The End Of America The Free, America The Brave

You might get a kick out of this:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/trump-grill-review

Imma put this right here, confirms much of what I put in the post: https://medium.com/@alexandrachalupa/russias-interference-americans-hav…

The 14th Amendment bars from public office, anyone who has sworn an oath to the US Constitution and then "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof".

Supporting Trump after knowing he is in Putin's pocket certainly is giving aid or comfort the the enemies of the US Constitution.

A reasonably strict interpretation of that makes a whole lot of the Republican party in the House and Senate ineligible to be in the House or Senate.

If all of those people who did that were removed, the House and Senate would be very different and could pass a lot of stuff.

That is what I am hoping happens.

Great. All we need to do is get Asshole McConnell and Lyin' Ryan and their respective cabals in the Senate & House to indict themselves.

Good luck with that. Best start learning to speak Russian.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5rS3BYBhAMc/Un-bx5wNlbI/AAAAAAAAP8U/pQoo5ykHs…

The conspiracy ideation here is really something to see.

Stephan Lewandowsky is going to have a lot to study!

A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin.

If you vote for Trump you are engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

Nice.

Good luck with this campaign.

If you are able to get the vote thrown to the House, I am sure that after the Republicans vote Trump in, you should have no trouble getting them to impeach themselves for "insurrection or rebellion".

That should work - no problem.

http://www.criminalizeconservatism.com/2013/11/who-was-that-famous-get-…

Brainstorms: "Great. All we need to do is get Asshole McConnell and Lyin’ Ryan and their respective cabals in the Senate & House to indict themselves."

On the contrary. All they have to do is realize that they can put themselves in power. Trump, they must by now realize, is not their friend or their loyal leader. They could, for example, put Ryan in power.

(shudder)

Key fact: They get to put whomever they want in power, instead of the guy they've been struggling against for a year and a half. They can't possibly be stupid enough to not realize that this is their chance.

Greg:

I don't see the Ryan theory.

The House can only vote on the top three people voted on by the electors.

I assume those would be Trump, Clinton and Johnson.

Since Ryan will not be a top three vote person, how could the House throw it to him?

The conspiracy ideation here is really something to see.

Go and tell the CIA. Good luck with that.

"put Ryan in power"

It is very scary to think of that dishonest, unintelligent, psychopathic piece of shit having more power and influence than he already does.

Greg, Maybe, but that would pit them against Trump+Putin, both of whom want Trump in power (one to play President, one to act as his CEO).

Suppose they go for it and impeach Trump and the Senate convicts. Trump, being the Commander-in-Chief of the military, declares martial law and takes over the government and has them executed for sedition (or some other silly trumped-up charge [pun intended])...

It's not so cut-and-dried for them. Maybe another reason why they're so pissed off at him.

(Yes, in #12 I was assuming that the EC votes Trump at 270+...)

BBD #10:

I was not aware that the CIA had said Trump was in Putin's pocket.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

We should start a pool on the number of faithless electors!

I bet two - one Trump faithless and one Clinton faithless.

What do you bet?

I was not aware that the CIA had said Trump was in Putin’s pocket.

It's difficult to see why Putin would go to the trouble of all that hackery to get Trump installed if Trump wasn't in his pocket.

We are already seeing Putin love among Republicans in polls. Republicans like Putin more than they like members of the Democratic Party.

NPR this morning quoted a poll that showed 1 in 3 Republicans have a favorable view of Russia.

BBD - "It’s difficult to see why Putin would go to the trouble of all that hackery to get Trump installed if Trump wasn’t in his pocket."

Perhaps because Clinton's State Department was definitely involved in the violent overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government, because it favored economic ties with Russia, and may well have attempted to foment a "color revolution" in Russia itself, both causing significant inconvenience for Putin's government? This could simply be another standard example of blowback for our foreign dirty tricks. But of course, to acknowledge that would be to admit that Obama has been, or allowed his administration to make him, almost as much of a smug, careless imperialist as Bush II.

jane

Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable analysis too.

"NPR this morning quoted a poll that showed 1 in 3 Republicans have a favorable view of Russia."

I heard that too, and immediately noted that the answers were to questions that specifically avoided mentioning Putin. I suspect including a reference to him would give different results.

Dean... Are you implying that republican voters are.. are.. MORANS???

I find ScienceBlogs curious since it and the people who write for it have no obvious source of funding. How does the site keep in business without advertising?

My point is who paid for Mr. Greg Laden's post above? I.e. a rant without a trace of evidence.

"Are you implying that republican voters are.. are.. MORANS"

Probably not directly (this time). Just reflecting on the fact that the form of a question in a survey has a huge influence on the response.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/moran

Dr. Laden does not “rant.” He pontificates.

Are you sure about that? :-)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pontificate

Perhaps 'expounds'?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/expound

How about hector:

Talk to (someone) in a bullying way

Stop playing the victim.

You bully.

Greg,
Lets have some real conspiracy thinking here: Maybe the real puppet is Ryan. Ryan rides in as the savior when Trump and Pence are blown up my the liberals (KGB) after they are sworn in and he becomes president. Oh, what a tangled web.

"Perhaps because Clinton’s State Department was definitely involved in the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government"

I missed seeing your references and evidence for that. Where are they? (I do want to know what evidence you think there is.)

I don't see a turn by the Republican leadership now to do anything about Russia's interference. As with many other things, Trump's sentiments about Russia and Putin were clear for everyone to see throughout the campaign and there were no objections from the GOP higher-ups (other than the occasional voicing of concern from McCain, and he was dismissed as a loser by Trump and, probably, the current leadership back in 2008).

#31 If Clinton was in any way instrumental in "violent overthrow" of Ukraine’s democratically-elected government, then that would play directly into Putin's hands to replace it with a Russian puppet government that would, among other things, acquiesce about the Crimea and would withdraw any interest in joining NATO. All that delivered to him neatly, without any need for a covert military operation in eastern Ukraine to try to overthrow their government himself.

Evidence aside, why, with Clinton being such a co-operative partner for Putin, would he work to overthrow her and get Trump elected? If any of that had a shred of truth to it, one would expect Putin to be manipulating our election system to put Clinton in the White House.

Instead, he seems more worried that Clinton, as POTUS, would work to "violently overthrow" the corrupt government of Russian instead.

I agree with Dean: The Neo-Soviet Republicans aren't much interested in stopping Trump from marrying the love of his life and making the U.S. the new U.S.S.R.

If there is anyway the cIA/FBI/NSA can prove that Trump knew before the election that Russia was actively working to put him in office and he did nothing about it (other than to encourage them) then that sure sounds like treason to me and everyone, at that point, who supports him being in offic, be they a senator SCOTUS justice, congresscritter, or common joe they would be guilty of aiding and abetting a foreign power engaged in an act of war against your country. The usual penalty for that is death. That should go a long way towards draining the swamp.

Trump did act to drain the swamp -- into his cabinet.

Whether Ryan likes Trump or not, he does know that as long as Trump is in power, he will not face any opposition from the White House in destroying the safety nets or reversing civil rights gains. So, I believe that Ryan is willing to look past all of this and get on with his plans.

And fuck McConnell. He has his own puppetmasters to please.

RickA-

I would expect more than two "faithless" electors; but nowhere near the thirty-some needed to deny Trump the presidency, but maybe six or seven. And I would expect the top three to include Sanders, rather than Johnson; since Clinton is going to lose under any reasonable scenario, her electors have more freedom to bolt without the risk of somehow changing the result., and there is less of a clear alternative among the Republicans (Kasich, Rubio, and others), so it may be that even if more Republicans electors bolt, they may be scattered out among several different people.

Unless the entire Texas delegation decides to vote for Cruz.

Since y'all are throwing unrealistic senarios to keep Trump out of the White House, here's mine:

Enough republican electors bolt so the presidential election goes to the House, and the vice-presidential election goes to the Senate,via the twelfth amendment. The Senate, choosing between the top two (Penske and Kaine) choose one of their own, Kaine. The house becomes deadlocked, unable to agree on one of the top three, so Kaine becomes President.

RickR #36:

Interesting.

I am not sure about Sanders, because he wasn't on any ballot.

I am not sure any electors can vote for someone who is not on the ballot.

I picked the three people from the ballot who received the most votes - but obviously it can be a state by state thing.

It will be interesting to see what happens Monday.

I fully expect Trump to get well over 270, probably over 300 votes.

RickR #37:

Wow - that would be interesting.

It is possible.

But like you, I think it is unrealistic..

RickA-

There is no requirement that an elector cast their vote for someone on a ballot somewhere. in 1960, fifteen electors cast their votes for Harry Byrd, and in 1956, there was one electoral vote for a Walter Burgwyn Jones.

The closest case to mine would be 1976, where a Ford elector voted for Ronald Reagan.

So it has been done, although never affecting the result of an election.

RickR #40:

Faithless elector indeed.

To vote for someone not on the ballot would mean to totally ignore all the voters of their own state.

How arrogant!

I believe you however - it seems like something that could happen.

<blockquote

Risible, from the man who routinely asserts that his untutored opinion is on a par with the scientific consensus.

Consistency is not the hobgoblin of small minds.

Shitbag html nonsense.

How arrogant!

Risible, from the man who routinely asserts that his untutored opinion is on a par with the scientific consensus.

Consistency is not the hobgoblin of small minds.

BBD #43:

There are 7.4 billion people and there are 7.4 billion opinions.

I have a mind.

My mind forms an opinion.

Sometimes I agree with someone else, sometimes not.

Sometimes my opinion is correct and sometimes my opinion is not.

Having an opinion is no guarantee that it is correct - but everybody has one.

You place a lot of weight on experts and consensus.

I agree with the experts when they agree with me and not when they don't agree with me.

Are you really any different?

Do you truly only form your opinion based on those of experts and consensus?

Take foreign policy and Kissinger.

He is an expert in foreign policy (lets assume anyway).

Do you agree with every Kissinger opinion?

If not - why not?

Take the stock market.

Check out this article:

http://gestaltu.com/2016/04/blod-confident-wrong-why-you-should-ignore-…

Should you never get a second medical opinion?

Why do second opinions even exist?

Why not cede your will to the first expert you consult?

Anyway - I do find that I agree with people who have been proven correct over and over.

That is not the case with climate scientists.

I find them to be consistently wrong.

At least the ones who are advocating policy and believe that we must take action now - applying the precautionary principle.

Or at least they are wrong enough often enough that I want to wait for the data to confirm or deny.

Than I may change my opinion.

Currently I am waiting for an actual measurement of TCR, which we will be able to observe when we hit 560 ppm.

That will give me even more data to determine whether the expert consensus on ECS is remotely correct or not.

Currently it is not looking good for the consensus.

"After all, the planet has been warming for 20,000 years."

RickA's done approximately DICK with the existing data, but that's all gonna change!

Gotta love the way RickA whines about his treatment here, then addresses his audience like an 80 year old schoolmarm talking down to, and pouring platitudes into, the ears of a bunch five year olds. I somehow doubt that he thinks that's actually meaningful.

But maybe he's completely clueless and befuddled and doesn't get why people are frustrated with him. Either that or he's a pernicious little stite engine bent on being disruptive. You decide -- what with all your your options for opining opinionated opinions, each opinion equally valid with any other opinion and no opinion being possibly propaganda or trolling.

ou place a lot of weight on experts and consensus.

It's the rational thing to do unless you are qualified to differ.

(Less'n they don't pass that there Smell Test.)

OA #46:

Many of the posters here act like 5 year olds.

What with the name calling.

Many of the posters here act like 5 year olds.

No, they act like adults frustrated with somewhat child-like resistance to explanation.

No proper adult talks to children the way you lot do.

"No proper adult talks to children the way you lot do."

Perhaps only Monckton 'isself would try to reinterpret BBD's response in as martyr-licious a manner. Well played, dummy.

No proper adult talks to children the way you lot do.

No true Scotsmen put sugar on the children either.

Look the art of insult is featured in numerous cultures.

It may not be appropriate in some venues. Elsewhere, suck it up dude: You've certainly spent enough time defending Steyn for what many people would say is *way* over the line and at the very least is dishonest, snotty, vile, and unimaginative to a degree that only Republicans in all their dull mediocrity could fail to recognize.

"I find them to be consistently wrong."

No, you don't find them to be anything, because that would imply that you actually put some time in trying to understand the basic science and what it says. You've repeatedly shown you value the lies you keep at hand to evidence, so we know that isn't true.

If you think you're being talked to like a child perhaps it is the last tiny figment of conscience you have trying to tell you to man up, try to learn something, and stop lying with your implication that your habitual denial should be taken to be equally as valid as data and scientific analysis.

You won't though - your history has shown that multiple times. As impervious as you are to are to science and physics it's probably a good thing that you aren't working as an engineer (if you are telling the truth about being one), as it means you aren't putting people directly in danger due to your incompetence.

Counting this one, that's 10 responses to you RickA, without a single name-calling.

People are trying to get through to you to inform you that your thinking is delusional. You continue to ignore.

Are you perhaps schizophrenic? We could sympathize if that's the case...

"No proper adult talks to children the way you lot do."

I truly doubt you know how anybody here talks to children.

?deanl?

Damn my fingers are marginally useful today. Sorry about that.

Brainstorms #56:

Sorry.

Check out #52.

dean #55:

I won't change my mind until I see the evidence to change it.

Juries out for now.

Interestingly, you are just as impervious as me.

Your not changing your mind either.

You have your reasons, just as I have mine.

