Trump Consciousness

Richard Feyman wasn't a rocket engineer, but he got involved after the Challenger disaster, and most people think he made a pretty decisive contribution. However, if you want a climate scientist, here you go:


I think the video starts part way through, so please rewind to hear it all.

If the conventional climate scientists were to debate with some of these guys (if they dare) I think the outcome would be amazing.

Please actually listen to these videos.

Almost everything we discuss on Skeptiko involves doubt about science. For example, scientists will tell you that there is no afterlife, that alternate medicine is junk, that ψ phenomena are not real, etc. Most of us recognise that some pretty sloppy, biassed thinking went into those conclusions. This isn't something restricted to consciousness-related issues, unfortunately it has gradually corrupted modern science over the last 50 years or so. I myself got a PhD in chemistry (a very long time ago) and went on to do post doctoral research. I then gave up and switched to software development. Part of the reason for that was related to this very issue of careless/biassed research. By now the internet groans with evidence that a great deal of science has become sloppy and corrupt.

Why does this happen? Probably mainly because science has become institutionalised. This is one thing Ivar Giaever pointed out - the American Physical Society should have reflected its members views - every one a scientist of some standing - and not made a collective decision for them.

Institutions like to pull in money, and if they pull in money from organisations concerned about possible climate dangers, they will bias their output accordingly. The same thing goes on in research done by or on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, and again for the same reason - money.

I had simply assumed that the Global Warming issue was real, but not very interesting. Then in 2009 I woke up to the news that WikiLeaks had hosted a collection of emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit in the UK and several other institutions around the world. Why on earth would WikiLeaks - famed for its exposure of major banking scandals, torture in Iraq, etc etc - take an interest in a few emails between scientists? I am not a climate scientist, nor am I any longer a scientist of any sort, but I know enough to point people to those who do know and are brave enough to risk their careers to tell the truth.

David

The last comment will be first. I call your Wiki Leaks story which was dubbed Climategate a 2009 half truth twisted into a confabulated conspiracy theory by Right wing bloggers, talk radio and Fox News right before an important world conference on climate change in Copenhagen. Was it true? In the ten years that have past, its pretty clear. It was a misinformation campaign with the clear purpose to misinform the public.

Using the argument that science disallows that which it cant physically measure has no merit. When thats precisely what science is doing with the geophysics of climate forecasting. There's nothing in what the climate is doing today which negates what science said ten yrs ago. In fact the hypothesis is correct in what it predicts.

I contend you have no interest in finding whats true. You now have your identity tied to an iconoclast agenda.

Science on the climate is beyond providing proof in the ten years since this smear campaign was initiated.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

Heres what The American Geophysical Union had to say.
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change". They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."[76]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasised that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigour of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations." Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said: "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."[77]
 
Last edited:
The Taliban/Muslims of that stripe are highly symbolic people (attacking the World Trade Towers the Pentagon and, presumably, the white house or capitol was, itself, a symbolic act). Setting the meeting for 911 provides an atmosphere of seriousness. It's a way of saying, "The reason we are here together today is obvious and the Taliban played a role in that infamy". The Taliban are not babies. They can be addressed directly like men; even if symbolically.

Yeah, I get the symbolic reference, but you can't shoot people because you see them as symbols - at least not here at least.

The US myth that the Taliban played a role in the infamy of 9/11 is a disgraceful piece of propaganda. While you were being marinated in shocked outrage we were urgently assessing the reality.

I am no fan of the Taliban. I find their tribal interpretations of Islam repellant. But I get their passionate defense of their homeland against the British, the Russians and the Americans. In retrospect they may regret allowing Bin Laden to live among them. But imagine they knew, anticipated or supported 9/11 is a bold step. Of course they were probably either anti-American or just plain disrespectful of imperialist bullying.

There is a marginal argument that the US was justified in invading a country because it harbored the likes of Bin Laden. I am marginally sympathetic to the US cause. But once he was done the reason for staying was confused. The argument that it was to ensure no more terrorist attacks was plainly designed for a gullible domestic audience. Bin Laden's heirs are not homing pigeons.

And remember that Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, where his presence was known for quite some time. Was Pakistan invaded because it accommodated and protected such an arch villain? So please, don't give me this self-righteous guff and propaganda about the Taliban.

Even though Pakistan accommodated and protected Bin Laden, even after his death the US remained in Afghanistan. Why? The anti-terrorism line is total bullshit. The US was for the same reasons the Russian were - an effort to establish a geopolitical and military presence where they were in control.

Remember the people who invaded Afghanistan first invaded Iraq on utterly false premises. So you have 9/11 and the first thing the US does in 'response' is invade a country completed unconnected with the attack on completely trumped up charges (notice how trumped means fake?). Then, belatedly, Afghanistan was invaded.

While the US was in the fog of perfectly understandable shock and outrage we in Australia [and elsewhere] were examining what was going on on a nightly basis. Late Night Live on our ABC devoted so much time to examining WTF was going on because our crooked PM Howard pulled us in to what we thought was an outrageous lie. No WMD in Iraq, but we joined the wrecking party anyway.

What I find breathtakingly arrogant about the US is that it invaded Iraq on a lie and then decided that Saddam was an evil man to such a degree that the invasion should be in favor of Iraqi Freedom. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. All in the name of liberty and human dignity. So why hasn't the US invaded Zimbabwe? Its a far worse place and Mugabe made Saddam look like a boy scout.

Now I hear arguments that the Talban won't allow women equal rights - and that's a reason to stay? The US should get the hell out of Afghanistan because it had no business being there in the first place and has no motive to stay outside plain imperialism. The fact that the Australian government shits itself every time its US master snaps it fingers does not mean its citizens concur. We routinely enter wars that do not concern us is because our governments are too spineless to represent our desires.

We play close attention to the geopolitical landscape because, unlike the US, we are not programmed by flag waving to enter a hypnotic state of pious nationalism. If you want us to join you in a war its gotta have a corrupt motive behind it - that's our first response. From our POV the only just wars the US has been involved in have been ones they got to rather late - albeit with amazing firepower.

We are not recalcitrant subjects of the US. We are not witlessly loyal to your manifest destiny. We have opinions about you because we must. We are not automatically your friend, no matter what our politicians say.
 
Yeah, I get the symbolic reference, but you can't shoot people because you see them as symbols - at least not here at least.

