Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, merjet said:

Keep your money, though, if I answered correctly.

Noooooooooooo!!!

Michael

[merjet]

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Pretty close ... if we keep our eyes on the finger, the digit attempting to 'select' the Trump/Pence item, we can see that the finger does not at any time 'push' the area of the ballot image that the voter is supposed to  push. In other words, the video clip (from Galt knows where) is a either a record of a misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead the expected audience.

To make a choice on this particular machine, this particular ballot image's "sensitive zone" has to be pushed on the touch screen.. 

Huh? It appears to me the finger pushed the Trump/Pence area a few times between about 0:15 and 0:30.

[turkeyfoot]

7 hours ago, merjet said:

 

 

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

 

del

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

Right, the exact center of the box.

Goeff,

To be clear, I don't care about the box. I was referring to the "keep your money" part.

Michael

[turkeyfoot]

25 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Goeff,

To be clear, I don't care about the box. I was referring to the "keep your money" part.

Michael

To the victor go the spoils. Dont spend it all in one place. )

[turkeyfoot]

12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Pretty close ... if we keep our eyes on the finger, the digit attempting to 'select' the Trump/Pence item, we can see that the finger does not at any time 'push' the area of the ballot image that the voter is supposed to  push. In other words, the video clip (from Galt knows where) is a either a record of a misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead the expected audience.

To make a choice on this particular machine, this particular ballot image's "sensitive zone" has to be pushed on the touch screen.. 

Right, the exact center of the box. The coordinates for making a selection is dead center of the box.

https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/app-notes/index.mvp/id/5296 

Unlike a keyboard key which is physically designed to restrict its motion directly over the capacitive conductor.

The guy was simply demonstrating what an average person assumes when using a touch pad - proximity or close enough should do. Thats not how it works.

Touch panels require calibration over time. When that isnt possible replacement is the best option. Copiers have built in tooling available to a tech to make corrections. I saw this repeatedly as a copier tech.

Similar mistakes occur too on card readers when the pencil mark is outside of the designated circle/box. Likewise an electronic reader of cards requires alignment in the path of the mark. I saw mistakes made when computer generated labels were mis sorted due to the OMR photo cell becoming mis aligned or because of component failure. The mistake became obvious only after a human observed the incorrect sorting.

This years votes were done via the old pencil mark method in Va changed since 2012 probably relating to the unreliable nature of the touch panel or electronic characteristics which are being regarded as less secure.

Theres been decades of use by generations of students using the pencil marked testing. Something that almost everyone has some familiarization with.

https://www.wired.com/2015/08/virginia-finally-drops-americas-worst-voting-machines/

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/voting-machine-meltdown-2016-likely-investigation-warns

"The biggest risk is increased failures and crashes, which can lead to long lines and lost vote. Older machines can also have serious security and reliability flaws that are unacceptable today. For example, Virginia recently decertified a voting system used in 24 percent of precincts after finding that an external party could access the machine’s wireless features to “record voting data or inject malicious data.” Smaller problems can also shake public confidence. Several election officials mentioned “flipped votes” on touch screen machines, where a voter touches the name of one candidate, but the machine registers it as a selection for another.”

[william.scherk]

On 11/28/2016 at 4:13 PM, william.scherk said:

Five Bucks to OL for the first person to fish out the error in the video ...

 

Emphasis added ...

14 hours ago, merjet said:

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Pretty close ... if we keep our eyes on the finger, the digit attempting to 'select' the Trump/Pence item, we can see that the finger does not at any time 'push' the area of the ballot image that the voter is supposed to  push. In other words, the video clip (from Galt knows where) is a either a record of a misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead the expected audience.

To make a choice on this particular machine, this particular ballot image's "sensitive zone" has to be pushed on the touch screen.. 

Huh? It appears to me the finger pushed the Trump/Pence area a few times between about 0:15 and 0:30.

First things first ...

