by Mike Smith
For a decade, the weathercaster and broadcast meteorology communities have been subject of a focused campaign to force them to cover global warming in a manner acceptable to the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and other advocacy groups.
How well is their strategy working?
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) is in the process of publishing the latest weathercaster survey from 2014-16 in its Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The title of the article by Maibach et al. is:
TV weathercasters’ views of climate change appear to be rapidly evolving
Survey Background
The Maibach et al. (2017) paper begins:
For more than a decade, academic researchers and members of the broadcast meteorology community have been studying TV weathercasters’ views about human-caused climate change. The primary motivation behind this research has been to determine the degree to which these TV news professionals – who, in most cases, are the only scientist in their newsroom – are up to speed on the science of climate change, so they can report on it.
The paper then says (lightly edited for clarity):
Surveys in 2010 and 2011 by Maibach and colleagues found somewhat higher rates of weathercasters convinced of climate change. The 2010 study – an attempted census of AMS and National Weather Association (NWA) broadcast members (response rate=52%) – found that over half (54%) indicated global warming is happening, while a quarter (25%) indicated it isn’t, and 21% responded they didn’t know. The 2011 study – another attempted census of AMS and NWA broadcast members (response rate=33%) – found that over half (54%) of weathercasters indicated that climate change “caused mostly by human activity” (19%) or “caused more-or-less equally by human activity and natural events” (35%) is happening; 29% indicated that climate change “caused mostly by natural events” is happening. Fewer than 1 in 10 felt climate change was not happening (9%), or they didn’t know (8%).
The earlier survey (‘2010-11 survey‘) was of television meteorologists. The 2010-11 survey found that 54% indicated ‘global warming is happening.’ It also found that 54% is believed global warming is ‘caused mostly by human activity.‘
However, the new poll is not a survey solely of meteorologists. The exact breakdown of the respondents’ scientific background as explained in the 2017 paper is not completely clear. Here are the paper’s words:
Most hold a BS (59%) or MS (8%) in meteorology/atmospheric science, or a BS or BA (8%) or MS or MA (2%) in broadcast meteorology. Other commonly reported degrees are a certificate in meteorology/broadcast meteorology (19%), a BA in journalism/mass communication (17%), and a BA or BS in other disciplines (13%).
Stated another way: 19% + 17% + 13% = 49% have no degree in atmospheric science. However, the study’s author says 59% hold a BS in meteorology/atmospheric science and then mentions other scientific degrees. The numbers add to far more than 100%. Based on working with broadcast meteorologists for the past 46 years, it is infrequent for someone to attain a degree in journalism and then to get a degree in meteorology or vice versa. So, we will use the number 100% – 59% = 41% to estimate the number of respondents without formal degrees in meteorology or atmospheric science.
Because they do not have an extensive science background to fall back on, the weathercasters may be more subject to being influenced by media reports and peer pressure (most newsrooms are populated by liberal-leaning journalists as numerous studies have shown). Why? The Stenhouse, Maibach et al. (2014) survey included this statement in a global warming survey of the Society’s entire membership:
In a survey of AMS members, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor of views on global warming, followed by political ideology, climate science expertise and perceived organizational conflict.
So, according to the statement above, if one eliminates ’climate science expertise‘ — which would be the case for weathercasters without scientific degrees — the only things remaining are opinion and ideology. By adding non-scientists to the 2014-16 survey, the results may be skewed by broadcasters more likely influenced by ’consensus‘ rather than their own independent evaluations of the science.
Misleading Definition
The Maibach et al. (2017) paper says:
We began these surveys by stating the AMS definition of climate change; only then did we ask respondents for their views. No prior weathercaster survey has used the AMS definition (or any science society’s formal definition) prior to asking questions about climate change.
Because the new paper does not reproduce the American Meteorological Society’s definition of ’climate change, the reader will likely be seriously misled by the survey’s results as, for many, ’climate change‘ is synonymous with ’human-caused climate change.’
Here is the AMS’s definition of ’climate change:’
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) defines climate change as: “Any systematic change in the long-term statistics of climate elements (such as temperature, pressure, or winds) sustained over several decades or longer. Climate change may be due to: natural external forcings, such as changes in solar emission or slow changes in the earth’s orbital elements; natural internal processes of the climate system; or anthropogenic forcing.”
Under the AMS definition, “climate change” includes changes that may be entirely natural!
So, when the survey asked if climate change is occurring, and 90% replied in the affirmative, the answer is scientifically correct (the climate is always changing) but meaningless and misleading because the phrase ’climate change‘ is deeply connected to an intense political debate about human caused climate change, much of which has little to do with science.
The paper goes on to state,
More than 90% of weathercasters indicated that climate change is happening, and approximately 80% indicated that human-caused climate change is happening (see Figure 1).
Since the basis for that statement is a reference to the paper’s Figure 1, which is reproduced here, let’s examine the veracity of the’80%’ contention.
The percentage of weathercasters that say climate change could be ‘largely,’ ‘entirely,’ or ‘mostly,’ caused by human activities is just 49% — nowhere near the 80% number claimed. In fact, even if one adds in the ’more or less‘ responses, the number is comes to just 70%, again short of the 80% claimed.
Given that St. Louis’ Metromex project in the 1970’s proved that human activities affect the climate, the fact that just 49% of weathercasters believe climate change is driven by human activities is a low number. It is also interesting that the 49% of the weathercasters in 2014-16 who believed human activities were primarily the cause of a changing climate is a smaller number than the 54% in the 2010-11 survey. This is the opposite of the paper’s central contention.
Concluding Remarks
The AMS/GMU 2017 survey reported by Maibach et al. (2017) is another unfortunate attempt by the American Meteorological Society, using questionable techniques, to manipulate opinion.
The weathercaster and broadcast meteorology communities, for more than a decade, have been subject of a focused campaign to force them to cover global warming in a manner acceptable to the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and other advocacy groups. For example, the AGU blog makes the preposterous contention that failure to cover climate change in weathercasts is unethical!
I can imagine a weathercaster in Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas would get a lot of feedback from angry viewers if they came out of the climate science closet. They need to though, especially my friends in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas. Our job as science communicators is to give our viewers good science and omission because it is politically unpopular is unethical journalism.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has departed from its mission of the past 80 years, which was to advance and disseminate meteorological knowledge. The Society has wandered from its original mission to one of both overt and stealth advocacy related to the politics of climate change.
As part of its advocacy on climate change, the AMS periodically takes a number of actions to influence the public, political leaders and its members. Those include briefings in Washington, DC, press releases and even pressure on individual members to a espouse a view. I am aware of more than one of these attempts on my colleagues.
Advocacy also takes more covert forms. For instance, I received a call from the Executive Director of the Society, during which he pressured me to stop writing articles on my blog that raised questions about aspects of the science and politics of climate change. I declined to comply on principle. Regardless, I had resigned from the Society two weeks earlier because I disagree with the Society’s advocacy activities.
The AMS is of course not alone in embracing advocacy related to climate change. There are plenty of organizations involved in advocacy, on all sides of the issue. However, there are very few organizations that have chosen to stand above the political fray, and to offer a forum for the expression of diverse perspectives on science and its implications. Climate change is important, but so too is science.
Moderation note: As with all guest posts, please keep your comments civil and relevant.