The US myth that the Taliban played a role in the infamy of 9/11 is a disgraceful piece of propaganda. While you were being marinated in shocked outrage we were urgently assessing the reality.

I am no fan of the Taliban. I find their tribal interpretations of Islam repellant. But I get their passionate defense of their homeland against the British, the Russians and the Americans. In retrospect they may regret allowing Bin Laden to live among them. But imagine they knew, anticipated or supported 9/11 is a bold step. Of course they were probably either anti-American or just plain disrespectful of imperialist bullying.

There is a marginal argument that the US was justified in invading a country because it harbored the likes of Bin Laden. I am marginally sympathetic to the US cause. But once he was done the reason for staying was confused. The argument that it was to ensure no more terrorist attacks was plainly designed for a gullible domestic audience. Bin Laden's heirs are not homing pigeons.

And remember that Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, where his presence was known for quite some time. Was Pakistan invaded because it accommodated and protected such an arch villain? So please, don't give me this self-righteous guff and propaganda about the Taliban.

Even though Pakistan accommodated and protected Bin Laden, even after his death the US remained in Afghanistan. Why? The anti-terrorism line is total bullshit. The US was for the same reasons the Russian were - an effort to establish a geopolitical and military presence where they were in control.

Remember the people who invaded Afghanistan first invaded Iraq on utterly false premises. So you have 9/11 and the first thing the US does in 'response' is invade a country completed unconnected with the attack on completely trumped up charges (notice how trumped means fake?). Then, belatedly, Afghanistan was invaded.

While the US was in the fog of perfectly understandable shock and outrage we in Australia [and elsewhere] were examining what was going on on a nightly basis. Late Night Live on our ABC devoted so much time to examining WTF was going on because our crooked PM Howard pulled us in to what we thought was an outrageous lie. No WMD in Iraq, but we joined the wrecking party anyway.

What I find breathtakingly arrogant about the US is that it invaded Iraq on a lie and then decided that Saddam was an evil man to such a degree that the invasion should be in favor of Iraqi Freedom. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. All in the name of liberty and human dignity. So why hasn't the US invaded Zimbabwe? Its a far worse place and Mugabe made Saddam look like a boy scout.

Now I hear arguments that the Talban won't allow women equal rights - and that's a reason to stay? The US should get the hell out of Afghanistan because it had no business being there in the first place and has no motive to stay outside plain imperialism. The fact that the Australian government shits itself every time its US master snaps it fingers does not mean its citizens concur. We routinely enter wars that do not concern us is because our governments are too spineless to represent our desires.

We play close attention to the geopolitical landscape because, unlike the US, we are not programmed by flag waving to enter a hypnotic state of pious nationalism. If you want us to join you in a war its gotta have a corrupt motive behind it - that's our first response. From our POV the only just wars the US has been involved in have been ones they got to rather late - albeit with amazing firepower.

We are not recalcitrant subjects of the US. We are not witlessly loyal to your manifest destiny. We have opinions about you because we must. We are not automatically your friend, no matter what our politicians say.

With respect, Michael, you have no idea what you're talking about re; Taliban and Afghanistan - and why would you? You're not even able to study unbiased open source material given your media's slant and laziness, let alone truly know all of the facts.

Just because Iraq was a BS mission, doesn't make what was done in Afghanistan BS. Of course the US was going to go in there after 911. I don't agree with the nation building thing that came afterwards, but it happened.

I like how Mr Bleeding Heart (you) is now prepared to sacrifice the lives of so many Afghanis after the US withdrawal.

But anyhow, you're not qualified to have an in depth discussion of this topic and neither is the scurrilous media. You just don't have the necessary facts. Your opinion is just so much green house gas entering the atmosphere.

All of that said, you're not even doing a fair assessment of what is available to and is accurate. For example, Bin Laden and his AQ core went to Afghanistan after he was a known terrorist committing acts of terror against the US and other "infidels" and "apostates". He was already wanted, at least, for blowing up two embassies and the USS Cole. Afghanistan was willfully harboring a known terrorist. In your zeal to paint the US as bad, you overlook obvious facts and reveal yourself.

Pakistan isn't invaded because the govt is officially working with the US and allies to eradicate terrorists. They have played along in drone strikes, etc. yes. the ISI is infiltrated by jihadist sympathizers, but, hey, it's Pakistan. They are trying. That was a silly thing for you to say ("Was Pakistan invaded because it accommodated and protected such an arch villain"). Again, your anti-US bias clouds your vision.
 
Last edited:
I dont know where you get your news from but its incredibly myopic. Stop just watching Fox and repeating what they claim. What I mean here is theres nothing that I can chew on with any evidence from this post. At least Jim Smith gives me data/info to back up his views. I respect that. I can chew on that and accept or find some opposing facts. Here, theres news reports and your interpretation.
I notice that the less informed people are and I mean looking at specific issues and there are myriad here in the US. The more they resort to baseless POVs. Cough Malf, cough. Im reading someones emotional content.

Trump is often not what he tweets when he talks policy. In fact he often tweets the opposite of what his appointees are doing. Healthcare is a good example. "We'll have the best healthcare" Its a lie. Its a fact that almost all of Trumps campaign promises were pulled out of his populist ass. OK so you fell in love with our grifter in chief. Hes a pathological liar. Thats proven fact 8,000 lies so far and counting daily.

Facts are available and I am open to accept opposing facts. Im not accepting your opinions as whats really going on.
As far as negotiating with the Taliban. What information, history, knowledge does Trump have about Afghanistan or really anything. He apparently knows everything by osmosis. Yes, thats my opinion but I can source it if you like. Lets start with he didn't write his own book. His ghost writer claimed he was barely involved.
He doesn't read his own daily intelligence reports. He spends hours daily watching TV. Have you listened to his rambling speeches? He cant even put sentences together and its just a repetitive jumble of jive.
He's spent a 100,000,000 dollars playing golf at his resorts. He barely reads. He just stated he never heard of a catagory 5 hurricane. Theres credible reports he ordered NOAA to include Alabama in their hurricane projections because he didn't want to be viewed as wrong.

You and Jim Smith apparently have created a Trump that doesn't exist. His administration is already one if the most corrupt in history. I dont know maybe Reagan is ahead of that. 21 Reagan appointees were indicted and pleaded guilty to crimes mostly bribery and corruption. Give me emotion and facts. Give me something to chew on David,

The lack of self-reflection here is stunning.

