Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Blog Comments posted by Jonathan

  1. For the sake of tidiness, I'm reposting this post here:

    In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way:

    What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences?

    Here are the questions:

    How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified?

    Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed?

    Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes?

    More to come. But, please, start with the above.

    J

  2. On 10/7/2019 at 3:44 PM, william.scherk said:

    There are no coincidences ... 

    It will be interesting to see the roll-out of OLer comment on Syria's travails, in light of the Turkish desire to push the SDF out of areas under its present control.  The hoopla is besides the point, I think. The confusion is the key.  Cui bono and all that ...

    The President said it all:  "[Turkey's] long-planned operation into Northern Syria" ...

    I encourage commenters-in-waiting to orient themselves to the 'long-planned operation.' Folks with long-standing interest in the area will have the advantage in putting names to acronyms:  SDF, PYD, KRG, PKK, KDP ...

    That was really slick what you did there, Billy! Heh. I didn't even notice!

    And thanks for the Phil-like schoolmarm guidance and encouragement.

    J

  3. This old piece popped up for me today.

    Truth: "There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious."

    -----

    Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

    Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.

    Skeptical-scientist-compressed-cropped.jpgiStockphoto
    7.3K1.1K

    By JAY RICHARDS Published on April 19, 2017  168 Comments

    This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as muchearly on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage.

    If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists.

    How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.

    “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink?

    When can you doubt a consensus? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus.

    Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternativesto their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger.

    We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored.

    So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

    Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery.

    (1) When different claims get bundled together

    Usually, in scientific disputes, there’s more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that we are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we must transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different claims based on different evidence.

    Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet and Newfoundland become a popular place to tan: That wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

    There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four claims are often bundled together. So, if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s dishonest. When well-established claims are tied with other, more controversial claims, and the entire bundle is labeled “consensus,” you have reason for doubt.

    (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate

    Personal attacks are common in any dispute. It’s easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And just because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong. But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the data.

    When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are everywhere. They’re even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example. This label is supposed to call to mind the charge of columnist Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”

    There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious.

    (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line

    The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is example of politics trumping good science. But it’s not the only way politics can override science. There’s also a conspiracy of agreement, in which assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. This is even more forceful than a literal conspiracy enforced by a dictator. Why? Because it looks like the agreement reflects a fair and independent weighing of the evidence.

    Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this almost two centuries ago. The power of the majority in American society, he wrote, could erect “formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” He could have been writing about climate science.

    Indeed, the quickest way for scientists to put their careers at risk is to raise even modest questions about climate doom (see here, here and here). Scientists are under pressure to toe the party line on climate change and receive many benefits for doing so. That’s another reason for suspicion.

    (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish

    Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances. At its best, it helps weed out bad and misleading work, and make scientific research more objective. But when the same few people review and approve each other’s work, you get conflicts of interest. This weakens the case for the supposed consensus. It becomes, instead, another reason for doubt. Those who follow the climate debate have known for years about the cliquish nature of publishing and peer review in climate science (see here for example).

    (5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them.

    Besides mere cliquishness, the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been subverted to prevent dissenters from being published. Again, those who follow the debate have known about these problems for years. But the Climategate debacle in 2009 revealed some of the gory details for the broader public. And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus.

    (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented

    We’ve been told for years that the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in its support for human-induced climate change. In Science, Naomi Oreskes even produced a “study” of the literature supposedly showing “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.”

    In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature. This is despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The 2009 Climategate scandal underscored this: The climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that survived the peer-review booby traps they put in place. They even fantasized about torpedoing a climate science journal that dared to publish a dissenting article.

    (7) When consensus is declared before it even exists

    A well-rooted scientific consensus, like a mature oak, needs time to grow. Scientists have to do research, publish articles, read about other research, and repeat experiments (where possible). They need to reveal their data and methods, have open debates, evaluate arguments, look at the trends, and so forth, before they can come to agreement. When scientists rush to declare a consensus — when they claim a consensus that has yet to form — this should give everyone pause.