Pingback: Stealth advocacy: a survey of weathercasters’ views on climate change – Enjeux énergies et environnement
This worries me “Fewer than 1 in 10 felt climate change was not happening (9%)”, especially when, as you state, “(the climate is always changing) “.
except the climate is not always changing
If we take the climate is an average of the weather over a thirty year period, when has the climate not changed?
I always relate climate change to far more than 30 years, more like 2000 years min, and I would not argue against a longer period.
Climate, I feel compelled to point out is just part of the environment, though not an atmospheric scientist with their heads in the clouds, I am in environmental science and strange as it may seem we to have views on climate, and its effects, which would seem to be much more holistic and systemic
Every standard climate parameter oscillates irregularly (probably chaotically) at all scales of interest, from months to centuries and beyond. Almost all of the available evidence says that they always have. (The hockey stick being the major exception.)
This would seem to be a near perfect definition of always changing.
It is also the reason that the attribution problem is still unsolved and may well be unsolvable. If the changes are chaotic their cause may be indeterminate.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page81.html
Really?! When is it not changing?
popesclimatetheory, when Steven says “except the climate is not always changing”; he’s being a bit ambivalent. Does he mean that there were no climate oscillations prior to the industrial revolution? Or that since the industrial revolution there really is no hokey stick? I mean, hockey. But of course we’ve had 1.5 degree warming in the last century, everyone knows that. Guess we’re back to square one with Steven, certainly the media who believes record temperatures the last couple years is climate changing before our very eyes. Daily in some cases. Who could have known.
Mosher you are wrong. The climate is always changing and always has been.
Realclimate has addressed this meme recently. The climate is always changing, so what do you conclude?
(1) that humans cannot change the climate?
(2) that we do not know whether humans are to blame for global warming?
(3) that global warming will not have any severe consequences?
(4) that we cannot stop global warming?
These answers are all wrong.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/the-climate-has-always-changed-what-do-you-conclude/
Stop trying to threadjack JimD. Mr Mosher made the comment ” the climate is not always changing” I queried when this occurred. There was nothing about attribution in that. I note he hasn’t responded, just done his usual cryptic comment and run.
“the climate is not always changing”
How much does the climate have to change for it to be said, “the climate has changed”? 1 degree? 0.1 degree? 0.0001 degree? At some point you run into problems of statistical significance.
It’s easier to say “the climate is normally much more stable than it is now”. Or “the climate usually changes much less than it is changing now”.
These are all true. The climate is usually pretty stable compared to now, based on what paleoclimate data we have.
The climate is always changing, so what do you conclude?
(1) that humans cannot change the climate?
Oh, no. I certainly think we can.
(2) that we do not know whether humans are to blame for global warming?
Pretty darn sure, I think, all things considered.
(3) that global warming will not have any severe consequences?
Severely good consequences.
(4) that we cannot stop global warming?
We could go to nukes tomorrow. But global warming will stop on its own, anyway. Probably well short of +2C. (Because Arrhenius.)
These answers are all wrong.
These questions are all wrong.
Again, climate change question being perceived as human change would garnish a no change reply from some.
The more Stealth Advocacy changes, the more it remains the same.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/07/pielkes-gwpf-performance-further.html
Here is a case in point concerning a Phoenix tv weather person.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/04/26/climate-evangelists-are-taking-over-your-local-weather-forecast/
Anthropogenic Climate Change permeates all walks of government and media outlets, and yet, President Trump got away with publicly stating the US will be withdrawing from the 2015 Paris Agreement. The public at large, yawned, with some notable exceptions.
What has come to light is how embedded in most phases of local, state and Federal Government are people who advocate for a penalty method to guide educators, businesses and public policy to eliminate all forms of fossil fuel energy use. The penalties used can be as trivial as removing skeptics from homeowner’s association boards, township volunteer consuls, state boards and agencies.
These disenfranchisements behaviors usually are initiated and carried through many times by a single individual who openly moralizes about the coming armageddon. Skeptic views are stifled by bullies in the boardroom, pulpit, the bureaucracy of governments, and yes, in the media, especially on television. Kinda reminds me of the preachy sermons of Cotton and Incense Mather during our early Puritan heritage. Faced with resistance to submit to the religious ways, it was believed that only through universal education would people learn to read their Bibles and see the wisdom of their religious leaders.
The corollary to issues that led to the decline of Puritanism i.e. education of the masses as they did read their Bibles and came to view religious leaders as being preoccupied with self-interest, that the present climate change bullies, in their decry of skepticism, harangue about the lack of science knowledge amongst the general population, but especially the dearth of science education amongst climate change doubters. It would seem that the redress would be to have more science into all phases of social and public discourse. The proposed view that educating more people in the sciences, and in specific the science of weather and climate especially, the newly science educated people would instead think for themselves, particularly when they are lectured to by advocacy groups or even skepticism. Just as the Enlightenment drew the world out of superstition, witchcraft, spells, faith healers and all sorts of other influence peddlers so a science literate population would be likely to see both the forest and the trees. For some political or educational processes, maybe elevate some of our educational curriculum by offering calculus for poets, biology for sociologists, chemistry for elementary education teachers, etc. Maybe injecting enough science so the educated person would have a working vocabulary regarding the scientific method? able to appreciated skepticism? support the view that uncertainty is not a dirty word.
I wonder if the climate change warriors have thought about the end game?
Wordy, but good words! Nothing to moderate in what you wrote. Thanks!
Why I have been involved in science education for the past 20 years. At Wolftree the students are presented with an issue – often centered on salmon – asked to develop a hypothesis, taken into the field to collect data, then asked to test their hypothesis against that data. They then present their findings to their classmates. I’ve witnessed 3rd graders showing better scientific method than activist climate scientists.
‘ Just as the Enlightenment drew the world out of superstition, witchcraft, spells, faith healers and all sorts of other influence peddlers so a science literate population would be likely to see both the forest and the trees. ”
Another missionary for the blockhead position .
Calculus is poetry. Nice rant btw. Kudos.
No it isn’t. But poetry is calculus.
(I’ll save the rest for the upcoming MMTS conversion meltdown.)
I guess I am a bit wordy this time, but does that mean I should be relegated to moderation?
Did they talk to Dr Neil Frank and rank his input according to his background? Likely, they knew his viewpoint and did not ask him to take part.
Were all weathercasters included or did they pick and choose? Did weatercasters who might lose their jobs refuse to take part. I cannot believe an honest survey was conducted. Many weathercasters do not comment on climate. Since most of them work for media that does want them to support alarmism and they do not, I take that as strong indication they disagree, but cannot, due to wanting to keep their job. You cannot ask anyone what they really think and get an honest answer without giving away who they are and there goes their job. This survey is a good idea that cannot work.
The results reflect how many want to keep their jobs and how many are willing to take some risk. Not enough to do with what the majority think about what has and is and will happen.
Whether used to be so boring……..spice it up with some tales from the dark side.
Weather too!
You can have fun
with homonyms, –
‘weather,’ ‘whether,’
‘wether.’* Hey, some nice
socio-politic-enviro
conn-oh-tations – oh!
* An ineffectual sheeple.
To subtle for Nick
I would think most weathercasters do not risk being fired for not supporting climate alarmism, as long as they do their job properly.