Your media source is wrong, but mine are right!

Based on what evidence? How would you know that?

I remember my daughter went into the Navy with the usual brainwashed mindset acquired by attending public schools and our general culture. I visited her in Virginia Beach after she has completed her C school at Dam Neck, VA. She was sporting the DIA badge on her dress uniform. She felt the need to apologize for being resistant to what I had try to tell her. She even said, "Fox news is the one news source that is closest to the truth". It's amazing how one's eyes are opened when they actually have access to the facts and complexities. Something yours are not.

I read it in a book. So it must be true! Really? You're being serious?

Is there a president in the last 30 years+ that hasn't had extremely negative books written about him?

Do you take candy from strangers too? You shouldn't do that, you know.
 
Last edited:
Thanks ES, That took time. Appreciate your take. From this vantage point it appears premature pregnancy exacerbates the disenfranchisement of women and also affects the whole of society in negative ways.
Absolutely. Cultures which disenfranchise women, cut their own throat and place an enormous burden on the planet. They produce the majority of terror-minded males, and the majority of feckless migration, as a burden upon the vulnerable working-economy world. This is the export of malignant religion and economics, to wit:

I wonder what cultural and religious restrictions are placed on young women, from considering women as mere property to acceptance of rape and denial of proper healthcare and prophylactic measures. I originally posed this question after reading this article and plagiarizing the title. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/opinion/why-are-poor-women-poor.html?searchResultPosition=1
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/opinion/why-are-poor-women-poor.html?searchResultPosition=1
Absolutely correct in its goals and description of the problem. However, implying that this is the fault of western residual patriarchy/hierarchy/capitalism/marriage in favor of 'empowering poor women' as some kind of code-phrase is an industry technical term: Fucking Clueless. In other words, hollow, good-sounding academic propaganda which is meant to tickle liberal virtue-costumed ears. The reality is that there exist two things which force women, functionally, into disenfranchisement in developing nations: Islam and Socialism.

1. Cultural Islam (do not give me literature/academic/cleric quotes, they are merely propaganda) in developing nations, treat women as chattle - and strictly forbid sex or any appearance of sexual activity - THIS more than anything is the cause of the teen pregnancy rates. Clinics within walking distance, handing out birth control, are considered an abomination to Allah. They would rather give them the salat blasted over loudspeakers 5 times per day. Plus the money is needed for $xx million dollar stuctures which stand empty except for 6 hours per week, and do absolutely nothing except make irritating noises.​
Few of these people actually 'worship Allah' at all. They are merely compelled to follow the tradition and the power of the ruling religious mafia. Who work in partnership with.....​

2. Cultural Socialism - In one African nation, the warlords worked with China to flood the economy with products replacing those which were traditionally locally manufactured/sourced by cottage family/capital driven activity. Once the nation had become completely dependent upon China for its source-based economy, and had lost all its own manufacturing/competitive buying and importing capability, China then flooded the country with cheap/free cell phones and then worked with the port authorities and bureaucracies to slow/restrict the influx of baby formula, food, basic household necessities. Because there was only one game in town (the social ministry of welfare) - no one could compete to solve this.​

This worked to foment extreme anger among the female and young male populace who were not aware who had actually caused the household shortfalls - who were then able to coordinate via the cheap/free cell service and overthrow a capital minded ministerial government attempting to solve these issues. Yet the very rich and very powerful Imams - all retained power, all were safe in their abodes. Curious how that happens.​
In this nation, teen pregnancy was at 43% - so there were a LOT of Islamo-Fascism induced babies to feed. Give out free cell phones and restrict baby formula - and you will have a revolution on your hands.​
The Chinese then came in and flooded the country with money administered by the socialist ministers (free money for all in theory) - and cut a deal to take ALL of the nation's mineral wealth, at a highly unethical reduced royalty and excise tax rate. China got rich, and the nation's cultural assets all become 'equal and destitute'. The population was told 'like it or leave' (Thereby exporting the malignancy of a betrayed people)​
This places refugee burdens on surrounding capital driven nations.​
There is one nation where the consumption of opioids is high - enough for 8 x 350 mg tablets per day for every female over age 13 in the nation. Socialized medicine (not necessarily bad in itself) has made the availability of certain pharmaceuticals free, and in walking distance. Including this one. The socialist minsters who track this, love the 24% they make off such deal flow. The religious Imams appreciate the abject drug-induced silence of the female population. And notice who makes enormous financial contribution to the growing of opioids globally?????????? Take one guess where the XX billions and ag expertise which underpin this industry comes from.... (hint, it is not the US)​
Such a partnership... AND THEY HAVE NO CAPITAL COMPETITION TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. They laugh all the way to the Swiss or Island Nation bank where the money can NEVER BENEFIT THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Zombie-fied women and destruction of human quality of life are a mandate of social justice.​
This nation is full of angry young men, fueling terror networks as a result of this unacknowledged opioid crisis. And the key is, this terrible thing called 'actually having to go there and know what you are doing' in order to understand it.​

This is how socialism becomes a predatory practice on the part of mankind, and in partnership with Islam. And the fault for this lies precisely with pretenders who avoid going into the field to actually work to see what is going on, and avoid confronting these two forces globally. The tribal leaders, they both know this and will tell it all to you... But they cannot speak because of....

....people just like this author Serene J. Khader, professor of philosophy at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. She is a PhD in philosophy and women's studies. Notice that her article never once mentions: corruption, socialism, drug flow, minister with offshore Swiss/Island accounts and large payoffs, product dumping, port slowing, mineral extraction at unethical tax rates, lack of competition to mafia, teen pregnancy, abandoned angry male kids, China, colonial powers, port agencies who do not report to a legislative government, dismantling of cottage capital businesses and sourcing based economies, failed infrastructure, Islam, diversion of resources to pay the zakat, 24% overhead to socialist ministers who are the only game in town. She gently implies that it is the fault of western male patriarch-capitalists.... because this is what she was taught in school. Because it is the proper Schapiro Utterance.

