphere in 2022; the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 experiment that would track carbon-dioxide levels from the International Space Station; the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) pathfinder Earth climate instrument for the ISS in 2020 time frame; and, finally, the Deep Space Climate Observatory(DSCOVR), a joint NASA-NOAA mission that is in orbit today and monitoring Earth from space. The OMB budget summary did not include details on why those four Earth science missions were singled out by the Trump administration.
apologies for interrupting the political discussions and personal feuds with a little simple climate data:
Daily CO2
March 14, 2017: 407.29 ppm
March 14, 2016: 404.48 ppm
Should we talk about climate stuff?
Cheers
Mike
162 >Thomas says: “There’s no need to try to analyse my psychology via text on a screen. I got a brain scan done and a letter form my psychiatrist declaring I’m sane and well adjusted. Wanna see them?”
No need Thomas. I happen to have that information right here:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/99/f2/ca/99f2ca814e6d2fe2e22c1207ded6147b.png
Thomas @153 and Mr Know it all @172
These guys appear convinced Hilary Clinton lost the election due to a range of personal failings and denial about a range of things. They have noted the Democrats appear in denial about the reasons for the loss.
She lost for one main reason : The fbi email bombshell in the final week (which proved to be unfounded but too late, the damage was done). This was followed by about a 4 point drop in the polls, and this is easily enough to explain her loss in the electoral college result.
The fact she was ahead in the popular vote means its unreasonable to say she is universally hated.
I also have a problem with a system where somebody wins the popular vote, yet gets tripped up by some contrived electoral college.
Of course you are right that she was not hugely loved or popular either, and was flawed in some respects. The Democrats will have to review a number of things on candidate selection, or the same mistakes will be repeated.
I personally feel their worldview on globalisation and free trade is approximately right. Of course this hurts some people, but Hilary had some policies to help these people. She was drowned out by the Republicans yelling and screaming.
I struggle to see how Trumps approach with do any good economically or socially or in terms of helping low income people, and that’s before you get to his climate denial. Perhaps someone can explain how downgrading the environment makes America great again because it sure beats me.
Trumps idea of great is too much angled towards belligerent military values and that sort of thing. Many people no longer see this as the defining characteristic of greatness. I support having a strong military, within reason but there are other important qualities of greatness. Many people are looking for leadership on environmental matters.
BPL, I’m pretty sure gerrymandering does not directly impact the general election for president. Within states, delegates are typically rewarded by popular vote of the entire state on a winner-take-all basis (with a couple of exceptions where some portion of delegates are chosen pro-rata). But, again, voting districts don’t really matter for the general election.
At least not directly… The gerrymandering has enabled state legislative majorities that have subsequently gone on to restrict voting rights in various ways, generally disenfranchising minorities and the poor. I think it is very likely that such voter-suppression efforts helped turn the election.
182 – Mike
Sure Mike, I’ll call your bluff. Here’s some climate stuff for everyone to feast their eyes on. It’s a graph showing 800,000 years of temperature and CO2 variations. As you can see, unless you are politically motivated and extremely biased, temperatures have varied in cycles long before man made the first wheel or drilled for oil. This graph is a legitimate rock-solid foundation for doubting that humans are causing global warming. AGW “may” be real, but data such as this is legitimate scientific evidence that it “may” not be real.
https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/files/2012/10/Figure-14.png
[Response: On the contrary, it’s evidence that climate is sensitive to orbital forcings and greenhouse gases, that feedbacks are real and substantive, that much higher sea levels occur with only slight increases in Arctic temperature, that abrupt climate changes can occur in the north atlantic, and our activities have pushed CO2 levels beyond anything in 800,000yrs, and maybe many millions of years. You’re welcome. -gavin]
“When it comes to climate change, the president
Regarding the question as to cliamte change, I think the president was fairly
straight forward.
We’re not spending money on that any more.
We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. So that
is a specif tie to his campaign.” – Mick Mulvane white house budget director
March 16, 2017
mike says:
16 Mar 2017 at 11:55 AM
“apologies for interrupting the political discussions and personal feuds with a little simple climate data:”
Mike, one of the problems with the political punditry on this site is that the people doing most of the feuding don’t seem to have a basic understanding of government. They don’t understand why Bernie Sanders lost the nomination and Hillary Clinton won and they’re not making the connection between “Climategate” and the hacking of the DNC. Like it or not Climate Change is a political problem. If we can’t make sense of the politics of Climate Change we have no chance of surviving it.