The problem appears to be when they come out publicly attacking climate alarmism, thus conflicting with their company’s position, which is not part of their job. That’s what we saw with the french weather forecaster:
https://www.usnews.com/news/science/news/articles/2015/11/02/french-weatherman-fired-after-slamming-climate-conference
Free speech is only free when what you say conforms to what is acceptable to the ones that hold power over you or can be influenced by public opinion against you. Otherwise it has a price and is not free.
Well said. Intolerance is the hammer of fascism. We will sadly relive history because the Left amazingly, actually, convinced most of the world that the Right invented fascism; which leaves it to breed where fewer are looking.
+++++++++++++
In that story about the French weatherman, they wrote:
The conference Nov. 30-Dec. 11 is based on the results of more than 100 years of climate science, and top officials from 196 countries including President Barack Obama are coming to Paris to talk about ways to slow that change.
We fixed that problem with Obama!
Pingback: Encuesta AMS: desciende el nº de meteorólogos TV que cree el cuento del clima | PlazaMoyua.com
If climate change causes the biosphere to become unstable I don’t think anybody will blame the weathercasters. They will blame the people who told them to ignore the science.
No one is ignoring “the” science. The science is debatable so it is being actively debated. And the alarms are alarmist so they are being questioned hard.
Climate change is a result of a stable biosphere. The climate cycles are normal, natural, necessary, well bounded, self-correcting and robust. When oceans warm, oceans thaw and promote more snowfall. When oceans cool, oceans freeze and promote less snowfall. The bounding is really this simple.
I did qualify my statement with “If”. We humans are quick to blame anybody but themselves when reality doesn’t match expectations. Me included.
Right jack.
Try separating science fiction from science fact.
“For a decade, the weathercaster and broadcast meteorology communities have been subject of a focused campaign to force them to cover global warming in a manner acceptable to the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and other advocacy groups.”
No evidence provided.
“the reader will likely be seriously misled by the survey’s results as, for many, ’climate change‘ is synonymous with ’human-caused climate change.’”
No reason to believe that. The quoted text says:
“The 2011 study – another attempted census of AMS and NWA broadcast members (response rate=33%) – found that over half (54%) of weathercasters indicated that climate change “caused mostly by human activity” (19%) or “caused more-or-less equally by human activity and natural events” (35%) is happening; 29% indicated that climate change “caused mostly by natural events” is happening.”
It gives the breakdown as to what fraction think climate change is human caused (and to what degree). That clearly shows the survey did not treatment CC and AGW as synonymous.
No evidence here of “stealth advocacy” at all.
Nick Stokes
“No evidence here of “stealth advocacy” at all.”
Maybe you didn’t read my post up thread. The portion related to Homeowner’s Association Boards, Township committees and consuls, and State agencies I know from personal experience directed at me as well as others. I have been involved in various State and local boards for more than 3 decades and I have observed the membership of committees change according to the political winds. Those winds most recently; i.e., over the last decade, have blown decisively against any and all dissent of catastrophic global warming. This has been most egregious when issues come up for renewal and need to be voted upon in the face of failure or nonsensical; i.e. having and funding a wind energy task force and policy where there is no local wind. No company would build a 500 foot wind tower when the wind energy density is very low. Or spending tax payer money on solar panels and where solar panel’s life expectancy is shorter than any payback in spite of subsidies, grants, and rebates.
The veracity of science is quite secondary to the ideology. Bullies win.
Nick, and den-eye-l is not just a river in Africa.
Leave your name on the piano. NEXT.
Nick thinks that because they haven’t been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, there is no evidence, despite the crumbs on the floor and the chocolate smudges on their faces.
80% say human caused climate change is happening is accurate. The only columns excluded are the three on the right which includes 80-100% natural. It includes those who say 60-80% natural because they do allow 20-40% for human-caused effects. Not misleading to include them as saying human-caused climate change is happening.
Jim, by your same logic you should throw in 81-100% natural. At any rate, 50% is enough for someone like Dr Spencer, or for that matter Dr Curry, to be called a d’nier. (the line of demarcation seems to be at 50%)…
I don’t think the AMS called anyone a denialist, but these people are a bit sensitive to language because they don’t appear to like being lumped in with believers either. I say just take the poll for what it is and move on. This is very petty bickering.
Well, Jim, at least think of it this way… Those who allow for 20-40% human caused effects are right up there with Lindzen. (and he’s the devil incarnate to the agw crowd) So, saying that climate change is happening isn’t really saying much. In that sense the 80% figure is misleading. Or, to quote the author, is lacking in “veracity”…
70% say around 50% or more human-caused. Maybe Judith would have preferred it to be phrased that way?
Except that “more or less” actually means 40-60%, so add only half of that to the other two. (i’ll give you 60%… ☺)
Jim D:
Schmidt said we cause 110% or something like that.
CO2 causes 1.1
Natural causes -0.1
We cause about 110%
Next situation:
CO2 causes 1.1
Natural causes 0.1
We cause about 90%
What we caused relies on what nature did.
But why look at a time frame of about 63 years (1950 to AR5).
We cause on shorter time frames too. Like the recent El Nino up tick. We can cause on longer time frames without causing on the shorter ones. Is that how it works?
The trend line belongs to us. The recent El Nino includes temperatures during that. We caused the trend line.
I think you are saying the long-term trend line is mostly from GHG increases. Yes.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2
Note that El Ninos are just wiggles on the long-term trend because they are also getting warmer along with La Nina minima, and that is the long-term trend in effect.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/plot/gistemp/from:1900/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2
Jimmie, it’d be nice if you extended your little graph back to the turn of the century as that would give folks a bigger and better picture of what’s going on. (we’ve gotta keep you intellectually honest, too)…
Vaughn Pratt already solved that dilemma.
Vaughn Pratt used Microsoft Excel to solve for an equation with several variables including CO2 to fit a warming trend.
John von Neumann famously said “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Loehe & Scafetta used fewer variables (excluding CO2) and produced a better fit to a longer record.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/loehle-and-scafetta-on-climate-change-attribution/
Jim D:
Depending on what nature did, the percentage we caused changes. What we caused may not be what we cause in the future. It will depend on nature. In the 110% example, nature helped us cause 110% because it cooled. If it hadn’t cooled we’d only have caused 100%. So the stronger nature cools, the more we cause. I think if half of our warming was offset by natural cooling, we’d have caused 200% of the warming. If nature had offset most of the warming, we’d have caused something huge like 500% of the warming. Let’s consider the warming slow down starting about in 1999. We were causing a huge amount of warming (500%?), that wasn’t happening so much.
The rules seems to be, the less it warms, the more we cause. The more it warms, the less we cause.
Just guessing, but the only way for AGW to drop below 100% would be for NV to be responsible for a percentage of the warming. I believe if NV cooling is 50% of the warming, then AGW would be responsible for 133% of the warming. If NV cooling completely offsets AGW, then there is no warming or cooling to attribute: it’s zeros all the way down.
150%, not 133%.
If this was a race, nature is trying to keep up with our warming effect, and not succeeding because the decadal imbalance remains positive. So to me, more than 100% just means more in the pipeline, which there is, even if we suddenly stop adding to the forcing now, because that only gives nature a chance to catch up with the new state of things that we have created.