    In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.”

    Seventeen years later, in 2009, Gore revised his own fake history. He claimed that the debate over human-induced climate change had raged until as late as 1999, but now there was true consensus. Of course, 2009 is when Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny was indeed rotten.

    (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus

    It makes sense that chemists over time may come to agree about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can repeat the results over and over in their own labs. They’re easy to test. But much of climate science is not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to track. It’s often indirect, imbedded in history and laden with theory. You can’t rerun past climate to test it. And the headline-grabbing claims of climate scientists are based on complex computer models that don’t match reality. These models get their input, not from the data, but from the scientists who interpret the data. This isn’t the sort of evidence that can provide the basis for a well-founded consensus. In fact, if there really were a consensus on the many claims around climate science, that would be suspicious. Thus, the claim of consensus is a bit suspect as well.

    (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution

    In Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that “scientists are almost unanimous” that global cooling was underway. Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” “Scientists say” is ambiguous. You should wonder: “Which ones?”

    Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “SCIENCE.” As when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.” “Science says” is a weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t speak. Whenever you see these phrases used to imply a consensus, it should trigger your baloney detector.

    (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies

    Imagine hundreds of world leaders and NGOS, science groups, and UN functionaries gathered for a meeting. It’s heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which “the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of “global governance” need to be set up to reorder the world economy and restrict energy use. Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on science — that is, a scientific consensus that our greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate catastrophe.

    We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course. It happened at the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen, in December 2009. It happened again in Paris, in December 2015. Expect something at least as zany at the March for Science.

    Now, none of this disproves climate doom. But it does describe a setting in which truth need not appear. And at the least, when policy effects are so profound, the evidence should be rock solid. “Extraordinary claims,” the late Carl Sagan often said, “require extraordinary evidence.” When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!, you have a right to be wary.

    (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible

    Do I really need to elaborate on this point?

    (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus

    A consensus should be based on solid evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on climate change may be enough to justify suspicion.

    To adapt that old legal rule, when you’ve got solid scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have solid evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.

    • Like 1
  4. 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Wow.

    Now I'm going to go off and hang my head in shame. Maybe even commit suicide.

    How dare I?

    I have failed them! The young people!

    How dare I?

    And they are watching me!

    Oh, woe is me... Woe is all of us oppressors...

    (Kinda cute how she keeps looking at the piece of paper and gradually gets less emotional over time. They will have to work out this problem in her rehearsals. :) )

    Michael

    She's better than Billy at serving up tasty steamed octopus! Dayyam! People are DYING!!!! Fuckers need to be punished right goddamned now for future catastrophes! We can't wait. Immediate pain to the grups for what they done to Greta's childhood and her future of doom.

  5. Tee hee hee! 

    Billy, I know that you don't have answers to any of the questions that I've asked many times here, so I won't ask them again in this post. What I'm currently wondering is if you understand the questions yet, and their relevance. Have you put any effort into grasping what you're being asked? I've mentioned in a previous post somewhere that I don't think that you have the cognitive ability to grasp the relevance of the questions, much like how Merlin can't grasp the Aristotle's Wheel issue, and how Bob can't grasp the South Pole Travel puzzle. What I wonder is if you even want to try to grasp what you're not getting?

     

  6. The Ontario government lost $42M selling cannabis in the last year

    Social Sharing

    Organization racked up expenses over the past year 

    The Canadian Press · Posted: Sep 13, 2019 2:55 PM ET | Last Updated: September 14
     
    marijuana-rolling-a-joint.jpg
    The Ontario Cannabis Retail Corp. lost $42 million in the latest fiscal year, new figures released by the government show. (Juan Mabromata/AFP/Getty Images)
    1078
    comments

    Ontario Cannabis Retail Corp. lost $42 million in the latest fiscal year, according to newly released public documents.