The ballot in the video fairly corresponds to the 2016 ballot from Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County.  By visiting the City Commissioner's Philadelphia Votes site, I was able to obtain a sample ballot for 123 Broad Street. Here is the resulting image (click for full size): 

-- the ballot image is mounted on a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) push-button voting machine exclusively used in Philadelphia County made by Danaher -- the Shouptronic 1242. This machine has some very plain instructions which were not apparent in the video scrap above. Here is the upper left corner of an image of the same ballot but including its Instrucciones ... I have added in the red arrow, which points to instructions on where to put your finger.

From the Verified Voting site devoted to the Shouptronic. Emphasis added:

Voting Process: When voters enter the precinct, poll workers confirm
that they are properly registered to vote. The poll worker uses an
operator’s panel on the back of the machine to choose the ballot style
appropriate for that voter. The voter enters the curtains (see pictures
at left above) and only the races for which they are permitted to vote
are activated. The voter then votes by pressing a numbered box beside
each choice in each race on the ballot.

Anyway, my purpose was only to show that there was an error -- the guy with the finger in the video was not following the instructions which were clearly given immediately above the part of the ballot apparent in the video.  He pushed in several spots, but not on the numbered-box indicated by the instrucciones. 

I am not making any claims about any other video "Proof" of machine hinkiness or especially electoral fraud.  Now that Mr Trump is convinced (perhaps) that he was robbed of 3 million votes from reading printouts from Infowars, there will be some attention paid to the 'rigging' that robbed him.

Five bucks to OL for another example of a 'probably malfunctioning/Soros-infested machine' -- that, with a bit of investigation may not turn out to be what is claimed.

Five bucks!

[-- Merlin is quite right -- Shouptronic's 1242 instructions tell you that if you make a mistake, press the numbered button beside the wrong choice (lit up, ie Clinton) to clear the slate for that race.  Then you push on the correct one, which is always Trump.

I'll later put a link back to this post over in the Rigged Election thread, where it seems cogent. Now that everything is Trump it all kind of blends together sometimes ...  ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 30, 2016 by william.scherk
Merlin is right

[Brant Gaede]

I'm always amazed at your ability to adduce data quickly, a cornucopia of facts.

Trump and Clinton campaigned for Electoral votes. He won; she lost. We cannot then move the bullseye and say vice versa, it's not fair, he really lost.

The major virtue of the Electoral College is confining any possible vote fraud to particular states. This helps also in legitimatizing the election to the voters. Rooting out vote fraud will help this in future elections. I doubt there were millions of fraud votes, but don't know. This time it--whatever "it" is--had no effect on the election overall. That is, unless it helped elect Trump.

President Trump is the legit winner, seen as such by most. If Clinton manages to reverse the result she'll have none whatsoever. Congress will tie her up in knots. The country will be at risk from foreign affairs and the Red States will go after the Blue States in a way not as bad as the what happened in 1860, but bad enough. This time there will be no re-affirming the principle of federal union.

--Brant

Illery is completely unaffordable now, even for Democrats

 

 

[william.scherk]

Topical comment borrowed from the American Physical Society 'scam' thread ...

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

What about the sexually abused children?

Which sexually abused children?

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If it turns out the pizza restaurant is innocent

Wouldn't that be something!  No need to assume innocence. Instead, assume guilt.  That is the way of Reason, amirite?

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

stop being investigated by law enforcement.

Which law enforcement body is investigating Pizzagate, do you think -- if that is what you mean?

Yesterday a man was arrested inside the restaurant. He told police he was self-investigating. He had a rifle and a handgun. He let off some shots, without injury to anyone.  He left a shotgun in his car.

Oh well. Pizzagate! McMartin Pre-school tunnels. Satanic ritual abuse. Rumour panic, moral panic, satanic panic. Objectivism. Evidence. Whoopee. 

[KorbenDallas]

We're screwed!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Which sexually abused children?

William,

The ones you don't even care to admit exist.

Those.

You seem to like a victimization story until someone on your side is the oppressor. Then no one can even imagine a victim exists. Right?

Fuck the victims. They don't exist. Right?