No, it means warming over the period under consideration has both offset net NV cooling and added additional warming.
JCH:
If the justified question is where am I coming from, I’ll try this. Accountants are supposed to provide information that is useful for management.
If half the warming is offset by NV, then we caused 200% of it.
We caused / We got = Our %
If all of the warming is offset by NV, then we caused an infinite amount of warming.
1 / 0 = Big number
Take a plane that cruises at 100 mph and a 50 mph wind. Fly directly into the wind and then with it. Attribute cause in both cases.
I might suggest Schmidt’s 110% is more confusing than it is policy guidance.
The issue is attribution of warming. It is caused by both net NV and AGW working together, in which case the two number will add up to 100%, or it is a case where net NV is causing cooling and AGW is either overcoming it and causing warming or it is a perfect offset, in which case there is no warming and the attribution is 0%.
So the AMO in the pipe dream case: 49% of warming caused by net NV and 51% caused by AGW. Adds to 100%. Both together are causing 100%. They’re both causing warming, so they obviously share attribution. But this is abject silliness so why bother?
The only other warming situation that can exist is where net NV is causing cooling and AGW both overcomes and exceeds it, resulting in actual warming that can be attributed. In that case it’s always going to be more than 100%. This reality.
Say net NV is -69 increments and AGW 5 increments. 74/69 = 1.07 times 100 = 107% of the warming is caused by AGW. Say net NV is -13 and AGW is 55. 68/13 = 523%. Say net NV is -2 increments and AGW is 20 increments. 22/20 = 1.10 times 100 = 110%.
I read a paper today by James Hansen, et al, above, and wondered if the graph at Figure 3, p. 581, discussing Holocene temperatures, was accepted by readers here.
https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf
In Hansen’s Abstract.
Global temperature is a fundamental climate metric highly correlated with sea level, which implies that keeping shorelines near their present location requires keeping global temperature within or close to its
preindustrial Holocene range. However, global temperature excluding short-term variability now exceeds +1C
relative to the 1880–1920 mean and annual 2016 global temperature was almost +1.3C. We show that global
temperature has risen well out of the Holocene range and Earth is now as warm as it was during the prior
(Eemian) interglacial period, when sea level reached 6–9 m higher than today.
This is Hockey Stick. Even the IPCC is not allowed to use the Hockey Stick anymore.
Hansens temperature is wrong. More fiddles. And he omits saying that from todays SL to tye Eemian highstand took three millennia, a rate just over 2mm/yr. fiddles, omissions, CAGW! All fabricated.
“I received a call from the Executive Director of the Society, during which he pressured me to stop writing articles on my blog that raised questions about aspects of the science and politics of climate change.”
This is an act of intellectual weakness.
I have trouble understanding some of the science.
But I can sure as heck follow the game.
Speaking as a retired Meteorologist 32 years employed by the UKMO, with experience in both the military and commercial arms of that organisation as an on-the-bench forecaster, and also someone who has a friend who is a national TV weather presenter…..
The opinions of broadcast weathermen is not a poll of those who judge the science from a “scientific” stance alone. They are employed by and work amongst people who most certainly are not from that background. It is well known that people assimilate their peers opinions in order to conform, it is done unconsciously and is a natural social phenomenon. As a poll of those professionals who are judging the science on it’s merit, it is meaningless.
Yes. Very true.
Tony
Good to see you back. You are of course correct.
tonyb
“… it is done unconsciously and is a natural social phenomenon.”
Unconsciously? (really?!) So you’ve got a bunch of weathermen who believe in AGW “unconsciously”…
afonzarelli: “Unconsciously?”
The unconscious part relates to the extent to which their opinions are formed by group pressure. You learn a doctrine consciously, but the ability to identify it as doctrine, and criticise it as doctrine is undermined by influences that are not necessarily recognised consciously. This kind of stuff has to do with group social dynamics – there’s a lot of complex human stuff going on below the surface.
1960, very good comment… Yes, there are social dynamics that, for lack of a better word, dictate what we think. But, i don’t know that we can refer to that as “unconscious” (or even subconscious). That the ability to reason, as you say, is undermined by social influences doesn’t relegate it to our unconscious. One can be manipulated fully aware that one is being manipulated. We see it with these blogs all the time. Some people are very good at manipulating others and as a consequence often gain prominence based on that ability. i just don’t see what that has to do with the “unconscious”…
afonzarelli,
I agree the word ‘unconscious’ has unhelpful connotations of things hidden and inaccessible to the conscious mind, which is almost certainly not usually the case. Perhaps more accurately one is speaking of motivations arising from social or other pressures that people are unwilling to fully acknowledge, combined with the various psychological mechanisms for parking stuff we don’t want to think about (with the associated suite of helpful rationalisations). Some people are not very good at self-examination, and so to a degree may be a mystery to themselves, others are merely cowardly and maintain appropriate internal mental no-go zones where they don’t allow themselves to wander. The ‘unconscious’ in these respects is only inaccessible because of our own contrivances. As Feynman remarked: it is easy to be fooled in our thinking, and the person most likely to be doing the fooling is yourself.
The ancients were certainly correct when they advised that the path to knowledge and wisdom is ‘Know Thyself.’
I have a new research article out that speaks specifically to teaching the climate debate in middle school (grades 6-8). TV weather people probably have significant influence with this group.
http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/19/amazing-opportunities-to-teach-sound-climate-science/
Grades 6-8 is when I really started to be interested in TV weather forecasters. Some more than others…
http://ifthedevilhadmenopause.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/bosom-eather.jpg
“long-term statistics of climate elements (such as temperature, pressure, or winds”
Well here we are again… back to climate being an unscientific concept. Temperature, pressure, or winds are weather elements… until some decides they are climate. Its akin to someone deciding the temperature of your car’s engine is ‘climate’ after you’ve had it for 30 years or longer or some other nonsense. ‘Climate’ doesn’t exist other than a post-facto subjective mental image.
Andrew
I think the previous miss Mikes points more than just a tad. Clearly a response rate of 22% suggests ambivalence rather than alarm? And of those who did respond only 49% (of the 22%) say that “climate change could be ‘largely,’ ‘entirely,’ or ‘mostly,’ caused by human activities is just 49%” – nearly half of 22% (11%).
In other words, 89% reject AGW or are unalarmed enough not to respond (I realise that abstention cannot be used as affirmation of the negative but surely if they were alarmed they’d respond). Furthermore, of those who did respond, many aren’t qualified to do so.
I’m sure they were more robust in forming their conclusions and I’ve missed something? C’est la vie …. science is not concluded by ballot after all.
The question of who responds to a poll or survey is always interesting and variable. Political pre-election and exit polling has suffered from it considerably. Basically you have to be motivated for or against to bother answering a survey or poll and it has to be in a setting where you’re comfortable answering (ie how many people will walk up to an exit poller in Berkeley in front of a crowd and say “I voted for Trump”).
The bigger problem with polling on global warming is that everybody knows it’s being done for political advocacy. If you say “yes, I believe in man-made global warming” the press release reads: With more people reporting being alarmed, politicians prepare tax hikes and increased efforts to power Maine with solar panels in winter!