You think your reasons are better than mine, just as I think my reasons are better than yours.

That is why, sometimes, we just have to agree to disagree.

After all - what difference does it make if I agree with you?

I am just one person.

It is not as if I personally am stopping you from enacting a carbon tax, to make food, fuel, transportation and heating/cooling more expensive for every person on the planet.

I am truly sorry, RickA. Had I known that Dean was planning to enact a carbon tax to make food, fuel, transportation and heating/cooling more expensive for every person on the planet, I would never have called you a dummy.

Corey #61:

No problem.

Tough crowd here.

But I am used to it.

After all, I am impervious.

RickA got something right! I missed one!

However, in #61, it was taken back. So, zero.

Ricka, your ignoring the science on climate is not a principled stand, not an educated stand. It is based simply on the fact that you don't like what the science says.

You are no different than the clowns who think vaccines cause autism, the people

Drat my fingers

No different than the folks who think GMOs are dangerous, or flat earthed.

Don't try to say there is anything principled or informed about your stance. It's just that of another person who doesn't care to understand so decides those who do are wrong.

Positions of pure ignorance aren't valued by anyone but idiots. You're the poster child for that.

(Waiting for another whine that "people talk to me like I'm a child.)

the-end-of-america-the-free-america-the-brave/

No.

Do not make it so.

Do NOT let it be so.

There are too many good Americans and too many around the world who do NOT deserve that to just let it happen.

It isn't over yet.

Fight and struggle for the best in your nature and the best that we can be.

Because if you don't what happens and what is the alternative and who and how many pay the price?

Please - see first word and sentence here. Choose wisely, think and be kind and be strong and make things better wherever y'all can.

dean #65:

Will see.

"Will see."

No, we already do: you're simply another clown who, despite his ignorance and dishonesty, thinks his favorite science denial should be honored by rational people.

There is no respectability at all in your stance, except to others who are as willfully dishonest as you.

Will see

We have seen, as dean says.

Your rhetoric is bullshit as defined by Frankfurt (and RTFL this time instead of whining about something that didn't happen).

This is you:

There is an interesting problem sketched at the end of the book, wherein sincerity is described as an ideal for those who do not believe that there is any (objective) truth, thus departing from the ideal of correctness. Now, Frankfurt does not mention the word ‘postmodern’ at all in his book (which is a good thing, I think), but to some extent the last pages may be understood to be a critical punch on a postmodern rejection of the ideal of the truth. Be this as it may, when a person rejects the notion of being true to the facts and turns instead to an ideal of being true to their own substantial and determinate nature, then according to Frankfurt this sincerity is bullshit.

#69, #70: Guys, you still don't understand RickA. We are trained scientists, and from that background and our experience, we understand the nature of objective truth and reality (especially natural science) and the fact that it can be known & understood, but it cannot be renegotiated to one's liking.

RickA is trained as a lawyer. (We can make the safe assumption that he mentally nullified any relevant training as an engineer, if he really has such a degree.) Lawyers are trained to have a completely different view & relationship of "truth": Truth is not objective. Truth is what a jury (and sometimes a judge or panel of) decides it to be.

And a lawyer is trained to wile & guile, mislead and manipulate, distract and inveigle judges and juries so as to sway their decision of "what is truth" to be what they want it to be. A "good" lawyer is good at this, and when you're successful at getting a definition of "truth" to be what "your side" wants it to be, you "win". Winning is paramount. RickA wants to "win".

So now RickA is in the court of science, and you & I are the jurors. Truth is malleable, and RickA is trained to sway opinions on what truth is. Think about it: This is a jolly good challenge to RickA. A real challenge to test his lawyerly chops and persuade all us jurors into defining the truth to be the way he wants it to be.

He's running his schtick. He wants to win. What RickA does not understand (and refuses to consider) is that he's kicking the ox-goad. You can't change objective truth, but RickA does not have eyes to see objective truth. He's trained to believe that there is no objective truth, that's it's all subjective -- and he's trained to manipulate others' beliefs in what that is. He's doing that here. (Or, at least he keeps trying -- we're quite a challenge for him.)

What's hilarious/sad is that RickA doesn't realize that his efforts are both pointless and destined to failure -- because science doesn't work that way. It doesn't fit his paradigm, and he's too addled by his training, experience, and personality to realize this. Instead, it just keeps showing up as a big challenge. He's trained to keep working at such challenges until he persuades the jury to decide truth in his favor.

So you'll never convince him. He has to have one of those "come to Jesus moments" and realize that not only is this a challenge that's too big for even his ego and talents, it's too big for any lawyer, no matter how good. Science is not "law for nature" and Natural Laws are not like municipal laws (similar terminology notwithstanding). They are not subject to redefinition on a whim -- or because enough practitioners were manipulated into thinking differently.

But he can't --or won't-- see and understand this. Pushing back on him just shows up as more challenge for him to conquer. You won't win, and he won't win. Neither of you see this.

RickA needs "the Ultimate Judge" to come down on his ass and sanction him. That's Mother Nature, and RickA, she's a bitch like no judge or judicial panel you've ever faced. She is immune to manipulation. Keep it up, and you'll be sanctioned all right.

"Juries still out."
"Will see"

Lawyer or not, RickA's patently dim.

That said, Ma Nature is likely to punish millions of non-Americans before he tastes her wrath. And, after all, isn't that Rick "Don't tax me, bro" A's sole concern?

Brainstorms:

You are not a juror.

If anything (in your analogy), you are like opposing counsel.

I am not trying to persuade you of anything.

Remember - I am in wait and see mode.

You lot are trying to persuade me.

And since I refuse to accept the consensus you all are getting irritated.

After all - if the consensus is good enough for you, why shouldn't it be good enough for everybody else.

If the consensus predictions pan out I will become a convert.

I am waiting to see how the predictions pan out.

So far, reality is lagging behind the predictions.

It is also confusing, because everything which happens seems to be the result of global warming.

When we have drought in Minnesota - that is caused by global warming and we are told to expect lots more drought.

When it rains and floods in Minnesota, that is caused by global warming and we are told to expect lots more rain and flooding.

When it is very cold in Minnesota (like this morning), that is caused by global warming and we are told to expect lot more cold.

When it is very hot in Minnesota (not so much the last few years), we are told it is caused by global warming and to expect lots more extreme warmth.

I personally find it quite confusing that all weather is now caused by global warming.

We had weather before global warming and I really don't see much different in the weather we have now.

Sure, there has been a long term warming trend, since 1750 and really since 20,000 years ago - but how much of that is caused by humans?

Well, the answer is just not clear to me.

Still in wait and see mode.

Get as mad as you want - but I am still waiting to see.

You guys are welcome to believe you already know the answer and try to get the Government to do whatever you want them to do.

If you need my permission (which you don't) you have it.

Believe what you want and advocate for whatever action you want.

It would be great if you told me what your plan is, so I can think about it and decide if I will support it or not.

I am all for more nuclear power.

In the meantime, feel free to focus all your energy on insulting me.

I don't mind.

I don't understand your focus on me - but if it makes you happy to have someone to be angry at - go ahead.

Perhaps it will take your mind off what is going to probably happen Monday.

"Sure, there has been a long term warming trend, since 1750 and really since 20,000 years ago – but how much of that is caused by humans?"

"I don’t understand your focus on me..."

I hold Hyper-Chicken lawyer in contempt.

Shorter rickA: my ignorance means just as much as scientific evidence.

Classic demonstration of denialist ignorance.

And since I refuse to accept the consensus you all are getting irritated.

Of course, because your refusal is blatant denialism. You reject evidence because you dislike the implications. You disavow the truth and embrace your 'opinion' (which is untutored and so worthless) as if this were a valid position to adopt. It isn't and rational people do get irritated by stubbornly irrational behaviour in others.

I don’t understand your focus on me

Don't be so bloody disingenuous!

You are the focus because you are forever posting risible bollocks in comments here.

So far, reality is lagging behind the predictions.

No it isn't. That's just denier bollocks, like most of the contrarian alt-reality narrative that you parrot here.

I thought it was "We'll see."

Greg #79:

Yes - I think it is "We'll see".

Get as mad as you want – but I am still waiting to see.

CLICK HERE

Evidence! Evidence! We don't need no stinking evidence!

When you can fry an egg on the sidewalks of NorIlsk in the dead of winter, then maybe there might be AGW. But it probably won't be man made because god loves us so much and wouldn't let us hurt ourselves, because the economy is more natural than nature, because fantasy fiction says puny man can't affect the environment, because it's been warm before (which is evidence from science) and we can stop thinking right there because that's all the proof that far right think tanks tell us we need (and not all that icky nuance stuff such as isotope fractions, thermodynamics, etc., etc...).

In other words, the kind of thing that comes out the but crack of any barroom blowhard in anywhere U.S. of A. is better'n any ol' egghead science stuff from dirty liberals who otta be thrown to the ground and punched and kicked and tied to the back of a pickup trucks and dragged down country roads. Yeah, that'd show them uppity, stuck up bastards gooooood! YEEHAW!!!!!!!!! USA!!! USA!!!!!!! BOOYAH!!!!

Yeah, it's /sarcasm ...in case some knucklehead (RickA) can't figure that out.

RickA may be looking forward to Soviet Don's "New DOE" henchmen who will be dragging the pre-U.S.S.R. climate scientists behind trucks down country roads...

Wish it were sarcasm. Only 538 citizens decide our fateful path today. That's the thread that 240 years of a free nation hangs by.

@BBD in #81:

I fear your response to rickA is wasted - he has demonstrated that data, numbers, and analysis don't matter to him. Whether that is because he simply can't understand them or willfully chooses to ignore them doesn't matter, the end result is the same: another edition of denialism will be ejaculated through the Internet to his next response.

I look at ALL the evidence, not just the evidence which confirms my bias.

And guess what - when you look at all the evidence, nothing has been proven yet.

It is inconclusive.

That is why consensus scientists have to rely on the consensus. The signal of human influence on climate is so small that it is very very hard to tease out of the background of natural variability.

More time and more data are needed to PROVE anything.

The null hypothesis is that any change to the climate is natural.

That hypothesis has not yet been proven wrong.

So the consensus has to rely on the precautionary principal.

We don't have time to wait for actual PROOF - we must take action now, just in case we are right.

I await enough evidence to actually decide who is correct.

I still say two faithless electors - one republican and one democrat.

Any other guesses?

RickA, everything you said in #85 is wrong -- or a flat-out lie.

The "precautionary principle" (if you spell it correctly; your principal should have failed you) states that "in absence of a 100% certainty that dumping GOGs into the atmosphere is safe, we must follow what science has so far shown us and curtail emissions in order to avoid a host of disasters: Economic disasters, properly loss disasters, extinction disasters, loss of life disasters, drought and famine disasters, etc."

To keeping on with BAU is to be reckless. To be precautionary and conservative, we must cut GOG and keep the carbon in the ground until and unless it is proven that BAU emissions are safe to continue.

Do you have such proof of safety? No, you don't. Then your precautionary principle states that we must keep the carbon in the ground.

RickA, you've tied your own hands with your own argument this time. No excuses, no escape.

Let the weaseling begin !

In 3.. 2.. 1..

Brainstorms:

You have put the burden of proof on the wrong party.

It is not up to scientists to prove emitting carbon is safe.

It is up to scientists to prove that emitting carbon isn't safe (i.e. that the change to climate isn't natural).

Not enough evidence to do that yet.

Recall Trenberth wanted to change the null hypothesis.

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-101479.html

But it never got changed.

It is still what it has always been.

Ah yes, a reference to an argument by J. Curry, always a sign of someone who has no idea what they're talking about.

I am citing to Dr. Trenberth's paper - which is advocating changing the burden of proof from what it has always been to the opposite.

Fail - did not happen.

The burden of proof is exactly what it has always been - the burden is on scientists to show it is not natural (the sun, volcanos, ocean currents, cosmic rays, etc.).

Your side may be right - but they cannot prove it yet.

so you want to just assume your correct - but that is not how science works.

If you don't like it - tough.

It is not up to scientists to prove emitting carbon is safe.

Didn't take long...

Wrong again, RickA. Burden of proof of safety is on the FF industry. Just as burden of proof & efficacy is on the drug companies that wish to market pharmaceuticals. Etc, etc., etc., etc., etc., industry after industry.

The FF industry does NOT get a pass "just because RickA doesn't want it regulated so that RickA doesn't have to change his precious lifestyle".

You do not have enough evidence to support your side in this argument yet. We're waiting...

You are exhibiting wishful thinking Brainstorms.

Take it up with Trenberth.

Also, keep making your mighty wish that the temperature rise less than 2C - that might help also.

No need to take anything up with Trenberth.

Appropriate, conservative, precautionary policy, as has been historically and widely practiced --as well as being simple common sense-- is to cease & desist from risky practices until proven safe.

You have no proof that continuing to burn FF at the current rates (and anything near them) is safe.

But keep making your mighty wish that you have an argument to make. We've never seen one from you. Evidence is that you don't have one...

"You are exhibiting wishful thinking Brainstorms."

It is no surprise you don't understand hypothesis testing - nothing in your training would prepare you for that.

Sadly, it's no longer a surprise that you think your ignorance trumps knowledge. That's the libertarian in you apparently - it means "no thought required".

RickA, why is your every defense predicated on "a 20,000-year natural warming trend," when you have been shown multiple times that this is incorrect?

http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

Is this a conscious denial of reality, or are you just REALLY forgetful?