    The provincial Crown corporation tasked with online sales and wholesale distribution of recreational pot reported revenues of $64 million for the year ended March 31, 2019.

    However, Ontario's consolidated financial statements show the OCRC, which operates as the Ontario Cannabis Store, racked up expenses totalling $106 million during the period...

  7. On 9/13/2019 at 8:34 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

    I wonder if you've noticed - see his most recent status entry - that he's setting up his Twitter account so as to embed threads from OL.  I think he's making bids for attention from elsewhere.

    Ellen

    Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe.

    J

    • Like 1
  8. On 9/13/2019 at 7:38 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    The very survival of humanity is at stake, woman! The whole goddam planet!

    Yes. The issue is so important, and such a scary threat, that we can’t wait for stupid old fashioned true science to be practiced. We have to use the new special emergency “science.” You can’t expect consistency. 9 to 16 years of unpredicted, unexplained “pause” or “hiatus”? Heh, an insignificant blip. 1 year of arctic melt? Ha! See? Incontrovertible proof of the Doom! We need to practice such double standards, and proudly, because, as MSK said in the above, the survival of humanity is at stake!

    J

  9. Billy's mistake was that he went and done got religion. His M.O. had always been stinging snark, but in the past he limited himself to attacking Others' silly beliefs, while not revealing any that he held himself. Billy's at his best when tackling a fucked up mess, like, say, Pigero and clan for their kookball ideas. Take shots at their stupid shit, and you're untouchable because they have nothing to shoot back at if you haven't given them anything.

    But now Billy has fucked up by exposing himself. He has revealed some of his silly beliefs. He has invested his reputation in a few whacky notions that he can't support, and he doesn't know how to handle receiving exactly what he's always enjoyed dishing out.

    J

     

    • Like 1
  10. On 9/9/2019 at 3:46 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

    It's on a par with William's thinking that either humans are causing the Arctic sea ice melting or it''s a fraud:

     

    I think you're right. Billy doesn't get it, and can't get it. It's like Merlin and Tony not having the ability to grasp Aristotle's Wheel, and Bob not having the ability to grasp the Polar Travel Puzzle. Cognitive limitations.

    J

    • Like 1
  11. 5 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

    I might respond after you go to Where Are You? and humbly retract your insults and forthrightly acknowledge your errors. We shouldn’t allow these to pile up, so, first things first.

    https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16950-where-are-you/

     

    Hmmm. Bob never grasped the South Pole thing, did he? Wow.

    J

  12. Hey, Billy, did you watch any of the DoomFest on CNN?

    Population control and lists upon lists of punishments. Yay! Fun stuff.

    Plus Uncle Joe got a bloody eye.

    Biden's eye fills with blood during CNN climate town hall

     | September 04, 2019 08:39 PM
     

    Former Vice President Joe Biden appeared to have a blood vessel burst in his left eye while participating in CNN's town hall on climate change.

     

    A broken blood vessel in the eye, also known as a subconjuctival hemorrhage, can be caused by several things, including high blood pressure, bleeding disorders, blood thinners, or even excessive straining.

    Biden, 76, has long been plagued by health issues. In 1988, he suffered an aneurysm that burst and required him to undergo emergency surgery. The then-senator was so close to death that a Catholic priest began preparing to administer the sacrament of last rites.

    Months later, surgeons clipped a second aneurysm before it burst. Biden then took a seven-month leave from the Senate following the surgery. Describing the operation, he once said, “They literally had to take the top of my head off.”

    Jill Biden said in her recently released autobiography Where the Light Enters that, at the time, she feared her husband would never be the same. "Our doctor told us there was a 50-50 chance Joe wouldn't survive surgery," she wrote. "He also said that it was even more likely that Joe would have permanent brain damage if he survived. And if any part of his brain would be adversely affected, it would be the area that governed speech."

    Doctors removed a benign polyp during a colonoscopy in 1996. In 2003, Biden had his gallbladder removed.