The pre-election polls where correct. The 2016 election was hacked.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93906
“The hack appeared to include a breach of the EAC’s (Election Assistance Commission) administrative-access credentials as well as access to nonpublic reports on flaws in voting machines, according to Andrei Barysevich, an analyst with cybersecurity firm Recorded Future.”
4 words: ir’s called “push polling”.
The election wasn’t hacked and pre election and exit polling problems have been around for several years and are getting worse.
jeff,
Elections are polls and barely half of the eligible voters cast ballots in recent decades. Why is that? There maybe a message there. I can’t help but wonder if polling is getting worse because it has become socially acceptable to lie. Current president is a great roll model.
Jack,
You don’t look good in that clown suit you just put on. How long are planning on running with the fiction that’s the “hacked election” storyline?
Amazing how people can’t differentiate been hacked email accounts and hacked voting records.
The hacking story was sourced from the Wall St. Journal and it was the first time I saw a direct vector to change the election results. This quote, “a breach of the EAC’s administrative-access credentials as well as access to nonpublic reports on flaws in voting machines” is totally plausible given current state of cyber tools and methods. Almost as believable as the fact that 3 million illegals voted for Hilliry, yes?
Good time for a quote from the most admired leader of Russia*.
Joseph Stalin:
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything”.
*Joseph Stalin has been voted the most “outstanding” figure in Russia’s history, beating the country’s current Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
If Putin can bring down America he might even be more popular than Stalin since 97% of average Russians despise America.
** A poll in May’17 found 49 percent of Republican voters consider Russia to be either an ally or friendly.
I have always had a bit of anarchist in me so I’m thrilled to see the country at each other’s throat. Trump is the first guy in my life with the real potential to create a fatal crisis that will finally break the myth of America. He couldn’t do it without millions of people just like you. Stay strong.
Actually Jack, it is people like me who will keep that from happening. People who have served their nation once and willing to do so again. People who love this great nation and recognize its exceptionalism.
What’s ironic is that Trump is President in large part due people like you, who see yourselfs better than the average person. “Look at me, I’m an anarchist, because, you know, I’m smarter than the rest of you.”
Jack
What is the ‘myth of America’ and who would you want to break it?
Tonyb
tonyb,
That’s the beauty of a myth, it can be anything you want it to be.
There are many myths Americans believe in. We think the free market will naturally be a fair market. We think we have the best health care system in the world. But at a deeper level there was this idea that everyone had a fair shot of reaching a middle class standard of living by getting a good education and working hard like we did back in the 40s, 50’s & 60s.
Enough about what myths we believe in. I am interested in what you think America is becoming.
@jacksmith4tx
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Butt-Hurt-Salve-770×736.jpg
Another fine Trump product made in China.
#1 American myth: America is the richest country in the world.
Last month China passed us as the greatest import-export nation on earth. Their trade exceeded $8 trillion and we owe them over a trillion.
So jack says the “beauty” of a myth is it can be anything people want it to be. Which he then proves by making up his own myths.
Anyone who thinks a free market is unquestionably a fair market doesn’t know squat about economics. What Americans tend to believe is that so far free markets offer greater opportunity and growth than any other type of market.
As for our health care system, I don’t know anyone who believes it is the “best”. That would depend on what you are comparing it to and what the criteria you are using. The US is still the leader in advanced medicine and medical technology. And if you can afford insurance or have a job which provides it, then you are unlikely to want to model national health care service from a majority of other countries. Does that make us the best? Probably not. But before one starts making comparisons, make sure they are not gaming the comparison – like comparing Canada to the US, as if they are the exact same situation.
Then there is Jack’s claim that everyone believed people had a “fair” – there’s that word again – shot at making it into the middle class. Democracy and open markets offer opportunity. Not everyone is capable to taking advantage of it and some don’t even try. So once again Jack’s myth is itself a made up storyline. That people still believe we are a land of opportunity is proven again and again every day. It’s called immigration. How many times have you read about Americans emigrating? Other than Hollywood and other elitist a$$wipes who talked about it, but didn’t actually leave.
So jack, the door is open. No one is forcing you to stay in this hell hole of a country.
No myth. US is richest nation on planet according to IMF, World Bank, and UN.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)#Lists
Pingback: Stealth advocacy: a survey of weathercasters' views on climate change | Principia Scientific International
What talking heads think really doesn’t matter, except politically. Perhaps because watching television induces a vegetative state of mind, the public seems unimpressed.
Encouraging that the blunt force obvious conclusion from the pause, that the human component is small enough to be overridden by the natural component, is finally getting some traction.
Weather broadcasts are generally improved by hitting the mute button, so you can read the numbers and watch the radar animation undistracted by five minutes of banter.
You can read that in many ways:The 2010-11 survey found that 54% indicated ‘global warming is happening.’ It also found that 54% is believed global warming is ‘caused mostly by human activity.‘
You could read it as only 27% belive global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.
Wunderground try to convince peoble that pure monitoring can clean the air:
Let’s Clear the Air
There aren’t enough air quality sensors in the United States, so it’s hard to track air pollution. Please help collect this data to keep your family and neighbors healthy.
The next could be a CO2 monitor to keep the climate stable.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
The approx 80% figure is correct, according to the survey results.
“Stated another way: 19% + 17% + 13% = 49% have no degree in atmospheric science.”
How do you come to that conclusion – you do not say.
“(most newsrooms are populated by liberal-leaning journalists as numerous studies have shown)”
Citations please.
There aren’t enough pages for the citations. Journalism is like academe, an infestation of leftists. At some point in life common sense and retention of a lifetime of reading has to take over. You must have cloistered yourself in a closet along with a few others here who need citations on subjects that for most people is common knowledge. I’ve read citations for both groups for 50 years.
“an infestation of leftists”
You use very colourful language to describe your favourite Conspiracy Theory. Nice try at attempting to derail my point, I will give you a C- for effort.
Bias in the media?
See the Washington Post story:
Dear MSM Why Do Liberal?
The same research poll pew LATER interviewed undertook nation wide survey of 547 local and national newscasters, editors and executives and found 34% liberal and only 7% conservative. Go to Google and search liberal bias news media. You can find that Washington Post article.
Original Washington Post survey:
Liberal 20%
Moderate 41%
Conservative 33%
Don’t know 6%
Fair and Balanced? Well originally at least.
Sorry meant to say Pew research poll
Dr Twinotter. The only message we should take from the surveys is that >75% are not alarmed ….. either way and that’s being generous. In fact <50% of the surveyed, who deigned to respond, appear to agree the AGW is the largest forcing (<12%).
It's really all quite nebulous, which I firmly believe is an intentional attempt to obfuscate the real numbers. I propose torture to encourage a 100% response or we except that surveys of opinion are not only scientifically irrelevant, they are too susceptible to interpretation.
Give it up team!
“The only message we should take from the surveys is that >75% are not alarmed”
The survey was not about whether people were alarmed or not.
What you believe is irrelevant.
Pingback: Stealth advocacy: a survey of weathercasters’ views on climate change – I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog
Kudos to Mike Smith to have the courage to report on the political bias that has become rooted in the AMS and AGU leadership with respect to climate science. As a result of the conversion of these once objective professional organizations to advocacy and exclusion of viewpoints that do not conform, policymakers are receiving a corrupted view of the actual diversity of issues concerning climate.