Libertarian, n.

A person who recklessly and selfishly seeks to satisfy his own appetites, often at the expense of others, to whom he exhibits callous indifference. See "Libertine".

Looks like Sanders got an electoral vote on Maine, at least from one early report.

The burden of proof is exactly what it has always been – the burden is on scientists to show it is not natural (the sun, volcanos, ocean currents, cosmic rays, etc.).

Your side may be right – but they cannot prove it yet.

More ill-informed blathering about 'proof', which is for mathematics, editors and alcohol, if you remember. Science deals in probability and it is established that modern warming is largely / entirely human-caused.

Remember - just because you don't understand something or deny it does not make it untrue.

It is now firmly established that modern warming was not cause by the sun, volcanoes, ocean currents, cosmic rays or unicorn farts.

You are peddling falsehoods and your reasoning is a specious as ever.

corey #96:

In the FAQ about the Marcott paper posted at RealClimate, Marcott admitted this:

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

I see the cooling trend and the warming trend which started well before humans were emitting enough CO2 to make a difference to be evidence of natural variability.

We have warmed, so it is all part and parcel of the warming since the last ice age (20,000 years ago). It just depends on how far back you start your trend line.

I see an overall warming trend since the ice covering north america started to withdraw, but with periods of cooling and warming contained within the overall trend.

While it has warmed since 1750, we don't know how much of the warming since 1750 is human caused and how much is natural.

RickR #98:

I saw that news item.

You were right and I was wrong - the electors can vote for anybody they want.

BBD #99:

I am sure I would have seen the paper which announced that the evidence was sufficient to overcome the null hypothesis.

If you were correct, you wouldn't need the precautionary principal.

So I think it is you who are wrong.

RickA attempts to skirt my question @ #96 by pointing to a caveat about the FINAL 100 years in the 10,000-plus year assessment, followed by "I see" (twice) and a whimper.

Bullsh*t. I'm done beating this dead whore.

I am sure I would have seen the paper which announced that the evidence was sufficient to overcome the null hypothesis.

It is demonstrated by the totality of the evidence, not a single paper, oh disingenuous one. You can review the evidence by reading IPCC AR5 WG1.

Your denial of the facts doesn't change them. It is established to a very high degree of likelihood that modern warming is pretty much anthropogenic warming.

End of story, I'm afraid.

BBD #104:

The evidence still doesn't rule out 50% human and 50% natural.

My point is we just don't know how much of the modern warming is human caused.

It could turn out to be 100% human caused or 50/50.

I will check back in 30 years and maybe we will know more then.

And you can stop the claptrap about Holocene climate. We've been through this before, so you have no excuse for repeating your nonsense.

Marcott shows what you would expect from the orbital dynamics: higher temperatures in the early Holocene when orbital forcing was greater, then a gradual cooling that sets in about 5ka ago as orbital forcing wanes. Then the anthropogenic influence kicks in during the C20th and reverses the natural cooling trend. From M13:

Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard 5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

The evidence still doesn’t rule out 50% human and 50% natural.

Actually, it pretty much does rule it out, but you don't understand or stubbornly deny the evidence.

My point is we just don’t know how much of the modern warming is human caused.

All of it and then some. You've had this explained to you over at AT's so WTF are you doing repeating your rubbish again here?

Marcott with emphasis on what M13 did not do:

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

The M13 Holocene temperature reconstruction was calibrated to the modern instrumental record which shows unequivocal warming during the C20th (as described in M13 and quoted above). This reverses the long-term cooling trend characterising the last ~5ka.

"I am sure I would have seen the paper which announced that the evidence was sufficient to overcome the null hypothesis."

Callendar. Go over to read the history of climate here:

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

Since then you have had to make the null hypothesis that climate change continues apace.

However, you never have bothered with that. See the idiotic "pause" meme deniers blathered on and on (and on and on and on....) about.

And for the instrumental evidence, 1999. MBH.

"Recall Trenberth wanted to change the null hypothesis."

Because we have ruled out the "there's no evidence of change by other than natural causes". Once that has passed, someone has to come up with a null "It has not changed from our current understanding".

"Truth is what a jury (and sometimes a judge or panel of) decides it to be."

But isn't it weird how deniers complain that reality isn't decided by consensus, when its the experts in the field deciding the consensus?

"and he’s trained to manipulate others’ beliefs in what that is"

It isn't working.

Is it because rick's crap at his "job"?

It's because RickA doesn't realize that he's out of his familiar arena, and the rules he's used to playing by don't apply in this arena.

Scientists can grasp the duality of non-objective "truth" in a legal arena, and be comfortable with the reality of object truth in their arena.

RickA refuses to acknowledge that there exists objective reality and truth, and persists in running his legalistic number, still thinking that if he argues persuasively enough, he'll "win" (and reality will immediately adjust itself to his self-centered wishes).

Keep deluding yourself, RickA. It is meaningless and fruitless. The people on this blog will not ever accept your wishy-washy view of "everything is subjective and only a matter of opinion" and that your "opinion" carries any meaningful weight (outside your legal arena).

Your ego doth betray you, RickA. Therein lies the road to perdition...

Yes but he's supposed to be changing our view of the truth, which is what a lawyer does. So if he's supposed to be a lawyer, and a lawyer is supposed to change our minds about reality, but he's not doing it, then he's a shit lawyer, isn't he?

Yes, but he's a shit lawyer, not because he can't change our minds about reality... It's because he doesn't get that his "legal strategy" is a total misfit for the court he's trying his case in.

The Physical Laws of Nature are not defined by consensus opinion of a jury of scientists. It wouldn't matter if everyone here suddenly capitulated and granted RickA his heart's desire: That we all agreed totally with his view and his treasured opinions.

Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about AGW would change as a result. The same verdict still comes down. AGW is real, it's causing expensive and irreversible damage, and the carbon needs to stay in the ground.

RickA doesn't get it: Every argument he has loses. But he still sees it as a delightful challenge, and deludes himself into thinking his shtick just needs a bit more repetition to succeed.

Einstein would have called him insane. I think he has a touch of schizophrenia. Or an aneurism. He's not playing with a full deck...

"not because", I think you mean "not ONLY because".

PS it's insanity due to an overwhelming greed.

Yes, it reads better that way.

I would put it as "overwhelming self-centeredness". Narcissism.

He must LOVE Trump -- by mutual self-identification. (If he can see past he own ego, that is.)

and deludes himself into thinking his shtick just needs a bit more repetition to succeed.

Given recent events, this could be seen as a feature not a bug.

The enabling synergy between populism and the internet is really troubling.

OK. OK. So the Russians and their Moran friends have managed to selectoralize a president whom numerous professional and amateur psychiatrists have characterized as a grandiose, narcissistic sociopath. Relax. The human race has been through this before. Numerous sociopaths have had access to the End-Of-The_World button and we are still here. Granted, a number of us are liable to end up in forced labor or re-education camps before this is over, but Hell, most of us are liable to survive. Not that survival is guaranteed to be the most desirable outcome in the decades ahead. If you've ever experienced any long term power outages during a chill winter, you are probably very sober about the prospects of societal disruption and its effect on the all of the nice things that we depend upon, like food , water and heat.. If you are imaginative, you might be wondering about what happens when the world's numerous coastal petroleum refineries stop working due to flooding. Or what happens when the world's numerous coastal sewage treatment plants start backing up. The flooding problems have been infrequent enough thus far that denialists have been easily able to continue their Black Knight denialism. A New Orleans here. A Sandy there. Not enough to grab the attention of the dim wits who think that global warming doesn't exist. But it does exist, even if they can't see it.

Meanwhile, the sleeping giants of ice in Greenland and Antarctica are liable to do some very spectacular things in concert over the next decade. They may just show us some new and surprising sturctural properties of bulk water ice during its melt phase. It ought to be huge!

But anyway, let's not fret about any of this! Let's NOT propose that we plan for this strangely warming climate in any fucking way at all. Heck we are NOT supposed to alarm our little conservative friends, so let's just pretend that all is grand, let's just ignore the slowly rising waters around us, let's legislate against even discussing this in some of the Southern states, and let's just wait for president lady fingers and his bosom buddy vladimir to ride in on their free market unicorn ponies and save the day. Can't wait!

Have a nice freaking day.

lol

Last I heard, Trump had 2 faithless electors and Clinton 4.

Interesting.

Last I heard you were still flat-out wrong about climate change.

You cannot know I am wrong until we:

a) measure TCR after we hit 560 ppm of CO2,
b) measure SLR at 2100.

Sorry - you will have to wait to see whether I am right or wrong.

According to the reports I saw, three democratic electors in three different states tried to vote for Sanders but were not allowed to; the ones in CO and MN were disqualified and replaced by alternates, and the one in ME was told that was not allowed and changed the vote to Clinton.

So Sanders only got one electoral vote, from and elector in HI.

In WA, three democratic electors voted for Colin Powell, and one voted for Faith Spotted Eagle.

So Clinton seems, according to these reports, to have 5 that did not vote accoring to their state's vote (one in HI, and four in WA), with 3 more failed attempts to defect.

Trump lost 2 in TX, one to Kasich and one to Ron Paul.

"Last I heard you were still flat-out wrong about climate change."

Silly BBD, haven't you learned from rickA now that science involves neither right nor wrong, it involves greedy scientists faking results simply to go against rickA's "opinion" that there is nothing wrong with the climate.

According to RickA, Science has no predictive power regarding physics and the natural world.

WHAT A FOOL. (A shameless self-serving, self-centered fool.)

RickR #125:

Thank you for the updated numbers on faithless electors.

So some states let you get away with voting for someone on the ballot and some don't.

I wonder if this will cause any states to update their law?

I bet Michigan updates its recount law - what a mess that was.

Just like with elections, if you make a prediction about the future, you have to wait to measure to see if your prediction is correct.

That is the way science works.

When we can measure TCR, we can than approximate ECS and put a number on it which is much better than the estimate we have so far (1.5C - 4.5C).

In 2100 we can actually measure SLR and we will know whether it is 8 inches or 1 meter (or whatever).

Until then, I cannot be wrong, because the future hasn't happened yet.

Your entitled to your opinion about what TCR will turn out to be and what SLR will turn out to be at 2100 - but your opinion has to be checked with a measurement.

I think you guys get that - right?

The quantum way to look at it is, like Schrodinger's Cat, I am both right and wrong, until the actual measurement causes the probability wave to collapse to either right or wrong.

I predict that an asteroid will hit North America within the next century.

I cannot be proven wrong until the century has elapsed and no asteroid has hit North America - right?

"The quantum way to look at it is, like Schrodinger’s Cat, I am both right and wrong, "

Any bets on how long it will take for this ass clown to compare himself to Galileo?

The quantum way to look at it is, like Schrodinger’s Cat, I am both right and wrong, until the actual measurement causes the probability wave to collapse to either right or wrong.

A developing planetary energy imbalance is a long way from quantum kitties, RickA.

Alt-reality is trending again...

Until then, I cannot be wrong, because the future hasn’t happened yet.

The question is: how *likely* are you to be wrong, based on the available evidence?

The answer is: very likely.

Your can-kicking down Risky Road doesn't insulate you from the likelihood that you are wrong.

BBD #134:

Thank you for correcting your #123 from "you were still flat-out wrong about climate change" to your opinion about the likelihood that I am wrong.

I appreciate the difference.

As Yogi Berra said "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

"You cannot know I am wrong until"

Yes we can. We don't have to be 100% certain to know something.

"a) measure TCR after we hit 560 ppm of CO2"

We have a measure after 400ppm. Why wait another 160ppm is added? Because you hope to have cashed in in the meantime? And what is it you claim that is relevant to 560ppm?

"b) measure SLR at 2100."

Why? What are you claiming to happen with SLR at 2100?

"Just like with elections, if you make a prediction about the future, you have to wait to measure to see if your prediction is correct."

Except when this has happened, and the results aren't to your liking, you insist we must wait yet more.

See the predictions and their accuracies (and compare them to the deniers "models") here:

http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.ht…

"Thank you for correcting your #123 from “you were still flat-out wrong about climate change”"

No, rick you ARE wrong.

There's no chance TCR is 1.5C, and it's not really possible for it to be 2.2C or less. BASED ON CURRENT REALITY. Your claim is wrong. Just wrong.

Your claims that it'sall opinion is wrong.

Your claim that it;s a scam is wrong.

You have made SCORES of claims about AGW AND ALMOST EVERY SINGLE ONE IS WRONG, and those you aren't wrong are irrelevant (for example, even if it were between 1.5C and 4.5C, what would making that error lower do to what we need to do? NOTHING).

RickA wants his 30 pieces of silver...

For Dean.

"And yet it moves."

My predictions:

TCR 1.2C or less.
ECS 2C or less.
SLR for 21st Century = 1 foot or less.

Human contribution to warming will turn out to be around 50%, which will sometimes add and sometimes subtract from natural variability.

Lets check back in 2030 and see how I am doing.

Brainstorms #139:

According to wikipedia " At spot valuation of $17.06/oz (the closing price on Monday, December 12, 2016), 30 "pieces of silver" would be worth between $185 and $216 in present-day value (USD)."

I bill at $380/hour - so I definitely want more than 30 pieces of silver.

Sell your mother. If you haven't already...

Rick already sold his mum. And sisters. After all, they're only females. And sold his dad and granddad, after all, they're no longer producing for their upkeep.

"My predictions:

TCR 1.2C or less."