    He suffers from asthma and allergies and takes a prescription drug to lower his cholesterol. He has also taken medication for an enlarged prostate.

    Biden hasn’t disclosed his medical history since 2008, when doctors found he had an irregular heartbeat.

    Biden has also raised eyebrows for the increasing number of verbal blunders he has made so far on the 2020 campaign trail, the schedule of which has been markedly lighter than his main rivals.

    Those close to Biden nevertheless maintain that he is "a picture of health," according to a former aide who spoke to the Washington Examiner in April. Were he to win the 2020 presidential election, he would be the oldest president ever to be inaugurated.

     

     
     
     

     

  13. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    :) 

    The left in the House is already recycling Stormy Daniels, so I think we may soon see someone ask, what's wrong with recycling polar bears? There has to be an enormous stock of unused photos of them thrown aside in piles around the climate change world. Don't forget, one should not let a lonely polar bear go to waste, much less lots of 'em.

    :)

    Michael

    Totally. And the right needs to get its own mascots. It's missing out.

  14. The right should get themselves a spokeschild. One that's cuter, younger, and even more hypocritical and transparent than Greta. OMG, isn't it adorable how self-contradictory our spokes child is? Don't you dare criticize her! She's just a child.

    And then the left would go even younger and cuter, but the right could be ready for that, and would switch to kittens and puppies.

    J

  15. Tasty steamed humans in the near future? It's settled science. It's what we need to do in order to Save The Planet™. Isn't it exciting, Billy? First it will be voluntary, but, eventually, the virtuous wokescolds will have to decide who will be sacrificed for the greater good.

     

    SWEDISH BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST SUGGESTS EATING HUMANS TO ‘SAVE THE PLANET’

    The “food of the future” may be dead bodies.

    Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - SEPTEMBER 4, 2019
    Swedish Behavioral Scientist Suggests Eating Humans to 'Save the Planet'
     
     
     
     
     
     

    A Swedish behavioral scientist has suggested that it may be necessary to turn to cannibalism and start eating humans in order to save the planet.

    Appearing on Swedish television to talk about an event based around the “food of the future,” Magnus Söderlund said he would be holding seminars on the necessity of consuming human flesh in order to stop climate change.

    Environmentalists blame the meat and farming industry for a large part of what they claim is the warming of the earth.According to Söderlund, a potential fix would be the Soylent Green-solution of eating dead bodies instead.

    He told the host of the show that one of the biggest obstacles to the proposal would be the taboo nature of corpses and the fact that many would see it as defiling the deceased.

    Söderlund also acknowledged that people are “slightly conservative” when it comes to eating things they are not accustomed to, such as cadavers.

    The discussion took place accompanied by a graphic of human hands on the end of forks. Lovely.

    Another proposal to save the earth which has been promoted by numerous mass media outlets and environmentalists is only somewhat less disgusting – eating bugs.

    No doubt Greta Thunberg and Prince Harry will be first in line for when cockroaches and human flesh is being dished out at the next international climate summit.

  16. Damn. This will make it harder to punish people.

    New NASA Data On Forest Fires, Deforestation Refutes Climate Alarmists

     

    Newly released data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) refutes claims made by climate alarmists that forest fires are becoming more prevalent as a result of climate change and that the world is losing its forests...

     

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/51285/new-nasa-data-forest-fires-deforestation-refutes-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

  17. 4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Hurricane Dorian's wind-action, image taken from Earth:nullschool.net 

    [https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-69.60,22.11,1810/loc=-121.959,49.104]

    I hope our members in the way of the storm are battened down, and that the least worst track is taken.

    DORIAN.gif

    -- Earth:nullschool has a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZyd1nnJuvS-EZvAV-IDtPg/videos

    -- a couple of examples of detailed metrics available using Earth:nullschool data visualization. Tweets from the main guy behind the site Cameron Beccario.