I have also not renewed my AMS membership and have communicated my reasons to the Executive Director.
Roger Pielke Sr
I am honored to be among those who have not renewed their membership to the AMS. For the past several years I have been contributing to their scholarship funds instead of paying dues but the actions of the Executive Director this year have soured me on that too.
Roger Caiazza, former CCM
Wrong,
Wrong, wrong.
Stay inside, fight it, make them kick you out.
Forecasting of the weather
influence by lefty –
liberalism covert- advocacy?
Why, you could have knocked me
over with a feather!
The AMS climate statement is harmless enough. Up for renewal in August.
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-statements/statements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/
Interesting read (twitter link, ‘economists rode maths to become our era’s astrologers’)… and, this:
When we’re talking about the science of global warming science, we’re also talking about a hypothetical theory, a pseudoscientific conspiracy and an evidence-free flight of fancy that the Left found useful to take over the economy.
“When confronted with their profession’s lack of predictive accuracy, some… [climatologists] find it difficult to admit the truth.” ~Alan Jay Levinovitz (adapted– see Twitter link above)
> The AMS is of course not alone in embracing advocacy related to climate change. There are plenty of organizations involved in advocacy, on all sides of the issue.
For instance:
https://enterprisesolutions.accuweather.com/weather-studies
I have a suggestion: let’s say we agree, for the sake of argument, that average surface temperature has increased between 0.8 and 1 degree C over the last 167 years. The question we have left to answer is whether, on a region by region basis, this increase is harmful or beneficial?
I bring up the topic because I’ve noticed the trees where I live are growing taller and much greener. This year we had a bit more rain, and the effect is really noticeable. I’m even seeing an old tree suddenly grow in a spurt, the upper branches have shot up about one meter. I think the tree has many more leaves, and some branches are just reaching up seeking more light. It’s weird. Is this co2 fertilization helped with a bit more water?
In 2011 somewhere around 60 million trees died in Harris County: Houston. Elevated ACO2 allows plants to survive on less water.
It is good to stay open-minded–e.g.,
In the waters off Wisconsin scuba divers attach large bladders to logs. Once nflated, they float to the top. The logs were cut down in the 19th century, and are so large with wood of such tremendous quality that woodworkers pay premium prices for them.
Around WW1 a postcard was made of corn stocks on a Missouri farm. To reach the top of the corn stalk the man in photograph had to get a ~7-foot step ladder, climb to top and stand on top of it, and raise his hand as far as he could to reach the top of the plants.
A tall stalk is a highly undesirable trait. Plants break easily in winds. A major revolution in a wheat cultivation was the introduction of short stalk varieties.
Yes, and it is my wife’s ancestor who did it. care ain’t wheat. Good grief.
Corn. And Dyson is talking about gigantic CO2 eating trees.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Outstanding work of science by the Chinese (lead author Zaichun Zhu, from Peking University, China).
More land flora but less oxygen in the air and oceans. Wonder if there is a theory that explains that?
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/
“Researchers found that the oxygen content of the ocean decreased by more than 2 percent between 1960 and 2010.
That loss of oxygen is happening for two reasons. Warmer water is able to hold less dissolved oxygen than colder water. And the warmer surface waters become, the more buoyant they are, increasing the stratification of ocean layers and decreasing the downward mixing that brings oxygen to marine life in deeper waters.”
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2017/07/06/Another-threat-to-the-ocean-deoxygenation/9061499349691/
What are you suggesting smaller wildfires?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2015/11/19/the-age-of-fire-when-ancient-forests-burned/#4fa315885f02
Or no return to 3 foot scorpions and dragonflies?
https://www.nap.edu/read/11630/chapter/8#115
Jack
Apparently the oxygen in the Ocean did not get the skeptics memo that all tis warming we see is just an artefact of data fiddling.
We are still in an LIA.
If it Was getting warmer we would see less ice,
If it was getting warmer plants would be blooming sooner
If it was getting warmer ocean waters would expand and the Sea Level would go up.
If it was getting warmer plants would start to have different ranges
And if it was getting warmer we would see less oxygen in the ocean.
Since none of those are happening…. wait..
It looks like all the data is fake and the planets and molecules are in on the greatest hoax ever!
No harm, no foul
https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/2016/09/091716_fish_production-graph_free.png
Yeah what Moosherh said. None of that has EVER happened before the invention of the SUV.
Oh wait..
So just to put David’s fish chart into perspective:
Just one ship of a global fleet of dozens similar factory ships, the Lafayette is capable of processing around 1,500 tons of fish each day. Perennially at sea, the fish processing vessel offers a huge economic potential as it reduces the consumption of fuel by over 30 tons on a daily basis while foreshortening the mandatory requirement of a crew by nearly 300.
We aren’t farming fish because it’s cheaper, it’s because we are depleting the ocean of wild fish stock. No organism on the planet can escape our technology if there is money involved.
Just last week Australia reduced the protected fish area of the Great Barrier Reef.
“Australia plans to allow fishing across 80 per cent of its protected maritime sanctuaries, the government said in a proposal that would vastly extend commercial activity in the world’s largest marine-reserves network.”
http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/australianz/australia-seeks-to-extend-commercial-fishing-in-protected-waters
“She is a living embodiment of the Precautionary Principle, the European originated notion, fervently supported by old school environmentalists, that we should be wary about embracing change because of the potential for extreme collateral damage.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-entine/post_10952_b_9111688.html
When attempting to solve the problem by using nuclear power plants, we have run into the precautionary principle. Wind turbines are not up to the challenge, but they are thought of as safe. The rap on fracking is similar. Fear.
The US is ranked less than tenth for standard of living, GDP per capita etc. The US health system is used as a type-cast for how a health system should not function – Cuba actually ranks far far higher than the US
The small wealthy countries seem to offer the best health systems for example Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, France, Netherlands etc. All the technologies are the same (by and large) however accessibility is the big mountain for the US. All those countries have free health care. If the public hospitals don’t do the job then the govt pays for the citizen to go private.
We have a lot of americans down here, even in parliament (we don’t have a ludicrous law which only allows citizens born there to be president – we choose the best where ever they are born). Australia has recently enacted a law that representatives could not hold office if they were dual citizens. Three senators didn’t even know they were also citizens of New Zealand (ridiculous).
I’m unsure about class mobility – I was under the impression that US was like Canada, Aussie and Kiwiland? We have no classes in the european sense … you can’t buy class after all. The I saw beggars for the first time when I was in San Fran – Australia must have them I suppose, Kiwiland doesn’t Canada, a few but nowhere near the number in US?
Also, how can the US be classed as democratic when only around 35% vote …. and they’re mostly the better educated. Australians have to vote or cop a significant fine.
And BTW – why don’t US car makers not cater to over half of the world (left hand drive). Chrysler does it but what about the rest? By far right hand drive markets are the majority. We would buy your cars over european. All the Asian countries drive on left hand side of the road …. and us as well
I certainly agree with the healthcare sentiments as an ex-pat Brit in the US. Presumably you are either in Oz or NZ. The US has problems with class mobility mainly, I think, because education is so uneven for the less wealthy.