I think we have a few bad actors on here as well who are clogging up the thread with off topic nonsense and they’re getting away with it; dragging the discussion further and further off course. For some reason there seems to be much less moderation and policing of the comments and unfortunately, the only people who can reign it in are the people running the site.
About the only thing I’ve learned lately is that Thomas had a brain scan and the doctors weren’t able to find anything.
KM 180,
I hear you. It’s Trump, not Hillary Clinton, who has proposed putting American troops on the ground in Syria–and who is in a position to do it. That’s all we need, Americans fighting alongside the Russians to keep a genocidal fascist in power.
RE: 181. We already know why those science missions are not included. The administration, as well as the broader GOP, does not “believe in science,” but does believe in plutocracy, both fossil and fissile, along with a militant agenda (via these fuels of war).
181 Vendicar Decarian, a quick note about common sense and equity. Nasa’s earth sciences giss conglomeration does much work on global warming climate change and effects. I cant see how that’s only the responsibility of the US taxpayer to burden. The Budget has been screwed for decades and while that isn’t NASA’;s fault there should be wiser heads prevailing. This comment has nothing to do with Trump or his budget.
Going back to the UNFCCC and the IPCC both were set up to fail. They have. A genuine IPCC would be internationally funded with genuine real working climate scientists withe tools they need to do their job eg “hiring staff and satelites and buoys from Nasa/Giss and other nations.
It’s not like that because geopolitics and geo-economics is far more important than doing real science to present real evidence and genuine truths to the global public backed up by every national govt standing behind the work of a “genuine real and effective” UNFCCC / IPCC system.
They win every time you know that, don’t you? Well you should by now. There’s no excuses left for pretending anymore.
Thomas @191
“Nasa’s earth sciences giss conglomeration does much work on global warming climate change and effects. I cant see how that’s only the responsibility of the US taxpayer to burden.”
I disagree. It is best funded by the tax payer. The private sector doesn’t have a great record of research in the pure sciences, and public tax payer funding is best. This has long been recognised by economists. The amounts are a tiny part of governments budgets. Science is too important to start restructuring this sort of thing.
Business group funding would also lead to concerns about vested interests.
Maybe you are thinking its best to send the bills to the fossil fuel companies? This might be tempting, but it’s not quite right.
“A genuine IPCC would be internationally funded with genuine real working climate scientists withe tools they need to do their job”
Not a good idea. This would centralise everything under one umbrella, and invite accusations of a giant conspiracy organisation pushing an agenda and towing a politically correct environmental line. We already get plenty of this, but your proposal would triple it!
We should stay with climate scientists working independently all around the world, and the IPCC is just a review organisation. Its actually worked ok. I sense your frustrations, but the problems are more related to politics in the sense of denialist campaigns by vested interests, and politicians grid locked by campaign donors. Your proposals don’t alter this.
And of course people like Trump are a problem. It would be good to hear a little more criticism of Trump from you, because right now I’m wondering if you are actually a Trump supporter.
Sure I agree the Democrats need some home truths, but if it worries you lobby them directly. And people resent having their noses rubbed in things, you are over doing it and the democrats know they got some things wrong. Unless you have a very specific constructive suggestion, what is to be gained?
Right now Trump and his team is the problem, and this needs stating over and over.
184 – nj – fbi file was a factor, but so was cheating on Bernie and on Trump. Many factors for both T & H gave it to him. Electoral system is our system for good reasons. T will bring common sense to environmental enforcement – no more $75K/day fine for building a pond on your property, etc. IF he gets economy working that will help the poor. He will not harm the environment – congress will not let him even if he tried.
185 – MJB – agree, gerrymandering had nothing to do with T win
186 – good response Gavin, thanks.
187 – VD – since climate science is “settled” we can probably scale back the money to study it, right? maybe for at least the next 4 years we’d be better off spending more on trying to find solutions other than trying to mandate unpopular changes to our transportation systems, etc – what do you think?
189 – BPL – Obama put troops on the ground in Syria in 2016
190 – SJ – Why study climate science – it’s settled, right? Move on to other things like solving the problem using science, not mandates on cars which the people don’t want.
3/17/2017 @12:37
KIA 186: temperatures have varied in cycles long before man made the first wheel or drilled for oil.