Pedophiles tend to be very careful because they are hunted. It's hard to imagine an Anthony Weiner social media virtuoso among the Pizzagate folks. And just because they don't advertise with explicit pictures, that doesn't mean the FBI came up with its glossary out of thin air.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Topical comment from the Neverending Thread. It fits under the heading Epistemic Fudge, but could also fit somewhere in the APS scam thread. I flipped a coin.  The context was of course the evidence for three million illegal votes cast on November 8th, and the "standard of proof."  The evidence I have put at bottom.

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

"Tighten up his standard of proof"?   What idiot thing does that mean? 

It is now (probably) accepted by a consensus at Objectivist Living that Millions Voted Illegally in California, Virginia and New Hampshire.  And the 'standard of proof'?

Who gives a shit?  Who cares about any standard of truth?   The globe is warming in large part because of increased anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.  Oh really, and what is the standard of truth?

Who cares? Can't we just believe what we want to believe, and set proof aside for the duration?

Proof -- that is for rationalists and empiricists, and you know what shitheads those blobs are.

-- asking for a friend.  

You asked before how to get skeptics to believe in manmade global warming.

Sort of. I wrote what evidence would convince me that my views are wrong. In other words, I laid out what would 'prove me wrong.'

Quote

I said at the time, and ever since, get rid of the liars who lied (or maybe they're just morons--but get rid of them anyway).

Yes, you didn't answer my open question. That's fine. As far as I know you tuned out debate around the time of Climategate. Since your argument includes me in "you guys,"  I figure you have also tuned me out.  Nothing wrong with that. "You guys" tune out a lot of stuff.  

In one of your tune-outs you asked me about the Heartland Institute. If I included it among the international scientific bodies referred to as 'august' ... and if my meaning was not clear then, then I can restate it as "the academies" ... do I include the HI as a national science academy?  No.   

As I wrote: "I know what it would take to change my mind that the globe is warming, oceans and surface. I would look to the Arctic to give me an unmistakable signal that what I thought I knew was in error."  And I framed it further.

Moving on, you truncated a section of that frame: "I can still consult 'observations'" You told me that was a pretty good idea. Thank you. You further suggested that I do the observing myself, since 'Science is supposed to be based on observation.'  As you next noted for my benefit, "Almost everything else is a pile of mush in the climate game, some of it legit science, some of it spin, some of it falsified stuff, most of it slanted toward the money."

You further suggest that "Laypeople have no way on earth to untangle all that."  That is a give-up, to me.

You also asked about my "You guys" in a Young Turks video. Frankly,  I don't get anything useful out of Young Turks videos, especially grousing about Myron Ebell. "Ask yourself if the rhetoric in that video with Cenk and John will persuade Ebell or anyone around Ebell."

I asked myself and I answered "no."

Next! 

Quote

Get other people to do the work and to explain it.

I know you don't control who does that, but you certainly do control how much you ignore the lies of the liars who lied when you gush about those morally compromised individuals and keep citing them as credible sources and saviours of mankind.

Who was the last person I "gushed about," does anyone know?  

I will guess that maybe this means Christy/Santer/Collins/Curry/Lindzen/Collins of the APS workshop.  If that guess is right, then I suppose that you view each of those people as morally compromised individuals. Who knows, who cares?

Quote

And, no. I'm not interested in naming names and playing gotcha with data dumps.

If you cannot or will not mention the names of the morally-compromised and WSS-gushed-over people, discussion ends. Tune out and turn on.

Quote

If you can't understand that discredited people are discredited because they keep playing power games and gaming the public, I'm not going to try to disabuse you of the blindness.)

William, you are blind!

Quote

That whole surfeit of skunks is being rejected. And you're right. Nobody gives a good God damn about standards of truth coming from those stinkers. You know why? Because those jerks don't give a good God damn about standards of truth when they have an agenda to push and government money to get.

Surfeit of Skunks. Nobody gives a goddam about standards of truth. Not even Roger Pielke Jr.  QED.  He is a stinker.  Just like the rest with a government funded employment. Looking at you, Judith, John, Richard. Right? 

Quote

Like it or dislike it, agree or disagree, this is the new political reality. If you are worried about global warming--sincerely worried--and want to get through to average Americans, stop citing and doing data dumps from people and organizations without integrity, starting with the United Nations and those associated with that place. They've had their shot. They blew it. And now they are going to get defunded, but that's another issue.