She has never

-started a business​
-done an organizational behavior plan​
-done a development strategy​
-conducted an economic tier analysis​
-seen Chinese and Islamic power-lords in action​
-done a Value Chain Strategy​
-done a Trade/Markets Strategy​
-done a food security Strategy​
-done the boots on ground research nor the incumbent Health Strategy​
-been assaulted by Chinese foreign agents​
-developed a large infrastructure project and put people to work​
-met with tribal leaders privately free of political pressure (they do NOT AGREE with western liberals)​
-been in intelligence and seen what socialist nations do​

Jamais l’a Fait – Never been there. Never done that. Actually a part of the problem.

Since this is the Trump Consciousness thread, I will comment Trump, Conservatism in general and the religious right work to minimize women equality and keep women in a subordinate role and facilitate impoverishment.
Red Herring. Just because this is repeated 123,529 times, does not make it 1. Relevant, 2. Salient, 3. Enlightened, nor 4. Accurate.
I really don't focus on American media ranting as solving anything - not that I am a Trump fan, I am not. But this is just to make western liberals feel like they are on the good side. Yawn.
 
Last edited:
The last comment will be first. I call your Wiki Leaks story which was dubbed Climategate a 2009 half truth twisted into a confabulated conspiracy theory by Right wing bloggers, talk radio and Fox News right before an important world conference on climate change in Copenhagen. Was it true? In the ten years that have past, its pretty clear. It was a misinformation campaign with the clear purpose to misinform the public.

Using the argument that science disallows that which it cant physically measure has no merit. When thats precisely what science is doing with the geophysics of climate forecasting. There's nothing in what the climate is doing today which negates what science said ten yrs ago. In fact the hypothesis is correct in what it predicts.

I contend you have no interest in finding whats true. You now have your identity tied to an iconoclast agenda.

Science on the climate is beyond providing proof in the ten years since this smear campaign was initiated.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

Heres what The American Geophysical Union had to say.
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change". They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."[76]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasised that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigour of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations." Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said: "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."[77]
All I can say is that it was those climate emails that got me interested in this issue. Your first paragraph seems to imply that the emails were fake (which is remarkably hard to do because they contain a hash code that is impossible to replicate), and after a few days of huffing and puffing the CRU in East Anglia admitted that they were genuine emails. There are a lot of red flags in those emails, including discussions in which they discussed getting removing journal editors who accepted papers pointing out flaws in climate research.

The UK government was sufficiently rattled to set up an inquiry into the quality of the research at the CRU. However somehow this enquiry was fixed so that it explored nothing. Remarkably this fact was exposed by the Guardian newspaper (which is normally very pro climate change):

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/sep/08/uea-emails-inquiry-science

In a formal sense the inquiry went through, but in reality nothing was checked.

When you look up this guy, it turns out that he has vested interests in green technology (and these pre-dated his abortive investigation)

https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/appccg/people/lord-oxburgh

I don't really want to go on an on with this, again (because this is all old hat on Skeptiko, and also such discussions can attract trouble makers to this site.

However, if you want I'll invite you into the PM thread all about Climate Change.

Unfortunately science has become dishonest and corrupt. For example Rupert Sheldrake performed some fascinating experiments about the ability of dogs to sense when their owners were coming home. In response the sceptic, Richard Wiseman tried to replicate the research , and succeeded, so he changed the protocol to swamp the effect in noise. Look at Rupert Sheldrake's website for full details.

David
 
Last edited:
Just because Iraq was a BS mission,

For clarification, is this a reference to the rumored existence of WMDs in Iraq as justification for the war?

I ask because my understanding from someone who was there is that they did have WMDs, the press just didn't like to report it. My source is a Navajo who was in the Army. He told me that his squad and a few others were tasked with the job of destroying the chemical and biological weapons they found there. He talked of emptying large quantities of these things out of their hiding places, then spending some time destroying it all. According to him, he has debilitating medical problems thanks to ambient exposure to those materials but no healthcare from the VA because officially, there were no WMDs.

Also, as I recall, the Iraq war started with the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. That war never ended. Instead, there was a cease fire on the contingency that Iraq allowed weapons inspections and abided by other agreements. They consistently violated those agreements and refused access to sites to be inspected, or stage-managed them in a way that made them pointless. On the basis of those violations alone, the cease fire could have been annulled and hostilities resumed.

Getting back to the WMD question, I am perplexed that this is considered to be a settled issue (that there were none). For instance, Hussein said he had them. On that basis alone we could have invaded, even if he was lying. It isn't our responsibility to prove he is truthful in the face of a threat like that. That is why bank robbers with fake guns sometimes get shot by real guns: it isn't an acceptable risk to assume they are bluffing. Second, we had found them in Iraq during Gulf War I. Hussein was supposed to have destroyed them but never satisfactorily accounted for them, in part because he was playing games with the weapons inspectors. On that basis, hostilities could have resumed, on the assumption that he had violated the cease fire by hiding the WMDs. We had video footage of what appeared to be trucks full of potential WMDs on the move to Syria. These were never accounted for and could have been WMDs. Again, a violation of the cease fire. Then we have multiple reports from soldiers, including the Navajo I spoke with, of encountering large stashes of chemical or biological munitions in Iraq. For the sake of stability, these weapons were not assembled, or payloads attached to missiles, but they were stored together. In other words, a simple operation and warheads would be attached to missiles and they would have a WMD weapon ready to go. However, the press refused to identify these as WMDs because they weren't fully assembled. Never mind that with that type of munition, you want to keep the two parts separate until you intend to use it. Again, that violates the cease fire and is a reason to renew hostilities.

Then we get to the 9/11 attacks. The main reason put forward to stay out of Iraq, after the "no WMD" claim, is that Hussein and the Iraqi government were not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Assuming that was true, there were other reasons to renew hostilities, as mentioned above. In addition, Iraq was known to support terrorism, and in the climate after 9/11, not a good position for them to be in.

Bottom line is that I don't know that the invasion of Iraq after 9/11 was completely wrong-headed. The reasons given may have been different from the actual reasons but either way, there were reasons to do it.
 
For clarification, is this a reference to the rumored existence of WMDs in Iraq as justification for the war?

I ask because my understanding from someone who was there is that they did have WMDs, the press just didn't like to report it. My source is a Navajo who was in the Army. He told me that his squad and a few others were tasked with the job of destroying the chemical and biological weapons they found there. He talked of emptying large quantities of these things out of their hiding places, then spending some time destroying it all. According to him, he has debilitating medical problems thanks to ambient exposure to those materials but no healthcare from the VA because officially, there were no WMDs.