We have 2.2C already for that. So ALREADY PROVEN WRONG.

"ECS 2C or less."

We have 2.2C already for TCR, which would be less than ECS. So ALREADY PROVEN WRONG.

"SLR for 21st Century = 1 foot or less."

You are already wrong 2-for-2. If we wait, what will you do if you;re wrong? Pay the rest of the world for the damages? Better put that cash in escrow, dude.

"Human contribution to warming will turn out to be around 50%"

And already wrong. The current warming on a half a doubling is already on top of the overall cooling trend from natural causes, and therefore we're doing nearly 100%, and maybe more, of the current warming trend.

THIS IS ALREADY SHOWN. No need to wait. You're wrong. Already.

So 3-for-3, and the fourth really only says we have to wait another 100 years, because there's no way to get a refund if you are wrong 4-for-4.

But this isn't a bet we need take.

Already three claims you've made are WRONG, and no waiting needed.

"which will sometimes add and sometimes subtract from natural variability. "

Based on "unnatural cycles"? Because there's sure as shit no mechanism here for that claim.

Physics isn't magic, moron. Your memories of the fiction of the bible aren't how reality ACTUALLY works. Magic is make-believe. Things have a cause. Not just magical appearance for the sake of your wallet.

A totaled clock is 'right' twice a day, but there's still something totally wrong with it. There's a difference between understanding the science (which you've already demonstrated that you don't) and pulling a *guess* or vague hope out of the hole in your periproct. That you then try to pad same with smirks, rationalizating and platitudes and pretend that your fake opinion is as likely to be born out in the future as anyone else's is typical of you. To make matters worse, you then argue illogically that this imagined outcome is a point in your favor -- thinking all the while that putting it in the future protects you from being called on your sophistry.

Sorry, I'd rather put my money on the professional climatologists and take my chances, happily ignoring the wingnut 'wisdom' of yet another leaky colostomy bag from Crankville.

Wow #144 said "We have 2.2C already for that."

That would be quite a trick.

Since the temperature has only risen about 1C since 1750.

Cite please.

OA #147.

That is your right.

"Wow #144 said “We have 2.2C already for that.”

That would be quite a trick.

Since the temperature has only risen about 1C since 1750."

And we've only had half a doubling of CO2 in that time. So that would make TCR 2C.

And THEN you have to figure in that the long term trend from natural forcings was negative at that time, and those forcings haven't changed, and you get OVER 2C for TCR.

But even if we don't cite anything else, WE HAVE YOUR CONCESSION that it is indeed 2C TCR.

"OA #147.

That is your right."

Its not your right to risk catastrophe by your intransigence and lack of humanity.

I appreciate the difference.

Then your argument rests on the difference between flat-out wrong and almost certainly wrong.

Sleep well.

Three out of his four claims are flat out wrong, and the other one is almost certainly wrong, and is AT THE VERY LEAST arrived at incorrectly, so merely another kind of wrong (cf the broken clock analogy).

Wow #150:

Oh - I see.

You are making your own prediction.

You are assuming the second half (actually a bit more) is going to be the same as the first half.

We will have to wait to see if you are right.

BBD #152:

I shall.

"Wow #150:

Oh – I see.

You are making your own prediction."

No, I'm showing what has REALLY HAPPENED SO FAR.

"You are assuming the second half (actually a bit more) is going to be the same as the first half."

And when we get to 560ppm, you're going to complain that we need to see if the next 560ppm does the same thing before you admit being wrong, right?

Tell me, you feculent retard, do you have ANY scruples, or are you just so full of shit that it spews from your mouth without intent or intelligence?

We've had less than half a doubling, and about 1C warming. TCR is therefore well beyond 2C.

For YOUR "prediction" to be the case, you have to have the saturated gas argument, which is bullshit, occur:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy…

IOW, the next half is almost entirely different from this half.

BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM.

Moreover, as I have already said, you will merely shovel the goalposts and demand that we wait even longer, because you won't assume that the prediction will hold for the next doubling.

IOW your prediction will never be accepted as wrong, and that of the IPCC will never be accepted as right.

You are a faithiest as strong in their intellectual death as any fundamentalist christian who insists that no evidence will EVER convince them that the bible is not literally true.

And, as such, there is no point talking to you, only to your pitiful and empty arguments.

We don't have to wait to see if I'm right. You don't stand in front of a speeding train wondering if it will stop in time or not, YOU GET OUT OF THE WAY.

But pRick here would rather you all die than they admit error.

Greg, there really is no point letting rick post here. They are never going to accept any evidence that they are wrong, and hence are not here to argue for anything.

RickA-

It seems that 29 states and D.C. make some attempt to legally bind electors to the candidate that won the state.

Some simply require an elector to cast their vote for the winner; Maine, for example, has a law that each elector "shall cast their ballots for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who received the largest number of votes".

Others allow rogue votes, but subject the rogue elector to the possibility of some kind off punishment; in Washington State the potential punishment in a civil penalty of up to $1,000.

The other states, like Texas, do not try to bind the electors.

RickR, there is no legality behind the rules binding electors to the popular vote, in just the same way as there are no contracts able to bind them (or you, or anyone) in slavery.

It's even in the damn constitution that red states pretend to love so much as if it were holy writ (and, like holy writ, will "reinterpret" to make it comport with their desires if it should fall short of that ideal).

There is an attempt underway to effect a popular vote system for president without a constitutional amendment. Called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact", it would have states bind their electors not to the candidate who won that state, but to the candidate who won the national vote. A few states have already signed on, it would become effective should enough states to total 270 electoral votes agree, so far the states that have entered into the compact total about 165 electoral votes.

It makes some sense to have the voes that way. States get representation to argue their case, but the popular vote is represented by the office of president.

Big city states can't crush the will of smaller rural ones because the house won't let it, and rural states with nobody there won't marginalise the needs of the plurality of people, because the president won't allow it.

Wow #160

One of the more humorous things about this post-election season has been how some folk (not on this blog, of course, but on some of those other blogs), after years of claiming that originalism is an unworkable, incoherent and/or inappropriate way of interpreting this constitution suddenly are brushing off their old copies of the Federalist Papers and ignoring 200+ years of history to become originalists of the sort that would make Scalia proud.

The constitution isn't really all that clear on the issue; on originalism grounds the case can be made, but on historical, "living constitution" grounds the alternative argument can be made as well; after all, 29 states and the Distict of Columbia (and thus presumably congress, which has the final say in all D.C. laws) obviously disagree with your interpretation.

The courts seem not to have ever ruled on this issue. The clearest path to a decision is If Washington state tries to actually levy a fine against the electors that voted for someone other than Clinton, then it will already be in the courts due to the fine and thus the courts will have a opportunity to consider the question and ultimately rule on it.

It is also possible that one of the electors in MN or CO that were disqualified and replaced could try to sue, claiming their disqualification and replacement was unconstitutional and they should have been allowed to vote for Sanders.

The elector in ME may have a harder time getting into court, since he changed his vote rather than being disqualified and replaced, but maybe a court would consider his claim that he should have been allowed to vote for Sanders.

HI also binds its electors, but has no penalty for breaking that law, so it is unlikely that there is a case there.

TX does not bind its electors, so there is no path into court for those two electors.

@160, why is the interpretation pure originalism? EC has a point. That point was in the constitution. But making that point and saying it is originalism is meaningless.

Moreover, why is it bad?

And it's not like originalism was used elsewhere. For example, with second amendment rights, the fact that it's only millitias that make the right to bear arms relevant was always ignored by those pushing for the right to bear arms. And pointing out that fact was ONLY ever done by those pointing out "The second amendment is IN THE CONSTITUTION!" as the root of why they are allowed personal firearms. Never trotted out by the ones arguing for stricter gun controls as to why the controls need to be there.

PS There is no path into court for ANY of the faithless electors. No contract removes your statutory rights, and the right to vote their conscience is a statutory right of electors.

Wow -

That the states cannot bind the electors a defensible position and may well win in court. But it's not as clear as some folk think, and it could lose. And it is a largely originalist argument; when someone is quoting The Federalsit Papers to support your argument, rather than the language of the constitution, then they are making an originalism argument.

And it is not bad. It is, however, humorous that some folks seem to have discovered that originalism is not quite as bad as they have been arguing in the past.

And, like it or not, going into court is the way in this country to protect and guarantee those rights. We have 30 jusidictions in the U.S. that, in some way or another attempt to bind the electors. If you are right and this is a violation of the rights of the electors, then going into court is the only way to protect that right.

Take one of the electors in Minnesota. That elector voted for Sanders, and was, because of that vote, held to have resigned his office of elector and was replaced. If that is a violation of the constitution, then how is it that Minnesota can get away with doing that to other electors for years to come, unless a court tells them not to? If there is an arguable constitutional violation there, then there is indeed a path into court. Maybe the law cannot remove the right, but it is the courts that enforce it to prevent MN from doing it again. Extelection.

It would definitely win in court because you can't sign away your statutory rights. Any win in court would be struck down, and if it ever got to the supreme court, they would rule the laws trying to do so unconstitutional, and therefore it wouldn't be applied.

Just like EULAs aren't taken to court in the USA, because precedent showing they are invalid contracts would be set.

What WOULD work, and it's how they're trying to get the president position elected on popular national vote, is a constitutional amendment.

But that would still not make the faithless electors liable to appear in court and lose.

"We have 30 jusidictions in the U.S. that, in some way or another attempt to bind the electors. If you are right and this is a violation of the rights of the electors, then going into court is the only way to protect that right."

If I am right, the electors don't have to take it to court, and they are the only ones whose rights are being violated.

So as long as the states don't take the electors to court, there will be no ruling. But without taking them to court, the laws attempting to bind electors are meaningless, so it's rather moot that the electors' rights are being violated.

I find these sorts of States Rights questions fascinating.

Elector qualifications, for example, are measured based on each states qualifications for their most numerous State legislative body.

So, depending on their state law or constitution, they could require a certain age or even require the person be a citizen of the USA, in addition to a resident of the state in question.

Another issue - a state could require proof of citizenship before permitting a candidate to get on the ballot for President. Why they could even require a birth certificate, to verify the person will be over 35 when they take office, and to also qualify as to citizenship.

I also believe any state who wanted, could require proof of citizenship and residency to register to vote (Florida already does this, I believe).

So I do believe that the states would be given great latitude in Federal Court as to what their electors have to do when casting their vote.

But the only way to find out is to get a case into court and see what happens.

It would be an interesting case.

I would like to see the State of Minnesota require that electors can only vote for someone that was on the ballot of their state.

Otherwise, what is the point of having a general election to appoint electors - why not just have the state appoint the electors without an election?

"I would like to see the State of Minnesota require that electors can only vote for someone that was on the ballot of their state."

Against the constitution. Anything other than another amendment would make this attempt illegal.

Nobody cares what you think, RickA. The opinions of sociopathic climate change deniers are of no value to anyone.

wow

We’ve had less than half a doubling, and about 1C warming. TCR is therefore well beyond 2C.

The argument is sound but the numbers are off. I've been through this with our resident lying sociopathic shit recently, so once again, he is pretending that he doesn't know something that puts a fat spoke through the wheels of his dung cart.

Try plugging in observed values into the Knutti & Hegerl calculation like this:

CO2 has increased by 120ppm from the reference pre-industrial value of 280ppm to 400ppm.

There's been about 0.9C (some say 1C) warming since pre-industrial period (by convention 1750). Most of it since 1950.

So the transient response to 120ppm CO2 is 0.9C or thereabouts.

The transient response is held to be approximately 60% of the equilibrium response (ECS) - 0.9 is 60% of 1.5.

Calculating the delta T at equilibrium using the method in Knutti & Hegerl (2008) and assuming ECS to be 3C per doubling of CO2:

ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2

ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium

So observed transient warming is exactly what we'd expect if ECS = 3C and TCR at the point of doubling is about 1.8C.

Wow #169:

Sure - if a court said it was illegal, and if that held up through the Supreme Court.

BBD #170:

Than stop responding to my posts.

Than stop responding to my posts.

Stop ignoring the corrections to your errors.

BBD #171:

Here is your problem "and assuming ECS to be 3C per doubling of CO2:".

We lawyers would say that is assuming facts not in evidence.

It is also circular.

You are assuming that which you are calculating.

BBD #173:

Your choice. But don't pretend nobody cares what I post then.

Everyone here thinks you are full of shit and an idiot.

Doubt my word? Then ask them, each and every one.

Go on. Starting now.

It is also circular.

You are assuming that which you are calculating.

No it isn't. RTFR you lazy, dishonest, climate-change-denying bore.

BBD #176:

I don't care what anybody else thinks.

That is why you are mad at me in the first place.

"That is your right."

Oh good, you have some grasp of the obvious. How long that right remains is another matter.

As for $380/per hour, not out of bounds for lawyers. Even so lawyer or not, and given your dedication to spreading the corrupting influence of sophistry, it makes me wonder if you're really only interested in ensuring the security of a ripoff operation.

"BBD #176:

I don’t care what anybody else thinks."

We know. And it's not a matter of opinion, either.

You also don't care what reality is. Another matter not of opinion, but fact.

"That is why you are mad at me in the first place."

No, that's a lie.

" It is also circular."

No it isn't.

" You are assuming that which you are calculating."

That's what circular reasoning is, but that's not what's going on.

"Than stop responding to my posts."

Ah, right. Goebbel's Big Lie strategy is what you're going for.

I don’t care what anybody else thinks.