(Or keep on. Your choice. But don't be surprised when nothing works to get anyone but your own choir interested.)

That ends discussion between you and me on this subject. I have choir practice this afternoon, so I must tune out and get ready. 

Weather porn!

Evidence of millions of illegal votes cast November 8th:

 

 

 

.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

In one of your tune-outs you asked me about the Heartland Institute. If I included it among the international scientific bodies referred to as 'august' ... and if my meaning was not clear then, then I can restate it as "the academies" ... do I include the HI as a national science academy?  No.

. . .

Who was the last person I "gushed about," does anyone know?  

William,

I didn't ask if the Heartland Institute was a national science academy. I asked why you left it out of the people to look at since it is full of scientists who present data that you don't like.

You say I tuned out, then show total "tune-out" contempt for that institute. The report I read a few years back from that organization was not "tune-out" worthy. So since you, yourself, won't even consider contrary facts, why on earth should I think you are fighting the good fight for reason and critical thinking? You're not. You're operating on a presumption and in search of mechanisms to spread it. A religious crusade, if you will.

As to people you gush about, how about "national science academy"? As in recipient of government funds? As in right in your very post? You used that as a standard to dismiss the Heartland Institute, which is an implied gush.

Anyway, funding for this stuff, if coming from the US federal government, is going to fall on hard times under the Trump administration.

Let's see how many of these experts are truly concerned once they can't sit at the banquet of government largess. And since you don't think it worthwhile to figure out how to talk to the people who elected Trump to convince them of your religious beliefs, instead, prefer mockery, ignoring their issues, and issuing more of the same old same old scripture citing (data dumps), you will just have to accept the fact that they don't believe in your God. Or your Satan.

Since this is a money and power thing, not a science thing, my suggestion is to get busy on getting people in power once again who belong to your religion.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Which law enforcement body is investigating Pizzagate, do you think -- if that is what you mean?

William,

FBI for one. Probably others.

Law enforcement agencies don't tend to advertise their work as they do it. Especially with pedophiles they try to shoo out of the shadows. And even more with pedophiles who have lots of money and power...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Anyway, funding for this stuff, if coming from the US federal government, is going to fall on hard times under the Trump administration.

Let's see how many of these experts are truly concerned once they can't sit at the banquet of government largess.

If the funds for climate-related research were truly slashed, there would be scientists coming out of the woodwork to say that they were skeptical all along.  Not the head honchos who are too identified with supporting alarmism to disentangle themselves.  Rank-and-file folk who have kept quiet.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

About the guy with the gun at the pizza place, Alex Jones had a witness on yesterday, one who is not happy with Alex and says so to his face.

He said very clearly he saw the man with a weapon, but did not hear any shots.

That doesn't mean shots were not fired, but it seems reasonable a guy this passionate about defending the pizza place (Comet Ping Pong) would have heard something since he was there the whole time...

Anyway, I finally understand the Pizzagate dust-up in the media being centered on this one pizza place when there is so much else to the story.

It's an attempt to smear Michael Flynn and his son as purveyors of fake news before Trump takes office. The news agencies that are spreading this in concert, even echoing identical language, are the same ones that always do (NPR, Think Progress, Wapo, LA Times, CNN, Mediaite, etc.). It's like a list out of David Brock's little black book.  

Michael

[william.scherk]

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I didn't ask if the Heartland Institute was a national science academy. I asked why you left it out of the people to look at since it is full of scientists who present data that you don't like.

This omits the context, which answers your question.  The context was the extent and breadth of the (not quite) conspiracy. My point was about the 'true-believing' august bodies and how large and world-encompassing was the (not quite) conspiracy. An accessory point was of course "how to get rid of this rot?" when it extends so far and so wide.  I call them august bodies not only to tweak your nose. 

You have truncated and edited out the argument made and the question asked and avoided.  It is a misreading of my intent, at least a weird proofreading.

Look at it this way: I left the Heartland think tank out of the set of august bodies worldwide that are part of the plot.   The Heartland Institute fellas aren't in on the plot -- they are strongly counter-plotters, advocates of freedom from fetters of government, advocates of free enterprise contra statism. They are of party B, whereas the august bodies are the 'enemy,' party A.  To over-simplify.