Also, as I recall, the Iraq war started with the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. That war never ended. Instead, there was a cease fire on the contingency that Iraq allowed weapons inspections and abided by other agreements. They consistently violated those agreements and refused access to sites to be inspected, or stage-managed them in a way that made them pointless. On the basis of those violations alone, the cease fire could have been annulled and hostilities resumed.

Getting back to the WMD question, I am perplexed that this is considered to be a settled issue (that there were none). For instance, Hussein said he had them. On that basis alone we could have invaded, even if he was lying. It isn't our responsibility to prove he is truthful in the face of a threat like that. That is why bank robbers with fake guns sometimes get shot by real guns: it isn't an acceptable risk to assume they are bluffing. Second, we had found them in Iraq during Gulf War I. Hussein was supposed to have destroyed them but never satisfactorily accounted for them, in part because he was playing games with the weapons inspectors. On that basis, hostilities could have resumed, on the assumption that he had violated the cease fire by hiding the WMDs. We had video footage of what appeared to be trucks full of potential WMDs on the move to Syria. These were never accounted for and could have been WMDs. Again, a violation of the cease fire. Then we have multiple reports from soldiers, including the Navajo I spoke with, of encountering large stashes of chemical or biological munitions in Iraq. For the sake of stability, these weapons were not assembled, or payloads attached to missiles, but they were stored together. In other words, a simple operation and warheads would be attached to missiles and they would have a WMD weapon ready to go. However, the press refused to identify these as WMDs because they weren't fully assembled. Never mind that with that type of munition, you want to keep the two parts separate until you intend to use it. Again, that violates the cease fire and is a reason to renew hostilities.

Then we get to the 9/11 attacks. The main reason put forward to stay out of Iraq, after the "no WMD" claim, is that Hussein and the Iraqi government were not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Assuming that was true, there were other reasons to renew hostilities, as mentioned above. In addition, Iraq was known to support terrorism, and in the climate after 9/11, not a good position for them to be in.

Bottom line is that I don't know that the invasion of Iraq after 9/11 was completely wrong-headed. The reasons given may have been different from the actual reasons but either way, there were reasons to do it.

Hi Andrew!

Yes. After the US + allies went into Iraq in 2003, some scattered small old caches of chemicals for weapons were found. It is largely believed that the existence of these caches probably wasn't even known by Saddam. They were literally abandoned and long forgotten storage sites. Yes, US troops disposed of them lest rebels discovered them and used them.

The "yellow cake from Niger", "aluminum tube", "mobile biolabs" and connections to AQ were all cocked up "intel". Nothing to it. Moreover, if you recall, weapons inspectors were in country and were finding nothing. Why the hurry to war? Why not let the inspectors finish their job?

Saddam was our ally in the Iraq/Iran war. After that he turned on our Arab friends in KSA and the Gulf states. He invaded Kuwait. This was contemporaneous with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The USA decided it could flex its muscle and institute "a new world order" now that there were no competing super powers. A Pax Americana would be imposed on the world. Not a bad idea in theory, IMO, but not very practical as it turns out. All of that had second and third order purposes, such as protecting Israel and generally re-orging the MENA. Again, not bad in theory, but not realistic. Tribal and nationalistic people resist outside influences. Asymmetric warfare is effective against even super powers like the USA.

The group of people in the swamp known as "neocons" were not deterred by what should have been seen as obvious and serious challenges facing their grand scheme of American hegemony and Pax Americana and they doubled down whenever possible. They submitted their plan to Bill Clinton and Clinton rejected it. The Bush admin accepted it - but how to sell such an expensive and lethal plan to the American people? 9/11 provided the means.

IMO, we had to go into Afghanistan. There was no other option. However, the invasion of Iraq was foolhardy and unnecessary. As I predicted before the invasion jumped off, all it did was to 1. hand Iraq over to the Iranians (based on Shia majority and allegiance) and 2. create a Sunni insurgency 3. Cost the US huge sums of money and wear down the US military 4. distract from the efforts in Afghanistan - all of those things came to pass. Some good intel people quit and sought employment in other realms as a result of the shenanigans in the IC that occurred during the Bush years and, especially, over the invasion of Iraq.

You are correct that following the Gulf War, the US imposed sanctions on Iraq and enforced those and other rules with military air power. The idea was to force the removal of Saddam and replace him with someone more friendly to the KSA and Gulfies, who, by that time, were coming around to accepting Israel, privately, if not fully in a public way. This acceptance of Israel was one of Bin Laden's beefs with his own country of origin.

IMO, after the Gulf War, Saddam was de-fanged and should have been left in place. OTOH, he was also humiliated and that is always a problem in the MENA where honor dictates something be done to re-gain it.

I'm just scratching the surface here. As you can see it is very complicated.

All of that said, I do not think it is ok for the Bush admin to have lied to the people it is supposed to represent about the reasons for was with Iraq. In fact, I think it approaches criminal. Maybe even crosses over. War is about the most serious action a country can do and I believe that a healthy, honest debate is due the people who will pay for it in blood and treasure. I'm not just busting on the Bush admin. The democrats (including Senator Clinton) abdicated their responsibility in this episode.

IMO, none of that would have happened under Trump had he been in office.
 
IMO, none of that would have happened under Trump had he been in office.

The details you mention are plausible and consistent with what I remember from the time. I do think we had the justification to go in because Iraq was continually violating the cease fire agreement by not allowing full unhindered spontaneous inspections. Whether it was wise to do so is a different question. As for the admin lying about WMDs in Iraq, do you think they were actually lying as opposed to misinformed or engaging in wishful thinking?
 
The details you mention are plausible and consistent with what I remember from the time. I do think we had the justification to go in because Iraq was continually violating the cease fire agreement by not allowing full unhindered spontaneous inspections. Whether it was wise to do so is a different question. As for the admin lying about WMDs in Iraq, do you think they were actually lying as opposed to misinformed or engaging in wishful thinking?

Andrew,
I am sorry to have say that they were lying.

All product from the IC teams handling the analysis was "stove piped" to a special office staffed with hand picked aforementioned "neocons". The minority of product - that conformed to their preconceived notions and desires - was kept, filtered and packaged for consumption by the Bush admin and the rest, the majority, was tossed out and the teams that produced it were silenced by various means.