That is why you are mad at me in the first place.

No, we're 'mad at you' because you keep posting bollocks about climate on the internet and will not listen to the litany of responses pointing out your many errors.

For example, given the *zero* evidence for any significant natural forcing change over the C20th, how the fuck do you explain the observed warming if ECS is low (~1.5C)?

You can't. It isn't possible.

But you seem strangely unable to admit the essential truth of facts like these.

What you are doing isn't intellectual independence. It's denialism and denialism is fundamentally dishonest because it requires that you ignore evidence demonstrating that your position is untenable. And that's what you do, all the time, which is why you are regarded with a certain amount of contempt here.

"The argument is sound but the numbers are off."

Not enough to say that TCR is 1.2C, or even near.

"There’s been about 0.9C (some say 1C) warming since pre-industrial period (by convention 1750). Most of it since 1950. "

During which the Milankovich cycle and other cooling forces would have increased it.

The actual scientists who work with all the data gives it 2.1-2.2 C per doubling CO2e.

"But you seem strangely unable to admit the essential truth of facts like these. "

Because prick here doesn't want facts, only opinions. And the insistence that they are all equally valid.

Even when evidence indicates otherwise. 'cos that evidence is only fact, not opinion.

"Wow #169:

Sure – if a court said it was illegal"

No, it would be illegal even without a court saying so.

"I don’t care what anybody else thinks."

Bold mine.
Is that petulance because you're senile?

RickA, people care that you're spreading misinformation, they don't care that you are an idiot.

"Here is your problem “and assuming ECS to be 3C per doubling of CO2:”."

Boys and girls, prick here is getting his cart before the horse has even been foaled.

You see, we haven't HAD a doubling of CO2, so BBD was merely calculating what would be the case with CO2 differentials today IF the sensitivity was 3C per doubling.

If the current warming trend is the same as that prediction from 3C climate sensitivity, then current warming is proving the climate sensitivity is 3C, AND THERE IS NO NEED TO WAIT FOR A DOUBLING OF CO2.

But, of course, this self-proclaimed lawyer doesn't know maths any more than they know language skills.

"“I don’t care what anybody else thinks.”

Bold mine.
Is that petulance because you’re senile?"

No, because as long as he ignores the reality everyone else is passing on to him, AND as long as he never goes looking for himself, he can continue to PRETEND that he's right.

And that's all prick wants.

He also wants (desperately) to preserve the love of his life: His cherished, precious lifestyle.

He is willing to cause death and destruction to achieve this.

Which is why he is malicious and contemptible.

Well, we don't know that. He could just hate humans. Or be trolling and nothing he's said is genuine.

But what we DO know is that prick here doesn't matter, because there's no conversation with someone who doesn't even care to listen.

BBD and Wow:

Just for fun, you should re-run your calculations assuming an ECS of 2.0 - just to see if it makes a difference.

Assumptions do matter.

And yet again prick is getting it wrong by ignoring the maths already done as if somehow this is not relevant.

Indeed, prick is not capable of doing the maths, else they would have done so and not be asking for help from others to do his "homework" for him.

"I don’t care what anybody else thinks."

That isn't why people have realized you are patently dishonest.

We know you are patently dishonest and a congenital liar because you keep denying what the established science says, with the childish assertion that your ignorant belief is just as valid as what scientists present.

That is why the comparison between you and anti-vaccine nut-jobs is spot on. Neither you nor they have any comprehension of the fundamentals of the thing you dislike, but you know it's false.

Brainstorms:

If we raise the price of energy, and it turns out to be totally unnecessary - than you have raised the cost of food, fuel, transportation, heating, cooling (basically for everything) for every person on the planet.

That will cause death and destruction.

How many millions of people do you want to kill to avoid .1C of warming by 2100?

You really have to ask yourself who is being malicious and contemptible.

It really depends on who is right and who is wrong.

And the cost/benefit of any solution which is implemented.

Remember I am on record for advocating a plan to replace fossil fuel energy with nuclear - even though it will cost more than replacing, say a coal plant with a coal plant.

I like that cost/benefit - whether ECS turns out to be 2C or 3C (or 4C).

But not many on your side are for nuclear.

What a pity.

"That isn’t why people have realized you are patently dishonest."

But it IS why he keeps talking complete bollocks, since any education is what "somebody else thinks". And he doesn't care what ANYBODY else thinks, which includes any somebody who could teach him.

Of course, if he REALLY didn't care, there'd be nothing to say, since saying would produce no change he cares about.

dean #194:

I cannot be "patently dishonest and a congenital liar" if I truly believe what I write.

Which I do.

For all your sound and fury - you are really just saying you think I am wrong.

You just like to dress it up with name calling (like Wow, Brainstorms and OA).

Well - we will have to wait until we hit 560 ppm before we will have a better idea of who is right or wrong.

I can live with that.

"If we raise the price of energy"

Presupposition is yet another error prick revels in. Not to mention that price rises in energy are caused by the private energy industry raising prices. So he doesn't even know what an economy is.

"and it turns out to be totally unnecessary"

And if it doesn't? Prick doesn't care. That's never important to prick. But the fact that this money goes to a corporation and they will have increased profits is entirely wrong for prick. As long as he remains unaware of where money goes...

"That will cause death and destruction."

No it won't. Remember, people, if raising prices caused that, then inflation would have killed everyone on the planet a century ago.

But please note the alarmist catastrophe imagining that deniers have to go through to protect their little snowflake egos.

"How many millions of people do you want to kill to avoid .1C of warming by 2100?"

Of course, prick doesn't care how many HE kills because he doesn't like the policies and refuses to change. Hates humans, remember.

And note the presumption. Already seen 1C warming. Apparently only 10% of that is possible in the future. Because reasons.

"It really depends on who is right and who is wrong."

And prick is wrong. But this wont change prick's position, since he doesn't care who is a bad and malignant person if it's him. Only others must not be bad people.

"I like that cost/benefit – whether ECS turns out to be 2C or 3C (or 4C)."

It's already over 2C, and we're not at equilibrium, but prick doesn't know what ECS means. And nothing about cost of doing nothing there, either, since that's not what prick is thinking about, and he doesn't care what anyone else thinks.

"But not many on your side are for nuclear."

Well, another non sequitur.

"What a pity."

Note prick doesn't specify WHY it's a pity. Or even the non pitiable alternative. That is too much work. Hinting is much easier to defend, since prick can just pretend the goalposts where elsewhere all the time. And a different shape.

"I cannot be “patently dishonest and a congenital liar” if I truly believe what I write."

Note that prick is actually wrong on the "patently dishonest" part, but that congenital liar means that he's not able to do otherwise, so he'd not care about whether he actually believed the BS.

Not to mention that his "ideas" are so malformed and unspecified that he can't believe it. There's nothing there to believe.

"For all your sound and fury – you are really just saying you think I am wrong."

Note prick is pretending that we're JUST saying. But reality is also saying that. And reality isn't a popularity contest.

"Well – we will have to wait until we hit 560 ppm before we will have a better idea of who is right or wrong."

Remember, people, prick was shown that he's wrong here. We don't have to wait, but prick is a waste of time being told, since that's only what someone else is saying, and prick doesn't bother accepting that.

We've already seen that prick was wrong in 3 of his four predictions BY REALITY SHOWN TODAY. No waiting needed.

"I can live with that."

Note prick here saying he doesn't care if billions die, as long as he's not wrong while he's alive, he can live with being wrong at the expense of others after he's dead.

Remember: misanthropy.

Just for fun, you should re-run your calculations assuming an ECS of 2.0 – just to see if it makes a difference.

Assumptions do matter.

If you use 2C ECS the calculation stops agreeing with observations. Obviously. Lazy idiot. And don't you fucking dare whine to me about 'name calling'.

ΔT = 2ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1C at equilibrium

Observed transient response to present is 0.9C. Surely even a clown like you can see that this leaves only 0.1C between transient response and equilibrium sensitivity? Can't be correct. If TCR is ~60% of ECS, then if ECS = 2C observed TCR for 400ppm should be 0.6C.

But it's 0.9C.

So ECS ≠ 2C.

And then you dodged my follow-on point entirely (because you are dishonest) so let's have an acknowledgement this time that low ECS is unphysical nonsense because given the *zero* evidence for any significant natural forcing change over the C20th, how do you explain the observed warming if ECS is low (~1.5C)?

You can’t. It isn’t possible.

So why won't you admit this?

Because you are dishonest, that's why.

For all your sound and fury – you are really just saying you think I am wrong.

No, we are demonstrating that you are wrong. And you are simply refusing to adjust your position in the face of the evidence which is dishonest.

"For all your sound and fury – you are really just saying you think I am wrong.

You just like to dress it up with name calling..."

This really says nothing. BTW criticizing tone at the expense of the topic in order to deflect, disrupt, and/or divert is called 'tone trolling'.

...Oops, I almost forgot to dress it up, numpty.

See this section on tone trolling.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.

The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.

Remember: Self-serving self-centeredness.

The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.

Good job, Wow. You now have RickA convicted on being a hypocrite: RickA whines that people are using ad hominem attacks against his precious self, then RickA uses an ad hominem attack himself against those who point out his errors.

Also note prick can live with being wrong, but ONLY as long as we don't act now as if he was wrong. He's also not happy to raise electricity prices even if it turns out not to be necessary and put up with being right that it wasn't necessary, because (apparently) it would cause death and destruction.

Yet death and destruction caused by failing to act is not even visible to the likes of prick here.

Remember, prick doesn't care if we have proof he's a hypocrite, because to point this out to him is just saying he's a hypocrite, and he doesn't care what anyone else says. And if we DON'T point out he's being a hypocrite, he won't care to look himself, so he will be ignoring the truth again.

Don't forget that he whines about being conservative and "precautionary", yet will immediately turn hypocrite and advocate for reckless plunging ahead into what he himself admits is an unknown (i.e., risky situation), tossing precaution to the wind -- IF it means HE can preserve his lifestyle and not have to bear the burden of more taxes and higher cost of living.

Okay, yeah, that's being a prick...

Well, by now mockery is the only interesting thing left when it comes to RickA, though I admit I'd like to see more creativity in the application of it. OTOH, to the extent that he speaks (however politely) for thuggish interests, it may be good enough just to push back.

RickA, if you think you deserve to be taken seriously, start by saying something serious and *relevant* in response to BBD @~200.

RickA, if you think you deserve to be taken seriously, start by saying something serious and *relevant* in response to BBD @~200.

The dishonest little shit will just wave it all away, as he as done every single time someone points out his errors. Then he will resume his interminable peddling of misinformation.

At this point, it is utterly unacceptable and I'm surprised he's been allowed to continue for so long.

"though I admit I’d like to see more creativity in the application of it"

But prick doesn't care what anybody thinks and doesn't listen to what anyone else says, so we're free to say what the hell we want, whether justified or not!

Wow, it's not to entertain RickA. It's for me. Me, I want to be entertained.... and anyone else who tunes in, of course. But like I said, given the circumstances, raw push-back is probably ok too.

Oh, OK. Being fair to someone who is capable of feeling (as opposed to the prick's self centred misanthropy) is a fair point to make.

BBD #200:

If an ECS of 2.0C is not physical than why does the IPCC say the range for ECS is 1.5 C to 4.5C?

Surely the IPCC and all the science incorporated into the report would know if the portion of their range from 1.5C to 2.0C was not physically possible.

Clearly you are wrong and an ECS of 2.0C is possible.

Not only possible, but it has been within the range of possible since 1991.

Perhaps you should ask the IPCC lead authors why they have keep ECS of 1.5C to 2.0C within their range from the first to the fifth reports?

Boy are they stupid (according to you I guess).

"you are really just saying you think I am wrong."

You are wrong. When you try to make a statement about what is observed here and now, your statements don't match the data. When you try to give your predictions about what will occur in the future, you base them on things that don't match what is observed.

Why is that? Because you are willingly choosing methods that support your view rather than those that reflect the current set of observations.

It's quite easy to say you are a liar because your lies are so blatant.

"If an ECS of 2.0C is not physical than why does the IPCC say the range for ECS is 1.5 C to 4.5C?"

And here again is prick getting it wrong again. If it had EVER once read the IPCC reports, it would know several things that would indicate exactly why this claim should never have been made by the stupid prick.

"Clearly you are wrong and an ECS of 2.0C is possible."

Clearly prick hasn't a clue what possible means. Or even "Wrong"

"Not only possible, but it has been within the range of possible since 1991."

Ah prick gets SOOOO close to the reason why the IPCC says 1.5 to 4.5C, but fails to connect the dots, because that's far too complex for the little prick.

"Perhaps you should ask the IPCC lead authors why they have keep ECS of 1.5C to 2.0C within their range from the first to the fifth reports?"

But perhaps prick should have read the reports himself, and thereby avoided showing how much of a clueless prick he is.

OA #208:

I was responding chronologically, so didn't see your comment until after I posted #213.

My answer, as you can see from #213, is that even the IPCC says an ECS of 2.0 is physically possible.

They have maintained this since 1991, including in the very last report.

The IPCC says ECS could even be as low as 1.5C (although much less likely).

If it is possible, than it is not unphysical.

So we have to wait to see what it turns out to be.

We cannot decide today what we think it is going to be and then pretend I am wrong.

Well you guys can and do - but it happens to be unscientific.

wow - I have read the reports.

Show me where the IPCC report says an ECS of between 1.5C and 2.0C is not physically possible.

Cite please.