As far as left hand drive goes, most of the world is left-hand drive like the US. Right hand drive is only former British colonies and Japan (for some reason). Populationwise it is a lot only because it includes India, but in terms of numbers of nations it is a clear minority.
Note this website calls it left hand drive when they mean driving on the left. I would say left hand drive is steering wheel on the left. Confusing.
http://www.rhinocarhire.com/Car-Hire-Blog/August-2009/Which-Countries-Drive-on-the-Left,–a-Handy-Guide.aspx
When it decided to industrialize, Japan turned to Britain for assistance in designing and building its railroads and ships. Most likely did the same with motor vehicles.
As for your remark on class mobility, it does a good job of maintaining your image of cluelessness.
Education is the key to mobility.
Actually, fathers are the key to mobility. Kids without fathers are far more likely to fail.
It’s a common black meme. Does that also account for the uneducated poor whites in the flyover states that voted for Trump because they seemed to lose hope in mobility?
What makes you think I was only talking about blacks, yimmy? Yes, not having fathers works against white kids too. Do you think it was uneducated poor white folks who got Trump elected? What about the Russians? Give us your educated expat pom opinion. Have you ever been to a flyover state?
Did the Russians target their fake-news bots at those states? You tell me the effect of that on uneducated whites. Pizzagate was even believed by Mike Flynn Junior.
You don’t have to lack a father to have a poor education. Maybe they live somewhere that doesn’t provide good schools, or maybe they counted on having their less skilled parent’s jobs that robots can do these days. The point is, education keeps you ahead of the robots. They understand this in Europe and Japan. They need to in the US, even in the rust belt, if they want mobility, which comes from salable skills.
That response is in moderation because I used the name of someone who is the namesake of a sometimes banned contributor here (MF). Hopefully it will appear some time.
Just for your notes Jim D. my royalist/loyalist peer.
Most of the world by population drive on the British side. By number of countries is ridiculous. The rest drive as per Napoleon Bonaparte invading everywhere or supporting succession (USA) or proximity to Napoleon influenced countries (Ghana, Canada etc).
And please have a look at http://www.prosperity.com/rankings. USA=17th.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Nords are yr on yr the top.
These countries also made the first true democracies .. USA was 20-30 yrs behind?
Putin is far and away the “best-liked” world leader. China similarly. Trump represents all of the WASP countries …. It’s embarrassing …. even worse he’s a climate realist …. there is no way we’ll gain any traction for realism when it seems so intractably linked to Trump.
Finally, slavery was not acceptable in Britain from mid 18th century. Also had a Jewish PM in the mid 19th Century and a certain Iron lady comparison to whom trump fails.
Stalin certainly is the most outstanding Russian I can think of …
catherine who died under the weight of a horse, peter the great, ivan the terrible, gorby …. he’s outstandingly infamous.
Kojokerr,
Picking off of lists is usually the least informed method of evaluation. And you touch on a key component in any discussion on health care systems with this comment “The small wealthy countries seem to offer the best health systems”. Though I’m not sure Britain belongs in the “best” category. Industrialized countries with small populations, which are primarily heterogeneous, can operate national health care systems because of the fact they are small, with relatively economically well off populations. Try scaling a system designed for 10 million people up to one designed for 350 million.
RE beggers – usually referred to here as the homeless. There is a good reason you are less likely to see them in Canada. It’s called cold.
> I’m unsure about class mobility – I was under the impression that US was like Canada, Aussie and Kiwiland?
Your impression may very well be wrong:
http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2014/saving-horatio-alger.html
If all you got is the good ol’ aristocratic myth about Euros to protect your Horatio Alger myth, you deserve your predicament.
Eh.
We can provide the possibility for upward mobility, willito. But we can’t make them seize the opportunity. We should encourage our underclass to move to Canada, where they would be welcomed with open arms. No doubt, the teens would stop doing the nasty and thus avoid pregnancy.
Indeed, Don Don. Mobility is not impossible, therefore it is possible. So it’s nobody’s fault if so few live the American Dream.
Just look at you. Once from the hood, you went in the military and then turned VC. And then you helped teh Donald saved America, thus the world.
This would make a good bedtime story. It’d need a punchy title. How about A Troglodyte’s Tale?
You are very bitter and hateful, willito. Just as pathetically ignorant as little yimmy. Trump Rules! Jobs, jobs, jobs! Seven and a half more years! Seek counseling.
Triumphalism may not be the best way to sell your thing, Don Don, but a sense of reality’s never been your strong suit. Here:
https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/1201E/production/_95085737_usjobsmarketbbc.png
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39226688
Teh Donald can’t even beat Barack.
But since you’re more into perception:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/news/special/2017/newsspec_16394/img/5_approval_trump_tracker_976_v1.jpg
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38663043
Hard to beat teh Donald in the deception business.
It has been a relatively pathetic Obama recovery, willito. And at the cost of $Ten Trillions$ in federal debt and $Gazillions$ more in state and local debt, fed created neglible interest rate money and QE. Robbing future Peters to pay current Pauls. What we got was an annual economy growth rate of 1.6%, under Obama rule. A pathetic result for our yuuuuge investment.
Already, the Trump Effect has added $Four Trillion$ to the equity markets. Consumer and business confidence is sky high. Manufacturing, mining, energy BOOMING! You are going to be very disappointed at the economic success of MAGA. Trump Rules! At least until 2024. You are really going to need some counseling, willito.
Sure, Don Don. Energy booms so much oil is still stuck under 50 a barrel.
Citation needed for that four trillion.
Wee Willard obfuscates middle class foibles by conflating job growth with income growth. Failure to understand middle American concerns, or ignoring those concerns, led to Trump being elected. Keep it up Wee Willy we need people like you to ensure that the progressive movement completes its descent into the grave and remains there for generations to come.
http://imgur.com/a/fHFIW
Nowadays the more typical American Dream mobility story is that of immigrants, who come penniless, but by virtue of higher education and/or hard work succeed in the USA. Note that this route bypasses the American school education system. Another route that does apply to Americans is via sports which is a great social equalizer because talent is all that counts. But, like Hollywood that also is a mobility route, this is only for the few. Americans hold their sports and movie/TV stars in high regard, and these are often from humble backgrounds. The military would be another route that cares little for background, being based on merit, but in all these the upper echelons are only reached by the few. Science also has these characteristics. So the American dream is not dead in these personal-merit-based pursuits.
Out of all that babble, the useful phrase is “hard work”. So not a total waste of time, yimmy.
Americans don’t want those agricultural jobs, Don. What’s up with that?
What you call jobs may rightfully be called slavery, Jim D:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/30/world/ciw-fair-food-program-freedom-project/index.html
A lot of Americans don’t want to work hard, yimmy. They would rather take gubmint handouts. If they had hardworking fathers, they would tend to be hard workers. Don’t you know anything about human nature, yimmy?
This is why the immigrants take their jobs and often do more work for less pay, and then the Americans complain about that too unless they can profit from it. It’s complicated, but they need those immigrants for their profit margins. Not just agriculture and Mexicans, but tech jobs and Asians too.
Those who want to take advantage of cheap immigrant labor are not going to be happy with The Donald. It would seem appropriate that you lefty humanitarian types would be in favor of stopping the exploitation. Oh, and the deaths of the poor folks who pay thousands of dollars to the vicious criminals who smuggle them into our country packed in trucks and then leave them to die in the hot sun in some Democrat run sanctuary city.