So, to be clear, Bush may have believed what he was being fed, but there were those that knew better and created his "meal". Those same people hand picked the masters of the stove pipe. That demonstrates intent.

Lots of countries violate lots of things. We don't attack most of them. Attacks are for other reasons.

Unlike some here, I don't think that makes the US "evil". I just think that we must be wise about who we attack and why we are doing it and what we think we will gain. We should not jump off a major war with the hope that it won't be major. Hope is not a strategy. We should also listen to dissenting voices in the IC and the military. Group think is a dangerous thing. With the Iraq war we had only group think and hope. Saddam's violations didn't rise to the level of needing to attack and occupy if our only strategy was hope and dissenting voices were to be silenced.

IMO, trying to turn Muslim lands into stable peace loving democracies friendly to the US and Israel, by military might, is on the same order of fantasy as liberals trying to eliminate hate, poverty, racism and provide every child with a magic sparkle pony. And the neocons actually believed that by invading Iraq (and Syria and Iran) they could do just that. All we can do is roll with punches and keep everything at a dull roar. Eternal vigilance and effort is necessary. Not grand haired brained schemes.
 
Last edited:
Richard Feyman wasn't a rocket engineer, but he got involved after the Challenger disaster, and most people think he made a pretty decisive contribution. However, if you want a climate scientist, here you go:


I think the video starts part way through, so please rewind to hear it all.

If the conventional climate scientists were to debate with some of these guys (if they dare) I think the outcome would be amazing.

Please actually listen to these videos.

Almost everything we discuss on Skeptiko involves doubt about science. For example, scientists will tell you that there is no afterlife, that alternate medicine is junk, that ψ phenomena are not real, etc. Most of us recognise that some pretty sloppy, biassed thinking went into those conclusions. This isn't something restricted to consciousness-related issues, unfortunately it has gradually corrupted modern science over the last 50 years or so. I myself got a PhD in chemistry (a very long time ago) and went on to do post doctoral research. I then gave up and switched to software development. Part of the reason for that was related to this very issue of careless/biassed research. By now the internet groans with evidence that a great deal of science has become sloppy and corrupt.

Why does this happen? Probably mainly because science has become institutionalised. This is one thing Ivar Giaever pointed out - the American Physical Society should have reflected its members views - every one a scientist of some standing - and not made a collective decision for them.

Institutions like to pull in money, and if they pull in money from organisations concerned about possible climate dangers, they will bias their output accordingly. The same thing goes on in research done by or on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, and again for the same reason - money.

I had simply assumed that the Global Warming issue was real, but not very interesting. Then in 2009 I woke up to the news that WikiLeaks had hosted a collection of emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit in the UK and several other institutions around the world. Why on earth would WikiLeaks - famed for its exposure of major banking scandals, torture in Iraq, etc etc - take an interest in a few emails between scientists? I am not a climate scientist, nor am I any longer a scientist of any sort, but I know enough to point people to those who do know and are brave enough to risk their careers to tell the truth.

David
I want to follow your requests so I took a look at your video. I did watch quite a bit of it and noticed the comments were all from climate deniers, which I found strange. Once again looking into these gentlemen's background I find no relevant discipline. Both Dr. Elliot Soon and Bloom are Astrophysicists. That may seem irrelevant to you, but Dr. Soon has been openly criticized by climate scientists on his errors in data collection during review of his climate papers.
Let me start by writing it's completely instrumental and part of the process of discovering the truth, that open discussion and looking at the data take place. However if your not a climatologist. Why would you step into the breech and take a contrary position, without the same level of training and rigorous research?

Dr Soon's initial paper in 2003 “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years” which was co-authored. Was funded in part by The American Petroleum Institute and that could be one reason. " From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work." (wiki) I would say that poses a disqualifying bias. I couldn't find any climate scientists which agree with Dr. Soon's conclusions.

There was apparently a big scandal concerning his hidden revenue sources. He took substantial sums from the Koch brothers as well as other oil and coal sources. He claimed a smear campaign was being waged against him so we are out of the science in in the political trenches again.

Dr Elloit Soon doesn't deny the earth is warming but attributes it to solar cycles. So Dr. Soon doesn't deny global warming. He just doesn't believe CO2 can cause global warming, which is quite another matter. The problem with video's like this is they aren't symposiums. Where we can hear a back and forth discussion.

Frankly, I don't think I can change your belief here, but let me end with a bit of commentary by Dr. Steven Novella on the difference between a skeptic a and denier "It is not a logical fallacy (argument from authority) to defer to a strong consensus of legitimate expert opinion if you yourself lack appropriate expertise. Deference should be the default position, and your best bet is to understand what that consensus is, how strong is it, and what evidence supports it. Further, if there appears to be any controversy then – who is it, exactly, who does not accept the mainstream consensus, what is their expertise, what are their criticisms, and what is the mainstream response? More importantly – how big is the minority opinion within the expert community.
There is no simple algorithm to tell you what to believe, but there are some useful rules. Obviously, the stronger the consensus, the more it is reasonable to defer to it. There is always going to be a 1-2% minority opinion on almost any scientific conclusion, that is not sufficient reason to doubt the consensus. But you also need to find out what, exactly the consensus is, and what is just a working hypothesis. Any complex theory will have multiple parts, and it’s not all a package deal. "
 
commentary by Dr. Steven Novella on the difference between a skeptic a and denier "It is not a logical fallacy (argument from authority) to defer to a strong consensus of legitimate expert opinion if you yourself lack appropriate expertise. Deference should be the default position, and your best bet is to understand what that consensus is, how strong is it, and what evidence supports it. Further, if there appears to be any controversy then – who is it, exactly, who does not accept the mainstream consensus, what is their expertise, what are their criticisms, and what is the mainstream response? More importantly – how big is the minority opinion within the expert community.
There is no simple algorithm to tell you what to believe, but there are some useful rules. Obviously, the stronger the consensus, the more it is reasonable to defer to it. There is always going to be a 1-2% minority opinion on almost any scientific conclusion, that is not sufficient reason to doubt the consensus. But you also need to find out what, exactly the consensus is, and what is just a working hypothesis. Any complex theory will have multiple parts, and it’s not all a package deal."