So, what I don't understand is the minor-key got-you misreading.

Quote

You say I tuned out, then show total "tune-out" contempt for that institute.

Michael, I took you at your word -- that you tuned out.  I said, "As far as I know you tuned out debate around the time of Climategate."  That is taken from your own words:

 I, for one, tuned out when those early emails were discovered (the science dudes altering data and lying to the public) and the response from your side was a big fat nothing-burger. You guys even tried to mock people who said lying to the public in the name of science was wrong. (Now you talk about "poisoning the well.")

You may call that critical thinking, but I call it partisan thinking. Biased at that.

I note you consider a lot, but rarely this kind of stuff.

At least you guys have written off Al Gore, that is until you haven't.

Guess who are "you guys." 

Quote

The report I read a few years back from that organization was not "tune-out" worthy. So since you, yourself, won't even consider contrary facts, why on earth should I think you are fighting the good fight for reason and critical thinking? You're not. You're operating on a presumption and in search of mechanisms to spread it. A religious crusade, if you will.

My opinion of the Heartland Institute is mixed.  But that you think I show bad faith is again noted.  This is where our 'discussion' hits shoals.  You see bad faith or fixed religious conviction or both. It is not attractive.

Quote

As to people you gush about, how about "national science academy"? As in recipient of government funds? As in right in your very post? You used that as a standard to dismiss the Heartland Institute, which is an implied gush.

They are not in the same class, yes.  The class of august bodies is Party A -- the true-believing, religious crusade, lying liars, scammers and teat-suckers and so on. The enemy of Party B.  An international enemy.  Your enemy.

Gush implied, gosh.

Here's what I thought you might mean when you told me I gushed about somebodies unnamed:  I thought you meant Christy et al, the six who workshopped at the APS.  It might seem that way when I say they were remarkably civil, even friendly, in discussion.  What you may have misread was that they were all on the same 'side.' They were not. They were in a sense intellectual challengers in two teams. The fruit of that discussion was the new APS statement. The 'side' of Curry lamented that statement.  There is continued debate between the 'sides,' not always as friendly as the workshop.

 I don't dismiss the Heartland Institute. We have talked about them here before.  They have had a hefty budget and commission a fair bit of content, including editorials in mainstream media.  They do an effective job in concert with other think-tanks and lobbyists and so forth. They don't always get the coverage they deserve.

Quote

Anyway, funding for this stuff, if coming from the US federal government, is going to fall on hard times under the Trump administration.

That seems likely.  But the grind of publication will continue. The IPCC will continue to convene. The international work of scientists to understand atmospheric, climatic states will not be ended. Folks like Judith Curry and John Christy will continue their work and advocacy and so will those on the other 'side' ...

The planetary climate system will still be studied, and the PPM of CO₂ will increase -- and at some point enough evidence will accrue to convince me that my opinions were ill-founded, wrong.  Per my 'falsification' post about the Arctic.  As the world turns, over the next twenty years should we live that long to see, the depth of the wrong, the unstable foundations will be revealed.

I mean, I want to be wrong. 

Quote

Let's see how many of these experts are truly concerned once they can't sit at the banquet of government largess.

Sure.

I think we will see folks use all means to express their concerns, whatever their stripe. With Curry, the "uncertainty monster" will probably be the focus of her advocacy. She will still publish in the literature. She won't be removed from her job.  Same with Christy. Same with the tenured or emeritus skeptics such as Lindzen. The 'debate' between and among the varied scientists under the tent "Climate" will continue on.

Maybe there will be a careful, meticulous de-boning of American earth-science budgets and institutions.  It won't happen overnight, I don't think. And the 'survivors' will of course continue their advocacy. Such as Santer, Collins and Held will work on. Their counterparts on the 'skeptic' or 'lukewarm' side will work on. 

Quote

And since you don't think it worthwhile to figure out how to talk to the people who elected Trump to convince them of your religious beliefs, instead, prefer mockery, ignoring their issues, and issuing more of the same old same old scripture citing (data dumps), you will just have to accept the fact that they don't believe in your God. Or your Satan.