"My answer, as you can see from #213, is that even the IPCC says an ECS of 2.0 is physically possible."

Note that prick is lying here again. The IPCC doesn't say that it's physically possible (with the current recorded warming). Unlike prick here, you can go read the IPCC reports yourself and see what they say.

http://ipcc.ch

"If it is possible, than it is not unphysical."

It's not possible that ECS is that low, and prick has been told this several times, but pricks don't listen. They're a bit of a cunt like that. Arseholes.

"We cannot decide today what we think it is going to be and then pretend I am wrong."

But here, again, prick misses deliberately that we don't have to think what is going to be. We know he is wrong NOW.

But the prick doesn't listen, just dicks about on the internet, Jaqing off all over the place like an excited teenaged boy.

"wow – I have read the reports."

But this is not evidenced, and indeed contraindicated by his inability to relay the reality of the reports findings. But prick doesn't care what the IPCC says, since they're somebody, and he doesn't care what anyone says.

"Show me where the IPCC report says an ECS of between 1.5C and 2.0C is not physically possible."

Please note prick has dropped down to another goalpost move.

Feel free to read the IPCC reports and see where this prick goes titsup.

BBD #200:

In re-reading your #200 I would also say that you are assuming that all of the observed warming is due to CO2.

That is why the numbers don't make sense to you.

You need to expand your mind to the possibility that some of the observed warming since 1750 is due to something other than human CO2 emissions.

Whatever that something is, if it turns out that not all the warming since 1750 is caused by human emitted CO2, that is the explanation for the discrepancy you perceive.

I don't have the same issue you do - because I think 50% of the warming is human and 50% is natural.

We don't know that all the warming since 1750 is caused by humans - even though you assume it is.

And no - I cannot tell you exactly where the energy is coming from for any non-human warming.

But the possibility of natural warming exists, or how else to explain the warming from 1750 to 1950 (most CO2 was emitted after 1950).

Anyway - the IPCC doesn't seem to have your problem - because they clearly believe it is physically possible for ECS to be as low as 1.5, even as late as 2013 when AR5 came out.

Ask them about this issue.

Don't blame me.

Wow - why don't you quote something from the actual reports.

Since AR5 is the latest - quote something from AR5 which you believes shows how wrong I am.

RickA, #168:

"I would like to see the State of Minnesota require that electors can only vote for someone that was on the ballot of their state."

Actually Minnesota required that electors can only vote for the candidate that the party they represent put forward: The language of the statute (208.46) is

"(c) An elector who refuses to present a ballot, presents an unmarked ballot, or presents a ballot marked in violation of the elector's pledge executed under section 208.43 or 208.45, paragraph (c), vacates the office of elector, creating a vacant position to be filled under section 208.45."

This election, one elector presented a ballot marked in violation of the elector's pledge to support the official democratic candidate (Clinton), by marking the ballot for Sanders. Thus under the law, he vacated the office of elector, and the vacant position was filled by someone who was willing to vote for Clinton.

This (probably) creates an opportunity to test the constitutionality of the MN law under the claim the removal from office was an unconstitutional act based upon an unconstitutional law as the electors have a constitutional right and duty to vote for whom they believe is the best candidate for the office of president, and cannot be removed from office by properly carrying out the duties of the office. (Whether such a challenge is attempted remains to be seen.)

"In re-reading your #200 I would also say that you are assuming that all of the observed warming is due to CO2.

That is why the numbers don’t make sense to you."

And re-reading has led prick to think they have an out.

Little does the prick notice that ECS and TCR are responses to climate forcings, and that they don't pertain to "CO2 only" forcing.

"You need to expand your mind to the possibility that some of the observed warming since 1750 is due to something other than human CO2 emissions"

Here the prick is trying to use the fundamentalists' gambit: if you REALLY REALLY BELIEVE that they are telling the truth, then you will REALLY REALLY BELIEVE that they are telling the truth!

No, we don't have to open our minds to that, but prick doesn't know why.

But if they'd read the IPCC reports, they'd know. All he'd have had to have done was look at the attribution section in WG1.

Sadly for prick's presence on the internet being anything other than laughable, he didn't.

"I don’t have the same issue you do – because I think 50% of the warming is human and 50% is natural."

And if we REALLY REALLY BELIEVE that, then suddenly prick;s imagination is believed! Of course, this doesn't make it true, just imagination.

Again, the IPCC report would have enlightened the prick, but they don't want to dick about listening to other people. Especially when he knows that they're only going to prove him wrong before his time.

"And no – I cannot tell you exactly where the energy is coming from for any non-human warming."

See, prick doesn't think this step is necessary. Everyone else just has to BELIEVE!!!!! and suddenly it doesn't matter.

OF course, reality doesn't rely on belief, which is a pisser for the morons like this prick. Which is why this prick doesn't go there, only wanting to hide up his own anus, where he never hears any voice but his own.

It's his "safe space".

"Wow – why don’t you quote something from the actual reports."

Try here, prick:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html

But see if you can find support for your claims as to them insisting 1.5C was physically possible at the same time. However you wish to phrase it.

"But the possibility of natural warming exists, or how else to explain the warming from 1750 to 1950"

But prick doesn't show where natural forcings were said to be nonexistent by either the IPCC, climate scientists anywhere, or here on this blog.

Because no such claim exists.

This is called the strawman fallacy, and a non sequitur, since we're supposed to infer that because there was said to be no natural forcings (which is a lie, remember!), that the calculations BBD did was incorrect and missed out a lot of reality.

Not to mention that natural forcings should be cooling us now, a fact mentioned many times before, even in posts that prick has read and "responded" to, is increasing the amount of warming that is attributable to AGW.

RickR #221:

Yes. I bet only the Sanders elector would have standing.

Who would fund that suit?

Probably not going to get tested anytime soon.

But it would an interesting case.

"Yes. I bet only the Sanders elector would have standing."

Under what theory, prick?

We don’t know that all the warming since 1750 is caused by humans – even though you assume it is.

And no – I cannot tell you exactly where the energy is coming from for any non-human warming.

So, you don't have an argument, only an *assertion* that is contradicted by the scientific evidence.

I cannot understand how you can be confident on this basis.

* * *

And you are *still* treating all values within the range as equally likely. That's incorrect. Like it was the last time I reminded you about this misapprehension. Science deals in probabilities.

I didn't see anything about ECS in chapter 8.

Maybe chapter 9 would be more appropriate.

I looked in AR5 and saw that ECS was used 38 times in Chapter 9.

Here is a quote from the SPM (summary for policy makers) of AR5:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Section D.2 – second bullet:

"The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TS TFE.6, Figure 1; Box 12.2}"

As you can see, the AR5 report summary says that 1.5 - 4.5C is the likely range (with high confidence).

Note that they also say that it is " extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence)," That is what I think refers to an ECS below 1.0C as being unphysical (extremly unlikely with high confidence).

So Wow - I suggest you read the SPM from AR5, section D.2 and also chapter 9 of AR5.

In the meantime, I will continue to believe that an ECS of 1.5C is not ruled out by current observations. Perhaps not likely according to the IPCC, but still possible.

Since it is a prediction, with a range, we need to take a measurement when we hit 560 ppm and then we can compute TCR and estimate ECS, and hopefully, drastically reduce the range within which it lies.

I am betting it will be 2.0C or less once that happens.

"I didn’t see anything about ECS in chapter 8."

But prick doesn't realise that this was a lie, one easily avoided if he'd read the chapter introduction...

Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration

Silly old prick!

"Here is a quote from the SPM (summary for policy makers) of AR5:"

Silly old prick. Doesn't realise that the summary is just a summary, that WG1 is where the science is. Also doesn't realise that that version is not released yet, so subject to change under new information still.

"As you can see, the AR5 report summary says that 1.5 – 4.5C is the likely range (with high confidence)."

But the limp one doesn't realise that they are avoiding saying WHERE that range comes from. E.g.

Spread in model climate sensitivity is a major factor contributing to the range in projections of future climate changes (see Chapter 10) along with uncertainties in future emission scenarios and rates of oceanic heat uptake. Consequently, differences in climate sensitivity between models have received close scrutiny in all four IPCC reports.

Silly old prick!

Wow #226:

Under the theory that such a suit has to be filed in Federal Court.

In order to get into Federal Court to challenge the right of the State of Minnesota to disallow the Sanders elector from voting for Sanders you have to have standing.

I am sure other lawyers reading will support me that standing (and ripeness) are subject matter jurisdiction hurdles you have to overcome to keep a case pending in Federal court.

Perhaps you could google taxpayer standing to learn a bit about this subject.

Not every person can bring every suit.

You have to be injured in order to have a cause of action.

Not every resident of the State of Minnesota was injured by the Sanders elector not being able to vote for Sanders.

At least that is my legal opinion (just like not every taxpayer is injured by the Government spending money on war, or any other item in the budget).

But the actual elector who's vote was disallowed can argue he or she was injured - and may therefore have standing.

If they care to sue and pay for the case, they might get a court to rule on this issue.

That is my legal theory.

If you want to read more about this, google subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and venue (those control whether a suit can be filed, and where a suit can be filed).

Subject matter jurisdiction can be raised by the court at any level, even if neither party raises it.

Look it up.

BBD #227:

Even if there is only a 5% probability that ECS is 1.5C(the 5% and 95% ends of the bell curve) - it is still not unphysical and it is not ruled out by the current observational data.

That is my position and I am sticking to it.

Just because the center of the bell curve is at 3C doesn't mean that the actual value of ECS is 3C - it could turn out to be anywhere within the bell curve, with varying likelihood.

"That is what I think refers to an ECS below 1.0C as being unphysical (extremly unlikely with high confidence)."

This daft old prick thinks we care what he THINKS. All that is showing is how lacking in understanding that is.

The likely range[1] for equilibrium climate sensitivity was estimated in the TAR (Technical Summary, Section F.3; Cubasch et al., 2001) to be 1.5°C to 4.5°C. The range was the same as in an early report of the National Research Council (Charney, 1979), and the two previous IPCC assessment reports (Mitchell et al., 1990; Kattenberg et al., 1996). These estimates were expert assessments largely based on equilibrium climate sensitivities simulated by atmospheric GCMs coupled to non-dynamic slab oceans. The mean ±1 standard deviation values from these models were 3.8°C ± 0.78°C in the SAR (17 models), 3.5°C ± 0.92°C in the TAR (15 models) and in this assessment 3.26°C ± 0.69°C (18 models).

(from Box 10.2: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, AR4.)

Note too that the prick insists that it's unphysical for less than 1.0, but that the upper limit is not mentioned.

Those who have a skeptical turn of mind may wonder why he only concerns himself with the possibility of low ECS.

They may also wonder why prick ignores that ECS necessarily asks about equilibrium sensitivity and direct measurements indicated we're still a long way out of equilibrium yet, and the sign of that imbalance is that we should see more warming.

Since we currently see 2.C per doubling BEFORE equilibrium, 3C per doubling is hardly unlikely, unlike, say, 2C. But 4C per doubling is not impossible. And there's no real upper limit. E.g. clathrate bomb.

"Even if there is only a 5% probability that ECS is 1.5C("

Except that's not the case. We have actual measurements. TCR is less than ECS, and we have a measure of TCR. Moreover, that ECS is from computer models, not temperature records.

But then again, this prick doesn't listen, does it. All mouth, no brains.

"Just because the center of the bell curve is at 3C doesn’t mean that the actual value of ECS is 3C "

And what is the source of this bell curve?

Prick doesn't know.

Doesn't care.

Wow:

Ok - I would read chapters 8, 9 and 10 of the AR5 if I were you.

I think you will see that the range of ECS is 1.5 - 4.5.

I think you will see that they actually lowered the lower range from 2.0 to 1.5C between AR4 and AR5 (I think that was because of the pause, but they might not have used the word pause).

But I think you will have to concede that there is some possibility that ECS in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 is possible, according to AR5.

Will you agree with that much?

"Ok – I would read chapters 8, 9 and 10 of the AR5 if I were you."

But you aren't so you won't? Really, you need to read them. But if you haven't read them, why were you running around insisting that you knew what the IPCC said????

These questions, and every other one, will be ignored by this prick, because he doesn't care about being wrong, only about being inconvenienced.

"I think you will see that the range of ECS is 1.5 – 4.5."

And I think you will find they are calculated from models. Which BBD didn't use. He used ACTUAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS.

Denialist retards: hate computer models, will use them at the drop of a hat.

"But I think you will have to concede that there is some possibility that ECS in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 is possible, according to AR5.

Will you agree with that much?"

No.

Your claims are entirely and utterly wrong and unsupported by reality.

Wow - you are saying an awful lot about what I don't know, but not actually saying anything yourself.

The 1.5C to 4.5C range is a probability density function (PDF).

Is that what you are referring to.

Or are you hung up on the fact that it comes from a model?

ECS has always come from a model.

If you think ECS is a stupid metric to measure climate change - you will get no argument from me.

That is the metric they choose to use.

If you look at Chapter 10, in section 10.8 of AR5 you will see this definition of TCR:

"TCR was originally defined as the warming at the time of CO2 doubling (i.e., after 70 years) in a 1% yr–1 increasing CO2 experiment (see Hegerl et al., 2007b), but like ECS, it can also be thought of as a generic property of the climate system that determines the global temperature response
ΔT to any gradual increase in RF, ΔF, taking place over an approximately 70-year time scale, normalized by the ratio of the forcing change to the forcing due to doubling CO2, F2×CO2: TCR = F2×CO2 ΔT/ΔF (Frame et al., 2006; Gregory and Forster, 2008; Held et al., 2010; Otto et al., 2013). "

So it is my understanding that we can measure TCR at doubling (or 560 ppm) - or after 70 years of 1% increase per year of CO2.