Evidence -------> Argument -------> Measures -------> Stakeholder Approval -------> Proposed Solutions ------> Testing & Measures -------> Selected Solutions ------> Legislation ----> Incentives/Taxes -----> Followup on Effectiveness

While I believe the consensus about climate change, I would shy away from using Dr. Novella as your science champion. When he says 'defer', he means treat climate scientists as Royalty in context that they have the power/expertise to be the authority in everything in the above value chain - they do not. Science is the servant of the public trust and not its sovereign.

The only thing we need to defer to is the thing on the left, the Evidence: The consensus (of alternatives, not count of scientists) is that carbon, methane and other hydrocarbon aromatics and VOC's based upon carbon, are contributing to an increase in global temperatures and changes in climate and environment, and that man's activity is a significant source of that carbon/hydrocarbon contribution. Agreed 100%.

I do not have to defer to climate scientists in my energy companies, nor as a citizen as to how to solve this, who is at fault, what political candidates should be put in power, what is virtuous and what is not, what it is impacting globally, mankind's sensitivity analysis in carbon trade activity, nor where all this carbon is coming from, because climate scientists are NOT agricultural tech scientists, biologists, petroleum engineers, petrogeologists, thermodynamics engineers, physicists, organic chemists, soils engineers, geophysicists, combustion engineers, pollution control engineers, power plant engineers, market economists, value chain economists, legislative lawyers, elected representatives, courts, etc. - as that is not their expertise set.

The final thing is this political myth narrative that is being pushed that no one is doing anything. We are doing a SHIT LOAD of activity to mitigate carbon in my industries. I am leaving for the airport in an hour to go finance a negative carbon footprint energy facility. But we must test these solutions as well and follow up. The problem as it stands now is a systems engineering problem... how to test a dynamic asymmetric system for sensitivity-effect by constraint.

Steven Novella is a clinical technologist. This is a discipline which bears a very narrow degree of exposure to the real world. He thinks that you just publish some scientific reports - peer review them - and the job is done, you are now King - bearing not the fist clue of what the rest of us do, nor how all this works.
 
Last edited:
Evidence -------> Argument -------> Measures -------> Stakeholder Approval -------> Proposed Solutions ------> Testing & Measures -------> Selected Solutions ------> Legislation ----> Incentives/Taxes -----> Followup on Effectiveness

While I believe the consensus about climate change, I would shy away from using Dr. Novella as your science champion. When he says 'defer', he means treat climate scientists as Royalty in context that they have the power/expertise to be the authority in everything in the above value chain - they do not. Science is the servant of the public trust and not its sovereign.

The only thing we need to defer to is the thing on the left, the Evidence: The consensus is that carbon, methane and other hydrocarbon aromatics and VOC's based upon carbon, are contributing to an increase in global temperatures and changes in climate and environment, and that man's activity is a significant source of that carbon/hydrocarbon contribution.

I do not have to defer to climate scientists in my energy companies, nor as a citizen as to how to solve this, who is at fault, what political candidates should be put in power, what is virtuous and what is not, what it is impacting globally, mankind's sensitivity analysis in carbon trade activity, nor where all this carbon is coming from, because climate scientists are NOT agricultural tech scientists, biologists, petroleum engineers, petrogeologists, physicists, organic chemists, soils engineers, combustion engineers, pollution control engineers, power plant engineers, market economists, value chain economists, legislative lawyers, elected representatives, courts, etc. - as that is not their expertise set.

Steven Novella is a clinical technologist. This is a very narrow discipline of exposure to the world. He thinks that you just publish a scientific report - and the job is done, you are now King. He does not have the fist clue of what the rest of us do, nor how all this works.

Good points, TES,

I've been reading that CO2 release into the atmosphere follows warming. So planet warms for various reasons and causes CO2 levels to increase. Correlation mistaken as causation.

I still want to know what the margin of error is for these models. I am having trouble nailing that down. I know from econometric modeling that complex models always have a robust margin of error. This would seem especially true when modeling something as complex and poorly understood as the global climate and since those models are dealing with widely varied inputs, across immense geological time, which each have their own margins of errors - and, as you point each of which requires an expertise set not necessarily found among climatologists (e.g. tree rings, ocean studies, solar studies, ice core samples, model programming, statistics).

Heck, modeling something as simple as utilization trends and associated costs for insurance risk pools - something I've been involved with for the past 15 years - takes work to be directionally correct and has a margin of error of around 10% -15%. And that's with lots of well known variables and even variables that we can largely control, for example, through contracting reimbursement rates.

How anyone can state that there will be a 1 to 2 degree warming, with confidence, eludes me. Projection models just aren't that accurate. Climate models even less so. The warmist claims simply stretch credibility to the breaking point. I'm willing to be corrected on that, but I haven't seen the basic be addressed. It's all just appeal to authority, brow beating and group think.
 
Good points, TES,

I've been reading that CO2 release into the atmosphere follows warming. So planet warms for various reasons and causes CO2 levels to increase. Correlation mistaken as causation.

Yes,

I am good on the temp and ppm increases - the models make sense. However, to your point:

Carbon follows the temperature increase
The ppm history is convex. Economic activity is not convex
Its sensitivity contains a square law - single factors do not impart square laws... (unless it is gravity or light)
Economic slowdowns do not result in sympathetic carbon slowdowns
Mitigation factors undertaken to date have had ZERO impact, ... and they should have modified the coefficient... they did not.

This is from my team on the matter... you can see the acceleration... We cannot just keep ignoring this shit and screaming propaganda... something is still amiss...

Global CO2 and Temperature Increase thru 2019.png
 
Last edited:
I am good on the temp and ppm increases - the models make sense. However, to your point:

Carbon follows the temperature increase.
The ppm history is convex. Economic activity is not convex.
Its sensitivity contains a square law - single factors do not impart square laws... (unless it is gravity or light)
Mitigation factors undertaken to date have had ZERO impact, ... and they should have modified the coefficient... they did not.

This is from my team on the matter... you can see the acceleration... We cannot just keep ignoring this shit and screaming propaganda... something is still amiss...
Ideally you would look at the satellite temperature data because the ground measurements are highly suspect. The locations at which measurements are made has to remain constant because they are arbitrary, so if they move or drop out the average becomes meaningless. This has lead to two absurdities:

1) Some stations have simply dropped out over the years, and were fill in by computer estimates of what the temperature would have been.