That's a nice long sentence plus. I get to the part about my "religious beliefs" and then I wonder if a decision to end 'climate' discussion with you is a good one. 

I will admit to two puzzlers on this.  "Same old scripture citing"  == 'data dump.'  I consider a data-dump something like the monstrous tables of data at ReAnalyzer.  If you are given just a data table, or hundreds of data tables over scores of databases, it is quite challenging to turn that into a prose explanation. By itself even a small dump may overwhelm the analytical/technical chops of the recipient.  The other puzzler is over "your God."  That is so insulting and moralistic.  That I am of the Party of Satan.  Is this where all doors lead on this subject?

Your usage may comport more with the Urban Dictionary definition:

When someone sends you a mess of files via ftp or email without explanation, expecting you to make sense of them.

That prick just took a data dump on my desktop. I have no idea what all this crap is.

But my God. My Satan.  I guess ... 

Quote

Since this is a money and power thing, not a science thing, my suggestion is to get busy on getting people in power once again who belong to your religion.

Okay, you dismiss my opinions as bound by religion.   That is fine. It augurs bad faith on my part, deception, hypocrisy, malevolence, adhesion to a cult of belief -- an impregnable fortress of dogma. Whoo hoo.

................................

A bit of additional information from the Heartland Institute, an article from just last week, "FIVE STAGES OF CLIMATE GRIEF" and another one, "TRUMP AND CLIMATE POLICY" from a few days ago.

An excerpt from the first HI link:

Quote

President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate – but he has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.”

Here are a few important facts and probing questions that he could raise, to get the ball rolling.

1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems, amid many natural forces. However, it soon began looking only at human influences. Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions. How and why did this happen? How can alarmists ignore the powerful natural forces, focus solely on air emissions associated with fossil fuel use – and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science?

2) Your “manmade climate chaos” thesis – and computer models that support it – implicitly assume that fossil fuel emissions and feedbacks they generate have replaced numerous powerful natural forces that have driven climate cycles and extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history. What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events – before fossil fuel emissions took over?

Where did all those natural forces go? Why are they no longer functioning? Who stole them? When did they stop ruling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established?

3) You claim climate and weather patterns are already “unprecedented” and increasingly cataclysmic. But even as plant-fertilizing CO2 levels continue to climb, average global temperatures have risen barely 0.1 degrees the past two decades, amid a major El Niño. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century. It has now been a record eleven years since a category 3-5 hurricane struck the US mainland; the previous record was nine years, 1860 to 1869. The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record. Where are the unprecedented cataclysms?

4) Your computer models begin with the assumption or assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause rapidly, dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events. But if this assumption is wrong, so are your models, projections and scenarios. It’s garbage in / garbage out. And in fact your models have been wrong – dramatically and consistently, year after year. When will you fix them? When will they factor in data and analyses for solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces?

5) The manmade climate cataclysm community has refused to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with those whom you call “skeptics” or “deniers.” 97% consensus, case closed, you say. What do you fear from open, robust debate? What manipulated data or other tricks are you trying to hide? Why are you afraid to put your cards on the table, lay out your supposed evidence – and duke it out? Do you really think taxpayers should give you one more dime under these circumstances?

6) The FDA and other federal agencies require that applications for drugs, medical devices and permits for projects include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to hide your data and methodologies, treat them as proprietary, refuse to share them with Congress or “realist” scientists, and refuse to engage in a full peer-review process?

7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores the huge benefits of using these fuels. Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent?

8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now EPA wants another 1.2 billion gallons blended into our gasoline. Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, CO2, fuel efficiency and other costs, rampant fraud in the RIN program, and impacts on small refiners? If we replace all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require?

9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized and exempted from most environmental rules. They kill millions of birds and bats. Their electricity is expensive and unreliable, and requires fossil fuel backup generators. Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws – and allowed to conduct bogus mortality studies, and prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work?

Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer, or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete.