    Our old friend Paul Beckwith continues to pump out his videos, which I would guess seem dangerously kooky and alarmist, depending on your point of view and priors.

     

    Tasty steamed octopus! What a surprise!

    J

  18. The deniers deserve to have their property destroyed.

    We don't have time to wait for the fucking deniers to agree with us. We're reaching the end. Running out of clock. Pretty soon, we're going to have to take serious measures, like butchering the fucking deniers. We have the right to do it. The deniers are putting our lives at risk. They're trying to get us all killed. So it's self defense for us to disembowel them. It's virtuous. Destroy! Kill!

     

    Former Canadian Prime Minister: I Hope Deadly Hurricane Destroys Trump’s Home

    gettyimages-77948853.jpg?itok=q0Um8fhu Photo by Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images 
    August 30, 2019 

    On Thursday, the only woman to ever serve as the prime minister of Canada issued a horrifying tweet in which she stated she wanted the deadly hurricane Dorian to strike President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, Florida. In response to a tweet from a scientist warning that Dorian was a major hurricane threat to the East Coast this weekend and that Florida was in the hurricane’s crosshairs, Kim Campbell tweeted, "I’m rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago!"

     
     
     
     
     

    I’m rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago! https://t.co/cA14KQvjpC

    — Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) August 28, 2019

    Fox News reported on Thursday, "The strengthening storm churned over the warm, open waters of the Atlantic on Thursday, upgrading to Category 2 strength late in the day, with maximum sustained winds of 105 mph, the National Hurricane Center reported. Forecasts showed Dorian tracking toward Florida’s east coast …Forecasters believe the storm will strengthen into a Category 3 hurricane by Friday, and stay well east of the southern and central Bahamas before making a turn toward Florida by Sunday afternoon."

    When someone pointed out to the unrepentant Campbell, "What the heck is wrong with you. There are real people who live and work there," Campbell snapped back, "get a grip," tweeting, "As there are in Puerto Rico- sorry you don’t get snark- but Trump’s indifference to suffering is intolerable! We'd also help if he tackled climate change which is making hurricanes more destructive! Instead, he will remove limits on methane! Get a grip!"

    After the resignation of Brian Mulroney in 1993, Campbell served for roughly five months as prime minister. She currently serves as the chairperson for Canada's Supreme Court Advisory Board.

    The Conservative Party of Canada, founded in 1867, changed its name to the Progressive Conservative Party in 1942. After Campbell, a Progressive Conservative who was serving briefly as prime minister, lost in the 1993 election, the party changed its name back to the Conservative Party; the party regained the leadership in 2006 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who governed until 2015, when Justin Trudeau was elected to the position.

    After the party changed its name back to the Conservative Party, Campbell, complaining about the fact that the party did not subscribe to her environmentalist views, said, "Well, I’ve never joined the Conservative Party of Canada; I think (former prime minister) Joe Clark expressed it that he didn’t leave the party; the party left him. It is not the Progressive Conservative party. You know, our party was the party of the acid rain treaty, the Montreal protocol. I’m sorry; I have no time for climate deniers and anybody who is trying to pussyfoot around it."

    Asked whether she thought the Conservative party was "weak on that," Campbell answered, "Yeah, I do. They pussyfoot around, they don’t really come out and say, commit themselves to dealing with it, and they’ve produced a plan that has no target. It’s really a sop I think … if certain issues aren’t taken seriously, we don’t have time to hope for people, and if they’re saying things because they’re playing to a recalcitrant base, in theory, they’ll do differently, whatever, sorry, that’s too much of a risk."

  19. On 8/28/2019 at 7:23 PM, william.scherk said:

    Of all the questions asked above in the set of quotes, the demand for the science got tied (in my mind) into 'the science of CO2.'  Probably since this molecule...

     

    In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way:

    What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences?

    Here are the questions:

    How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified?

    Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed?

    Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes?

    More to come. But, please, start with the above.

    J