2) Some sites become urbanised, which causes warming due to what is known as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). This can be quite substantial - several degrees in extreme cases, whereas the vertical axis of your graph encompasses little more than 1 C.

There is no simple algorithm to tell you what to believe, but there are some useful rules. Obviously, the stronger the consensus, the more it is reasonable to defer to it. There is always going to be a 1-2% minority opinion on almost any scientific conclusion, that is not sufficient reason to doubt the consensus. But you also need to find out what, exactly the consensus is, and what is just a working hypothesis. Any complex theory will have multiple parts, and it’s not all a package deal. "
That argument only has any validity if the consensus has been arrived at in a fair way. Ivar Giaever resigned from the APS because they were effectively signing up all their members in support of the CC hypothesis, regardless. If science were to be judged on a head count, at least the vote would have to be a secret ballot. Even then, it is a daft way to measure these things.

In the sad world we live in, of course the science establishment will sling as much mud as they can at people who disagree.

David
 
The details you mention are plausible and consistent with what I remember from the time. I do think we had the justification to go in because Iraq was continually violating the cease fire agreement by not allowing full unhindered spontaneous inspections. Whether it was wise to do so is a different question. As for the admin lying about WMDs in Iraq, do you think they were actually lying as opposed to misinformed or engaging in wishful thinking?
The problem with chemical weapons is that they really aren't an effective weapon. They were clearly tried in Syria early on, and didn't achieve much militarily. Later on, it is nearly certain that the gas attacks were perpetrated by the rebels to try to bring the US into the war in a major way.

The other problem with chemical weapons, is that they really aren't that hard to make, provided you have a ready supply of chemists who are prepared to risk death in the process. Some years ago, a BBC program illustrated how easy it is to order the precursors from a chemical supplier. They ordered the whole lot from one supplier, and obtained the chemicals! They then rang the head of the company and gave him an uncomfortable grilling. Maybe things were tightened up a little after that.

David
 
TES,

Ideally you would look at the satellite temperature data because the ground measurements are highly suspect. The locations at which measurements are made has to remain constant because they are arbitrary, so if they move or drop out the average becomes meaningless. This has lead to two absurdities:

1) Some stations have simply dropped out over the years, and were fill in by computer estimates of what the temperature would have been.

2) Some sites become urbanised, which causes warming due to what is known as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). This can be quite substantial - several degrees in extreme cases, whereas the vertical axis of your graph encompasses little more than 1 C. The measurements are therefore subject to a computer correction!

The other complication is that there is no clear evidence that CO2 is the culprit. The steady, slight warming had been known about for many years, and used to attributed to the rebound from the last ice age. This was not considered to be a matter of concern.

I doubt whether any measure of acceleration from that graph would be statistically significant.

@Dmitch That argument only has any validity if the consensus has been arrived at in a fair way. Ivar Giaever resigned from the APS because they were effectively signing up all their members in support of the CC hypothesis, regardless. If science were to be judged on a head count, at least the vote would have to be a secret ballot. Even then, it is a daft way to measure these things.

In the sad world we live in, of course the science establishment will sling as much mud as they can at people who disagree.

@TES I'd really like you to watch and comment on the Willie Soon video that I posted above. It is rather long, but covers a lot of the issues that "climate deniers" discuss. This is a climate scientist, so he can't be dismissed as commenting outside his field, and once your ear gets attuned to his Chinese accent, I can guarantee you will be fascinated - and it may even be relevant to you in your job.

David
 
Last edited:
The only thing we need to defer to is the thing on the left, the Evidence: The consensus (of alternatives, not count of scientists) is that carbon, methane and other hydrocarbon aromatics and VOC's based upon carbon, are contributing to an increase in global temperatures and changes in climate and environment, and that man's activity is a significant source of that carbon/hydrocarbon contribution. Agreed 100%.
Kudos TES, I bow to your commitment to our environment, even at cost to you. Write what you wish about Novella, but you apparently agree with his description.
 
TES,

Ideally you would look at the satellite temperature data because the ground measurements are highly suspect. The locations at which measurements are made has to remain constant because they are arbitrary, so if they move or drop out the average becomes meaningless. This has lead to two absurdities:

1) Some stations have simply dropped out over the years, and were fill in by computer estimates of what the temperature would have been.

2) Some sites become urbanised, which causes warming due to what is known as the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). This can be quite substantial - several degrees in extreme cases, whereas the vertical axis of your graph encompasses little more than 1 C. The measurements are therefore subject to a computer correction!

The other complication is that there is no clear evidence that CO2 is the culprit. The steady, slight warming had been known about for many years, and used to attributed to the rebound from the last ice age. This was not considered to be a matter of concern.

I doubt whether any measure of acceleration from that graph would be statistically significant.

@Dmitch That argument only has any validity if the consensus has been arrived at in a fair way. Ivar Giaever resigned from the APS because they were effectively signing up all their members in support of the CC hypothesis, regardless. If science were to be judged on a head count, at least the vote would have to be a secret ballot. Even then, it is a daft way to measure these things.

In the sad world we live in, of course the science establishment will sling as much mud as they can at people who disagree.

@TES I'd really like you to watch and comment on the Willie Soon video that I posted above. It is rather long, but covers a lot of the issues that "climate deniers" discuss. This is a climate scientist, so he can't be dismissed as commenting outside his field, and once your ear gets attuned to his Chinese accent, I can guarantee you will be fascinated - and it may even be relevant to you in your job.

David

David, Even though I've taken an adversarial position to yours in regards to the climate. I generally accepted the consensus and can plainly see the world wide physical evidence. I have sought to understand what deniers and skeptics are looking at and can see the science itself is really complicated. That in itself allows suspicion and controversy.

I realize one of the main conflicts I have with climate skeptics and deniers is political. My perception is the other side has an agenda of continued support of dirty fossil fuel producers, lower standards of air and water safety and continued exploitation of natural resources and the philosophy that other species are only here at our disposal. Take a look at Trumps actual policies. He is after all the climate denier in chief.

I doubt many people actually scan these attachments but I found this fairly simple non partisan description of the climate debate. Its not just CO2, its the whole combo of greenhouse gases and micro pollutants swirling around in the atmosphere. The skeptic position is further down the article. It encapsulates the whole scope of climate change on business, society, other species as well as the contrary POV on the science. Please give it a scan.
https://warmheartworldwide.org/climate-change/
 
Back
Top