All right, so maybe I do leave the door cracked open to reasonable discussion.  I'd like to see some understanding of good faith, but if that is not forthcoming, I can live with it. It might seem crudely unfair to be assigned to the bulk shelves of True Believer, the Principle of Charity may not be as useful as I thought.  The Steel Man seems to be saying, you are Them, you are an enemy of reason, you belong to a cult, you are crudely religious.

This is why I love OL. From disagreement to condemnation in hyperloop time.

Data Dump.

Data dumps visualized:

The Principle of Charity (midpoint of neat OL discussion exploring corollaries, eg, steel-manning).

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by william.scherk
Dump

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I left the Heartland think tank out of the set of august bodies worldwide that are part of the plot.

William,

I didn't understand your request to be this. 

I understood it as who among "serious people" (call it augst bodies or whatever) should be considered in looking at climate change and what arguments such "serious people" could produce to make skeptics change their minds or tune-outs to tune in.

As to the ones in on the plot, I kinda lump them in with the surfeit of skunks I talked about. This is based on the distinctive odor they all emanate, which smells identical to government funding and a massive power grab.

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

21 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

If the funds for climate-related research were truly slashed, there would be scientists coming out of the woodwork to say that they were skeptical all along.  Not the head honchos who are too identified with supporting alarmism to disentangle themselves.  Rank-and-file folk who have kept quiet.

Ellen

Ellen,

Get your popcorn because, looking at some of the people Trump is looking at for the EPA, I think we are going to be in for quite a show.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I'd like to see some understanding of good faith, but if that is not forthcoming, I can live with it. It might seem crudely unfair to be assigned to the bulk shelves of True Believer, the Principle of Charity may not be as useful as I thought.

William,

It's not bad faith, like you keep yapping about. It's a perception.

Here's a suggestion. You don't like being seen as a true believer, so don't frame your question as an implied appeal to true believers. Your subtext always comes off as: "What will it take for you yahoo true believers to see, goddamit?! Except I can't say it that way because you tune out so I use euphemisms."

Another suggestion is to deal with the money and power grab and the dishonesty that goes with it that is the root of the objections of all them yahoo true believers...

Just saying the name of this person and that is not enough to generate the interest of those who are negative to the climate change movement. You have to say something like, "XXX did sleazy YYY and got caught. I do not condone that. Boo. Bad. XXX is dead to me for now and so are people who act like XXX." That wouldn't do the whole trick, but it would be a good start.

Final suggestion. Let's see who Trump gets on board. I'm willing to look at the work of those people, but not much. The hoax part of this climate change debate has exhausted my patience. It's a black hole that sucks in the precious unrepeatable minutes and hours of my life and brings me no value whatsoever. Instead, it always brings bickering and irritation. If that's all that it does, I ask myself: why do it?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

Get your popcorn because, looking at some of the people Trump is looking at for the EPA, I think we are going to be in for quite a show.

 

Michael

Well....

I hope so!  (Imagine fingers-crossed emoticon inserted here.)

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I hope so!  (Imagine fingers-crossed emoticon inserted here.)

Ellen,

I was going to post the following in Trump Humor, but I think it is appropriate right here.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

LOL.  The number of shat bricks might end up being sufficient to build the Great Wall of China.

Ellen

[Peter]

16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Well....

I hope so!  (Imagine fingers-crossed emoticon inserted here.)

Ellen

True or false? The Conspiracy Theory: the Wall Street elites wanted Hillary to win so they could continue their crony capitalist ways. They “lowered” the value of stocks, depressing the market prior to the election while claiming it was in fear of a Trump victory. In the meantime, Trump says some very free market things like he will lower business taxes, and decrease regulations so that all businesses will thrive, especially “small businesses and start-ups.” The criminal crony capitalists could not leverage the market for long. Therefor we are now having a Trump Rally on Wall Street. And President Trump is “Time Magazines” person of the year.

Peter  

[merjet]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Therefor we are now having a Trump Rally on Wall Street.

Or a bubble?   Goldman Sachs, where Trump's pick for Treasury Secretary spent much of his career, is up 28% versus the S&P 500's 4% since Nov 8. United Technologies Corporation (UTX, parent of Carrier) is up 29%.