But I don't think we have a measurement of TCR.

One - because we haven't hit 560 ppm.
Two - becasue we haven't actually seen 70 years of a 1% increase per year of CO2.

We can estimate TCR on what measurements we have - but that gives rise to another PDF from a model.

Bummer.

So wait until we hit 560 ppm.

Measure.

Use TCR to estimate ECS.

Then we will have a better idea if I am right or wrong.

If you disagree - please say why.

Observations make an ECS of 1.5C very unlikely now.

Observations are consistent with an ECS of ~3C, as is palaeoclimate behaviour.

Therefore it is more likely that ECS = ~3C than that ECS = ~1.5C.

Don't lawyers care at all about evidence?

"TCR is less than ECS"

Don't know if this will help move things forward, but Gavin lays down some metaliterate context on the situation:

-----snip------
A more immediately useful metric included in the IPCC report is probably the transient climate response, which describes the response of climate systems to gradual increases in carbon dioxide and can be applied to a particular moment or period of time.
Ultimately, said Gavin, the ECS is best thought of as a mental exercise -- a way of estimating a range of outcomes without predicting them directly.
"It's like a measure of IQ, only applied to models," he said. "Knowing the IQ of a model isn't going to predict how it'll do on a test, or whether or not it'd flunk a job interview. But it still has a connection."
-------snip-------
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ipcc-revises-climate-sensiti…

"Wow – you are saying an awful lot about what I don’t know, but not actually saying anything yourself."

Yes on both accounts. You are making claims of opinion that are not supported by evidence, proving your lack of knowledge.

And I am passing on what the IPCC say, so what I personally know is irrelevant.

So there's nothing wrong in what you're complaining about.

"The 1.5C to 4.5C range is a probability density function (PDF)."

Indeed it is.

But the actual climate sensitivity is a figure, not a probability density function. So yet another vapid and pointless claim.

Wow:

You should ask BBD to explain where you have gone off the rails.

BBD used actual temperature records from 280 to 400 ppm.

He then used an assumption of 3C for ECS to compute from 400 to 560 (not actual temperature records). Here is his formula:

ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium

See the 3ln - which is 3 times the natural log of 400 divided by 280) divided by the natural log of 2.

The 3 in the equation is the 3C.

If you stick in 2 for an ECS of 2 - you get a different number.

No matter - it is an estimate using an assumption (3C for BBD, 2C for RickA) - not a measurement.

Perhaps BBD will explain it to you.

There is no TCR measurement of over 2.

There is no ECS measurement of over 2.

Not with observations delta T of only 1 (or .9) since 1750.

Hopefully BBD or OA or Brainstorms will help you out.

I have tried.

"Or are you hung up on the fact that it comes from a model?

ECS has always come from a model."

But that means that ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS showing a climate shift bigger than your insistence on ECS's value is NOT A REAL THING.

So your claims "the IPCC says it is between 1.5 and 4.5" when being told that an ECS of 2C IS PHYSICALLY UNTENABLE IN THE REAL WORLD is..... drum roll please...

A NON SEQUITUR!

"So wait until we hit 560 ppm."

We don't have to.

It won't warm negative temperatures in the meantime.

ECS has always come from a model.

Not really. You could look at palaeoclimate behaviour and get the same answer of about 3C per doubling of CO2 or equivalent net forcing change. Rohling et al. (2012). I can't read it for you but tl:dr

Many palaeoclimate studies have quantified pre-anthropogenic climate change to calculate climate sensitivity (equilibrium temperature change in response to radiative forcing change), but a lack of consistent methodologies produces a wide range of estimates and hinders comparability of results. Here we present a stricter approach, to improve intercomparison of palaeoclimate sensitivity estimates in a manner compatible with equilibrium projections for future climate change. Over the past 65 million years, this reveals a climate sensitivity (in K W−1 m2) of 0.3–1.9 or 0.6–1.3 at 95% or 68% probability, respectively. The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates.

I cannot understand how you can be so confident.

"If you look at Chapter 10, in section 10.8 of AR5 you will see this definition of TCR:"

And the value we can calculate shows it is about 2C. Much higher than the 1.2C you claim.

No need to wait for a doubling.

"I cannot understand how you can be so confident."

Their impenetrable ignorance.

And their pride in same.

"There is no TCR measurement of over 2."

Yes there is. 1C seen over the period from 1750, during which time it should have cooled. Half a doubling since then, therefore the sensitvity is about 2C per doubling.

"There is no ECS measurement of over 2."

But since ECS is higher than TCR, it can't be LESS than TCR, which is already over 2.

BBD #242:

I haven't seen the paper which rules out 1.5C based on current observations.

But yes - observations are consistent with 3C.

They are also consistent with the entire PDF (by definition), just with varying probability ranging over the envelope.

So observations are consistent with an ECS of 2C also.

With a different probability - but still consistent with.

I am going to open myself up to more acrimony here - but I think the el nino spike of .2 ish actually moves the likelihood more towards 2C and away from 3C.

Clearly the el nino spike is natural forcing and back that out the 1C drops to .8C (which slides the PDF towards 2C).

But that isn't from anything I read - just my gut based on what I know about statistics, PDF's and so forth.

Which isn't much (I will admit).

"You could look at palaeoclimate behaviour and get the same answer of about 3C per doubling of CO2 or equivalent net forcing change"

And paleo data has a resolution of hundreds or thousands of years, during which it is liable to be very close to equilibrium, unlike today where we can measure temperatures on the hour, hence will be, until we STOP producing excess CO2e for some time, TRANSIENT climate response, or TCR.

Which will always be lower than ECS. HOW MUCH LESS is undefined since we don't have anything better than paleoclimate data to calculate ECS, and that;s not giving us the coincident TCR. Hence is an oranges to tangerines comparison.

"I haven’t seen the paper which rules out 1.5C based on current observations."

But based on that lack of knowledge will insist that your claims must be correct??? Even though they're not supported by current data???

"but I think the el nino spike of .2 ish actually moves the likelihood more towards 2C and away from 3C."

Who CARES what you "think"?

Data and evidence do not support your claim.

BBD:

Ok - I know we have our differences.

But could you help me out with Wow thinking there has been an actual measurement of TCR of 2C.

Obviously he is mixing up measurement with projection - but he doesn't seem to get that.

"Clearly the el nino spike is natural forcing"

Aaaand here we have prick not knowing what el nino is, nor what a forcing is.

I bet the feculent retard thinks the El Nino/La Nina events are "forcings" because of that lack of understanding.

Yet will STILL insist that what they THINK is going on is valid and supported, as opposed to the braindead moronicity that it is.

"But could you help me out with Wow thinking there has been an actual measurement of TCR of 2C."

We have.

Less than half a doubling, therefore to get the sensitivity of a doubling, you double the change seen so far.

Same way you would do the price per pound for something that weighs less than a pound. The result is STILL the "price per pound".

Jeesus you're a moron.

"Obviously he is mixing up measurement with projection "

Obviously you don't know what projection or calculation, or indeed sensitivity per doubling, means.

So observations are consistent with an ECS of 2C also.

No, they aren't and I've shown you that. As predicted, you are denying the evidence but not producing an equally-detailed counter-argument. That's the fatal logical flaw of arguing from assertion.

Against you there is observation (including OHC), palaeoclimate behaviour and modelling.

I don't understand how you can feel so confident.

"I don’t understand how you can feel so confident."

Their impenetrable ignorance.

And their pride in same.

Still.

;-)

"Don’t lawyers care at all about evidence?"

*Lawyers* do.

But prick isn't a lawyer, just pretends to be one in the internets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y9oVC-mGW8

80s uh are calling uh for their uh foreign policy back

Uh, how do we know that is even vaguely connected with that youtube link, ron? As far as we can tell, it's some bullshit flatearther 911 truther making crap up.

Not forgetting that youtube isn't really a reliable news agency when it comes to random postings on it.

Love your skepticism WOW
It's Obama chastising Romney for considering the Russians a serious threat. Laughing the concept off.

Are you afraid of hearing information or thoughts that don't conform with the "official story"? Have you ever talked to anyone who thinks that JFK was killed in the way that the "official story" explains? Wither your skepticism?

So, uh, why didn't you tell us what it is, rather than have us wade off to another site and watch a video whose purpose of being watched was entirely vague and undefined?

And that's not skepticism, since no claims were being asked for support: I was asking why I should click the link and waste time watching a youtube link that could have been a kitten video.

"It’s Obama chastising Romney for considering the Russians a serious threat. Laughing the concept off."

They aren't. Go look at how much your DoD spends compared to theirs. Go look at the differences in the armed forces between the two of them.

Of course, if it's not armed conflict they're talking about, this may be irrelevant, but then again, you haven't said what context this is, and in this context, the claim from Obama is correct.

"Are you afraid of hearing information or thoughts that don’t conform with the “official story”?"

This is another empty claim. What "official story" and how does it relate to Obama telling Romney that he's being alarmist? You deniers have always been dead set against alarmism and doom-and-gloom predictions, not to mention so very bro-ha about how great the USA is compared to the rest of the world, and how unpatriotic it is to diss the USA. Quite why you reverse this when it;s a black man talking to a whitey is anyone's guess.

Well, watching it, it seems Romney is agreeing with Obama, that ISIS is the biggest security threat to the USA, not Russia. And there's nothing supporting Russia is a geopolitical foe, or what that means. FFS, FRANCE is a geopolitical foe of the USA, because their geopolitics differ. And, like Russia (and the USA), have veto in the UN.

Romney seems to think that if someone disagrees with the USA, that's more important than wanting to behead people and spread radical islam to the world.

Which is well weird.

Lastly, what does that have to do with the topic of this thread, or any conversation within it?

WOW,
You seem to miss the point. So here it is: It looks hypocritical to laugh off your political opponents when they're raising Russia as a serious threat, while you blame Russia for tampering in the election, effectively considering Russia formidable in electoral battles. Do you see the context, yet?
You'll get better at this trolling thing over time...don't forget country music, beer, trucks and shotguns when you're ripping off the "racist-bigot-homophobe" trope that keeps winning you elections...
The correct response is to condemn me for agreeing with Obama or saying that I'm using Obama as a standard in this case while discounting him in every other case...

"You seem to miss the point."

Consider that due to you not making one. Care to point out where you made a point?

"So here it is: It looks hypocritical to laugh off your political opponents when they’re raising Russia as a serious threat, while you blame Russia for tampering in the election, "

Does it? Why? Are you claiming that Trump's actual polling was 5%? Or do you have some other claim about how low the polling was for trump, because russia faked the votes?

"effectively considering Russia formidable in electoral battles. "

Who said they were formidable in electoral battles? Interfering with them is something diebold did. Nobody claimed diebold were a geopolitical threat.

They're not a formidable foe to the USA. What's wrong about that?

And how does hacking elections make them a threat to the USA geopolitically? Unless you claim that Trump is a threat to the USA greater than islamic terrorism, which SOME believe (I suppose), but I don't think that was Obama. Or Hilary.

"The correct response is to condemn me for agreeing with Obama "

Why?

I can't even ell if you're agreeing with him or not. Nor even if you're against trump, or accept that russia hacked the system, or anything.

All I have is you're somehow berating someone for something when 4 years ago Obama told Romney that ISIS were the bigger threat. And the first bit of that is only what you've said after three posts on the subject. Whatever that subject is supposed to be.

"don’t forget country music, beer, trucks and shotguns when you’re ripping off the “racist-bigot-homophobe” trope that keeps winning you elections…"

Hilary didn't go on about those at all (well, with Bernie, a bit, but not vs the duck). Maybe if she'd done that, she would have won.

It worked for trump, just with the rightwing bigot dogwhistles, so if both sides are as bad as each other, as seems to be your belief, then leftwing dogwhistles should get them out for the leftwing candidate, right? And if not, then that rather proves that the left are less indoctrinated into knee-jerk reactions to dogwhistle politics than the right are.

Which isn't supposed to be a thing to be proud of, by the way.

Speaking of staying on message / dogwhistles...do you see where liberals are buying guns and becoming preppers now?

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-38297345

No, we don't, because you gave a link without any purpose or reason to click. And nothing other than a content-free whine about liberals for something, but who knows what. Or what that has to do with this thread or any conversation on it.

@264: sincerely right is another of the group of paid liars for the bigots and scum on the racist and tea bagger end of the republican party.

fat, overweight, low integrity losers who believe they could stand of the military if the government ordered them to attack the citizenship listen to those ass clowns - that's probably why you picked up on it.

The idea of liberals buying guns supports the idea in 273 that the left are less indoctrinated...

Uh, what? Ron, this is waaay off topic, but its also hideously bigoted. All you've done is shown how fucking DUMB you are.

Try not promoting a single-dimensional stereotype, especially AFTER you've whined and whinged about you being lambasted for a fat bigoted neckbearded homophobe or whatever the fuck winds you up because your special snowflake feelings are not considered of primary importance.

IOW, grow a fucking skin, and stop being a hypocrite. Especially when complaining about hypocrisy.

In somewhat related news Putin has sent Trump a Xmas card and Trump lapped it up with glee :

Mr Trump said: "His thoughts are so correct.""