BPL: By similar logic, natural causes such as lightning started fires for billions of years before man even appeared on the scene. Therefore, there’s no such thing as arson.
Charles Hughes, to Thomas:
Pretty much true, speaking for myself. I am scrolling a lot lately. Practice does seem to make it easier to spot the worthwhile comments that briefly appear, waving hopefully, before they’re carried away on the frothing flood. I resist the temptation to overextend that analogy 8^D.
NOAA have posted their February Global Analysis which shows a global temperature anomaly of +0.98ºC, the second warmest February on record (as per GISTEMP) behind Feb 2016 (+1.20ºC) and ahead of Feb 2015 (+0.88ºC) and Feb 1998 (+0.86ºC), so not quite as impressively positioned ahead of the pack as it is in GISTEMP. NOAA’s February sits as the 7th warmest monthly anomaly in the full record (4th in GISTEMP).
One set of comparisons in NOAA that are more impressive than GISTEMP is the number of the warmest anomalies than have occurred 2015-17. It is not until you get down to =15th on the full NOAA record that you now find the first monthly anomalies not 2015-17 (=15th Jan 2007) The next is =21st (Feb 1998), these months the peak temperatures from past El Nino years. In GISTEMP the first of these ‘less-recent’ months is 10th (Jan 2007) with six such ‘less-recent’ months in the top 20 where NOAA has just the one.
So no question that for a non-El Nino year, 2017 has begun “scorchyisimo!!”
I note also that BEST has posted for February at +0.912ºC, again second warmest Feb behind 2016 (+1.091ºC) and ahead of 1998 (+0.804ºC) and 2015 (+0.752ºC), with Feb 2017 the 6th warmest anomaly on the full record. The highest-ranked ‘less-recent’ month in BEST is 8th (Jam 2007) with six ‘less-recent’ months in the top 20.
166 MA Rodger says: “Without an El Nino to boost it, Feb 2017 surely rates as ”scorchyisimo!!!””
Sure does. And how’s that CO2 and CO2e ppm tracking MA?
Including at the stations beyond Mauna Loa in the Pacific where ENSO resides.
typo sorry … Absolutely certain I ‘DO NOT’ say or think that.
167 Charles Hughes, telling someone they’re wrong and PROVING THEY’RE WRONG are two separate matters. Think harder about that pronouncement. :-)
168 nigelj says:
“Thank’s for the links, but one or two would have been enough. When I see a list of ten my eyes glaze over.”
You must have difficulty reading RC articles by the scientists then. And Google must be a frightening experience for you. :-)
“But you are cherry picking the bad stuff like a climate denialist.”
Nope you’re wrong again. As I said that subject was but one example of multiple issues I was suggesting is self-evident to those who care to look at the whole of it. That ONE example was offered up as a counter to the pre-existing CHERRY PICKING and default EMOTIONAL BIAS that has already been happening here since November from some quarters.
I am not going to apologize for being unbiased and well informed. Nor for already researching these matters last year and before. I cannot unknow what I already know for certain is part of the “puzzle” others have trouble dealing with rationally.
Bill Clinton : The 9/11 hijackers arrived under Clinton’s watch. How far down the rabbit hole to you want to go?
“The good outweighed the bad.”
– That’s an opinion based on cherry-picking. It’s you who is acting like climate science deniers do. You’re ignoring the actual basis for my “opinion” – the evidence to the contrary eg the repeal of Glass-Stegal and it’s direct effect upon billions of people around the world.
You’re ignoring the historical facts and evidence contained in the doco http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/ and the academic papers written about this general subject matter under discussion here – the manipulation of public opinion and voters.
I could provide some links, but way too many people here are afraid of new information coming in. They cannot cope apparently with “ideas” that counter their existing “beliefs” about the world. That’s also AGW/CC Denialism:101 btw.
‘snipped the rest’ – you are missing the point again. It’s not about Bill Clinton, it’s about America. And studying a psychology subject at uni decades ago does not equate with being up to date in 2017. eg you’d know that the studies showing the % of corporate execs who could be deemed narcissistic psychopaths/sociopaths is the same as the % found in the prison population today.
I wonder what the % is in the group of western politicians today and the last 2 decades? The hard data on up-to-date climate science from a million peer-reviewed papers will never address that problem.
Not when the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Morris and the IPA in oz, or Heartland in the US are part of the picture.