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-24/donald-trump-receives-christmas-l…

The rightwing in the US of A it seems are also cheering on Putin's puppet who arguably owes him his election "win" such as it was - aided as well by the FBI, voter suppression, a system that gives a Wyomingite almost four times the vote of a Californian and so on. Yeah, the same rightwingers who once loathed the Soviet empire with a passion and saw Russia and foreign interference in US elections in a really negative light until, well, when? This year?

Yikes and WTF. What a world we now live in.

Oh brave new world that has such people in it .. With apologies to Shakespeare and extreme sarcasm natch.

See :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/its-time-to-end-the-el…

Why the hell are Californians, New Yorkers and others accepting this undemocratic injustice. I'm Aussie so not my fight as such - except it does alter election results that affect the world world Australia especially included.

Seriously USA, WTF?! Y'all really gonna let this shit continue to happen or worsen?

Care to suggest what the hell we Californians should do about it? Armed insurrection, perhaps?

Well one thing the "left" (such as it is in the USA) could do is field a candidate who IS left in their politics, and not a DINO like Hilary.

As an individual, stop letting the "leftist" MSM insist that anything left of centre is communism and "proven not to work". Stop letting the "leftist" MSM throw only softballs to rightwingnutjobs because it's only the right that will get angry and threaten them.

As an individual, stop voting for someone "because the other one is worse", and insist that some party somewhere field a candidate you can ACTUALLY VOTE FOR. This is what the labour party is doing in the UK, even though the much more "leftist" MSM is pretty unanimous that left is not electable, and nobody seems to question that capitalism seems to have failed as hard, or harder, than the leftist policies of the 1970-80s and maybe we've learned a bit about what works in a socialist paradigm in the meantime.

Did all that. It failed us.

Maybe that was needed, too.

Well Hilary not winning might have been necessary to get the democratic party establishment to think that scrabbling for the centre right wasn't something a party who are supposed to be on the left was going to work. IOW they assumed you'd vote for them because who the hell else are you going to vote for, eh?

Hilary losing ***TO TRUMP*** should have given them the idea that maybe it wasn't such a sure thing after all.

Meanwhile, the republican establishment aren't happy AT ALL with Trump being the leader because he's a frigging loon, therefore uncontrollable (unless you say nice things about him, and only WHILE you continue to say nice things about him0, so maybe pandering to MSM demonisation, education demonisation and the fruitloop teabaggers wasn't a good move either, so maybe NOT field a list of unelectable loons, making the loon who just says the shit some would like to say themselves, the only electable version in their party, would be a good idea.

And because the orange fruitloop doesn't know what the hell he's doing *and doesn't care*, it'll be such a clusterfuck, those who "thought" trump was their kind of guy will find out how wrong that idea was.

Hillary beat Trump, BTW, by just shy of 3 million votes.

The EC defeated Hillary. And America. RIP

But it shouldn't have been that anyway, because Trump is so much more shit than Hilary.

Why?

Because the established characters in the hierarchy thought that they could keep shilling for more of the rightwing votes, but they wouldn't vote Hilary if their nuts were nailed to the skylights.

Why?

Because they kept silent when Bernie was trying to get the nomination, to ensure the voters would go "who's bernie?",therefore the (R) side had, what, nearly a year head start on pouring the piss down on the (D) party, uncontested?

They just hoped that it would pay off yet again, and solely because Trump was so very VERY shit.

So it shouldn't have been close enough for 3 million more votes for Hilary would have meant anything.

Not to mention that conservatism from BOTH PARTIES meant that the MSM could berate "socialist" ideas with impunity, but were shitting bricks scared of berating "conservative" talking points, in case they get labelled "leftist" for not being right wing enough. Meaning that Hilary couldn't run with Trump's idiotic ravings because that sort of crap had been NORMALISED.

If you are thinking the USA is completely retarded, remember this ( http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warmi… ) report's result:

Seven in ten registered voters (69%) say the U.S. should participate in the international agreement to limit climate change (the Paris COP21 agreement), compared with only 13% who say the U.S. should not.

Two-thirds of registered voters (66%) say the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do.

A majority of registered voters want President-elect Trump (62%) and Congress (63%) to do more to address global warming.

A majority of registered voters say corporations and industry should do more to address global warming (72% of all registered voters; 87% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 53% of Republicans).

Nearly eight out of ten registered voters (78%) support taxing global warming pollution, regulating it, or using both approaches, while only one in ten opposes these approaches.

If Congress passes a fossil fuel tax, the most popular uses of the revenue are developing clean energy (solar, wind), improving America’s infrastructure, assisting workers in the coal industry who may lose their jobs as a result of the tax, and paying down the national debt.

Seven in ten registered voters (70%) support setting strict carbon dioxide emission limits on existing coal-fired power plants to reduce global warming and improve public health, even if the cost of electricity to consumers and companies would likely increase – a core component of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Democrats (85%), Independents (62%) and Republicans (52%) all support setting strict limits on these emissions.

Two in three registered voters (66%) support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount – a plan often referred to as a “revenue neutral carbon tax.” 81% of Democrats, 60% of Independents, and 49% of Republicans support this policy.

A large majority of registered voters say the Federal government should prepare for the impacts of global warming, prioritizing impacts on public water supplies (76%), agriculture (75%), people’s health (74%), and the electricity system (71%).

The discrepancy isn't what the AMERICAN people want, just what the POLITICIANS (especially Trump) will let you have.

Hence, I propose a constitutional amendment:

At the end of each congressman's term, the entire nation votes whether they should be allowed to run again, are forced to retire from politics, or gets sent to the gallows.

Gallows is too good for the likes of them. A bloody good kick up the arse is what they deserve!

That's the kick the hangman gives them on their plunge down the hole. (Their souls --or what's left of them-- will continue the drip downward.)

Drip! Ha! trip, natch.

@281. Brainstorms

Care to suggest what the hell we Californians should do about it? Armed insurrection, perhaps?

Something. A lot. I don't know I'm not Californian.

And I think violence would likely be counter-productive.

Peaceful protests - but strong protests. Boycotts and statements from the top levels

A refusal to accept the status quo and its consequences. Criticism from everyone from California (& other suchlike discriminated against and unjustly treated states) and action to oppose against that.

What are you going to do? What do you suggest?

Help us all please. Don't just take it.

Tell Wyoming and theotherstates that they can't just eff you over like tahtand make your votes mean somuch somuchless than theirs do.

Because that shit ain't right.

It ain't. And you shouldn't have to put up with it.

Don't you feel that more than even I do?

Start with acknowledging it and telling the truth about it. Loudly.

Then flippin' well fight it.

With all ya got & every way ya can.

What are you doing about it currently and how it is working?

The coalition of Putin and Trump and their relations with strong powers and the military may make people wonder. What is behind the now unfolding scheme? What respect do they show for human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination, the freedom from want, the pursuit of happiness, everything based upon mutual respect and mutual safety and togetherness of life and earth, enduring peace by social justice? If we mankind don't keep up these values, we will all live under tyranny and worth. So let us be on our guard and protect these values under whatever circumstances. Have all a happy New Year. Laren NH, Saturday 31 December 2016, 21:41 PM Dutch time.

If we mankind don’t keep up these values, we will all die under tyranny and worth.

Fixed that for you...

StevoR, you illustrate well the frustrations and despair of unfunded, unorganized individuals who are being shafted by powerful corporate and political interests who DO have the funding and organization to do the shafting.

Obviously this will take a (charismatic) leader to unite and direct the money & actions of those like you & me to oppose these monied interests and "do the right thing".

I don't have an answer for you. Perhaps it will take the extinction of the Great Apes on this planet to finally set things right.

We are not civilized. We only play at it, I'm afraid.

@Brainstorms, suppose mankind is still able to prevent antropocide, mankind at the same time has to learn how to live together as one good family. Laren NH, Monday 1 January 201. Laren NH, 1:13 AM Dutch time.

Gerrit #299:

I am afraid mankind hasn't lived together as one good family since Cain killed Abel.

Nothing wrong with wishing though.

"Putin probably owns Trump. In the past, Trump has spent enough high profile time traveling in and out of Russia, that any smart intelligence agency would have long ago gotten the goods on such a sloppy self absorbed person. Assume there are movies. Young girls. Whatever. Putin probably owns Trump. The ex KGB officer probably owns a lot of people, a lot of foreign rich or influential individuals. That’s how these things work.

"Trump is a man that relies on the image of great personal wealth. But, if he has great personal wealth it is a mere couple of billion or so. Alternatively, he may have mostly debt and a few hundred million handy. Nobody knows, and he’s not releasing that information. The point is, he views himself as righteously rich, but he may not be as rich as he considered his right. There are a lot of hungry people in this world, and he is not one of them. But he probably thinks he is.

"Putin is the richest person on the planet now or ever. He beats second place Bill Gates by several billion. Putin has gotten this rich by exploiting his position as the permanent leader of Russia (despite a democracy there).

Did I mention that Putin probably owns Trump?"

And scientists claim to be intellectually rigorous.

There's a word for what you've posted here: innuendo. It stinks. And I'm no fan--far, far from it--of Vladimir Putin. If you regard him as an assassin, a man who puts out "hits" on his foes, has opponents poisoned (Alexander Litvinenko - 2006) or shot (opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, 2015; Anna Politkovskaya - 2006) I agree with you.

And it may well be the case that he'd like to have something on Donald J. Trump which is so solid and so damning that it would seem to place Trump in an impossible position. I wonder: after all that's been alleged against Trump--both true and false, without scuttling his prospects--what would that be?

But, really, from notorious Leftists' favorite poster-boy for Deplorable White Guy to Putin's puppet because Putin has something terrible to contemplate in knowledge about Trump is quite a stretch.

And what is it exactly about Trump that we've actually seen and can point to that suggests that, if an attempt to coerce him by threats--of what, revealing terrible information about his past (or even present?)?--from Putin or others working for him, that Trump would concede and make himself amenable to the pressures and demands which should then follow?

Had she been elected instead of Trump, what reason is there to suppose that Hillary Clinton could be less susceptible to such an effort on the part of Putin? Shouldn't he want to "have the 'goods'" on whomever it is that gets into the White House? Who'd have been the easier target? Trump or Clinton?, for crying out loud!

_____________________

By the way, as I understand it so far, these factors are somewhat off the mark

1) Put the offspring in charge of the business.

2) Place the offspring in the room at all important presidential meetings.

because, first, "the offspring" in case #1 above are not the same offspring as those in case #2 above. Jared Kushner and his wife are the ones in the meetings, the ones serving as counselors to, respectively, father-in-law and father. The offspring minding the Trump businesses are the Trump sons--who aren't sitting in on high-level meetings or advising their father on political and economic affairs.

We know that Trump's routine interests are already firmly established as being those of the extremely wealthy corporate elite. That's neither news nor something that can be cordoned off from Trump's decisions.

" And scientists claim to be intellectually rigorous."

Uh, odd way of phrasing it. But what's wrong with what you quoted??? Or is this just a hate spew about scientists who DARE to tell you that AGW is real?

"There’s a word for what you’ve posted here: innuendo."

Tell me, is the word for it "proven wrong"? No? Then so what.

"And it may well be the case that he’d like to have something on Donald J. Trump "

Money. Rex Tillerson put in charge of things like sanctions against Russia for the Ukraine issues. Meanwhile Exxon (Rex's company) has a 1/5 trillion dollar deal that was killed by the sanctions.

"But, really, from notorious Leftists’ favorite poster-boy for Deplorable White Guy"

The amusing thing here is that you right wingers are all against "PC" hate against white guess, especially old and rich ones, yet here you are doing exactly that, WHILE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE LEFT.

But guess what you said there is? Innuendo.

"that Trump would concede and make himself amenable to the pressures and demands which should then follow?"

Rex Tillerson.

"Had she been elected instead of Trump, what reason is there to suppose that Hillary Clinton could be less susceptible to such an effort on the part of Putin?"

You are just insisting that it COULD have been as bad. Begging the question, innuendo and blank assumption.

And rightwingers call themselves "rational"!!! LOL!

"because, first, “the offspring""

The term "offspring" in that law is defined in that law, and it covers all of those nepotistic payoffs.

And the republicans call themselves "the law and order" party!

" Jared Kushner and his wife are the ones in the meetings"

Jared's wife being...? Oh, that's right, Drumpf's daughter. What was that about "those in (1) are not the same ones in (2)"?

"That’s neither news nor something that can be cordoned off from Trump’s decisions."

So you agree with the quoted sections you just derided with zero evidence or explanation...

@ 3O2

Greg is prescient. Or he knows people in our nation's intelligence services. Or, he just pays attention. Likely the last one, as he's a scientist after all...

Innuendo? Not unless you join Trump in discrediting the United States' multiple intelligence services.

They've just confirmed, and reported to POTUS & Citizen Trump, that there is credible evidence that Russia does have incriminating/embarrassing material on Trump.

Which they would naturally be using to control Trump -- after rigging the U.S. election to put him in office. (All that talk about "The election is rigged!" was probably just a compromised Trump trying to warn us... Who was listening?)

That should have been 1/2 trillion, not 1/5. Maybe that was what proximity was trying to say....

Funny, isn't it, how Trump used innuendo and smears and fake news relentlessly during the election but when every single US intelligence agency supports the view that the Kremlin meddled in that same election, it's #fakenews and 'innuendo'.

Suck it up, Donald.

Donald HAS been sucking it up: He's been sucking up "The Swamp". I think it's quite to his taste.