Are you opposed to low wages for hard work? Most capitalist types don’t care about workers’ wages, and prefer to pay as little as possible, like happens with agriculture.
Comment got stuck in moderation.
Those who want to take advantage of cheap immigrant labor are not going to be happy with The Donald. It would seem appropriate that you lefty humanitarian types would be in favor of stopping the exploitation. Oh, and the deaths of the poor folks who pay thousands of dollars to the vicious –snip– who smuggle them into our country packed in trucks and then leave them to die in the hot sun in some Democrat run sanctuary city.
That’s all the time I have for this discussion. You lefty loons are entertaining up to a point…
I am in favor of a fair wage where a full time job doesn’t leave you below the poverty level needing food stamps to supplement your pay. $15 per hour for example saves us paying a lot of gubmint (taxpayer) food stamp money, and probably reduces our Medicaid expenditure too. We don’t need to bail out stingy employers.
OMG! You are clueless. Why not make it $20/hour and we will save even more money. Raise it high enough and everybody will be rich. What about the people who don’t have skills that are worth $15 or $20 an hour? What’s that you say? –snip– them. They don’t vote any way.
What happened in the socialist minimum wage workers paradise of Seattle, yimmy? You are so pathetically funny that you keep me interested, slightly.
Don, if you are working a full 40 hours a week, you should not be below poverty levels. People need a living wage if you don’t want to subsidize them. Your position is self-contradictory or heartless. Don’t pay them well enough and don’t subsidize them for food or healthcare either? We see where you stand.
JimD poverty level for a family of four is $24,600/yr. Forty hours a week at minimum wage is $15,800.
Why do you insist on talking out your ass constantly? You have zero credibility. No one believes a thing you say because you don’t know your ass from your elbow. What’s the point?
You just said that a full 40-hour week is below the poverty level, like I did. Is that ideal for you?
Is that some kind of natural law that if one works forty hours per week they should not earn below the poverty level, yimmy? Does that apply to everyone, in the world?
You are a freaking naive dreamer. Employers pay what they need to pay to attract and keep workers with the appropriate skills and work ethic. If some slacker has no high school diploma and no skills, how much does he deserve to get paid?
What you want is socialism. Guaranteed income. Let’s make it $30 an hour. And if there are not jobs $30/hr jobs for everybody, we just tax the rich. Or, we make $30/hr both the minimum and the maximum. Everybody gets paid the same. Fegget about productivity. There is no point in discussing anything of substance with you, yimmy. You are a pathetically ignorant ideologue. You want us to operate on the Venezuela model. This would really be funny, if there weren’t so many of you jokers.
You are paying for their food stamps and healthcare, maybe subsidizing their housing, because they are not getting enough to live on. Yes, the basic idea of a minimum wage is that you shouldn’t need to be subsidized if you are doing a full time job. Maybe that surprises you.
You probably haven’t taken note of what is happening to the food stamp crowd, since many jurisdictions are introducing work requirements. I wonder if they are dropping out of the foodstamp giveaway program because they are working and lying about it, or they don’t want to work at all. Probably about 50-50.
You don’t know any “poor” people, yimmy. Poor people used to work and they didn’t get section 8, medicaid and foodstamps. You are naive and blinded by virtue signaling socialist ideology. You foolishly promote public policy that creates unemployment among those with the least to offer in the labor market. What if some poor guy/gal/lgbtxyz can’t find a job that pays $15/hr? You are outlawing jobs for someone who is perfectly willing to work for $14.95/hr. You are outlawing businesses that can’t afford to pay employees $15/hr. Socialism is really silly.
Cities have enacted higher minimum wages and some states have or will on their own. Not the red ones, of course, so they have more poor people. A modern country should not have such high poverty levels when the GDP per person is so high. It shows all the wealth goes to a few and the inequity has only been going in the wrong direction for the last few decades. Yes, I’m just being lefty by caring about the living standards of all Americans. A nation’s level of civilization is judged by how the least wealthy there live. You don’t care, I know. Fine.
The predictable consequences of socialist harebrained economic engineering schemes:
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattles-minimum-wage-is-costing-jobs/
But because I know that little yimmy’s hairbrained socialist schemes won’t work, he sneers that I don’t care. Typical –snip– argument from his type. Pathetic little joker. I create jobs, little yimmy destroys them.
Do you live near Synthetic Seattle, Don Don?
Monfort writes: “There is no point in discussing anything of substance with you, yimmy. ”
Yet he continues to discuss things of substance with Yimmy.
Non sequitur.
Stop feeding the troll, Donny.
Sorry, Springer. I didn’t know that you are still stalking me. I should have said there is no substantive reason to engage with little yimmy substantively. I know that little yimmy is impervious to facts and logic. I only do it to ridicule the little left loon rascal. And that is all the time I have for you.
Don,
That Seattle story is more interesting than you thought. The city was about to get a study that didn’t find what they wanted it to find. So they ran out and got a more politically reliable (if less accurate) study to conform to their policy wishes.
Sound familiar?
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/emails-show-mayors-office-berkeley-economist-coordinated-release-of-favorable-minimum-wage-study/
They are not reversing their policy because there is a net benefit. Nor are the states who are doing it. Watch actions, not words. The people there vote for the people who increase the minimum wage too, so are they suffering? No. If an employer can’t afford a couple of dollars per hour wage increase for a few people, they have deep problems anyway (or they are ideological Republicans trying to fulfill their own prophecy).
From the article it seemed to be a challenge for them to do their statistics because Seattle is booming along with its state, and has a low unemployment rate. If you are looking for policy disasters, Seattle WA, isn’t it.
willard (@nevaudit) | July 25, 2017 at 12:23 am |
What you call jobs may rightfully be called slavery, Jim D:
Only if you use a definition of slavery that somehow includes a free market exchange of labor for financial compensation. How do you define slavery, wee one?
Sorry Don. I didn’t know that a single reply addressed to you would trigger your “I’m being stalked reflex”. What can I do so you’re less frightened of me?
Jim D you don’t seem to understand that poverty in the United States can be quite comfortable once you’re in a position where federal, state, and local governments are providing for all your basic needs. I have seen it up close and personal. Being poor in the US means you still get to f*ck, drink, smoke dope, watch TV, be overweight, and hang out with friends 24/7 who are in the same circumstance of being happily unemployed. Once you abandon ambition it’s a very comfortable, happy groove to settle into. Like living in Norway…
You would prefer it to be worse to be poor in America than in other countries? Shanty towns? Not able to afford medical care or food? What are you saying exactly?
Loudmouth jarhead cook vs. naive socialist clown beating a dead horse. time to move on.
cokejar stupidly writes: “The US is ranked less than tenth for standard of living”
It’s #1 against any comparably sized nation. If I choose a state within the US the size of Norway I could choose a US state would smoke Norway in human development index ranking given the lowest ranking state is half the index of the highest ranking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index#Complete_list_of_countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_American_Human_Development_Index
Gidday David.
We could also cherry-pick Norway or any nation in the world … and the US is diverse in many ways, however, taken as a whole the US does not particularly stand out. I suppose taking all populations of WESTERN Europe would be fair …. and USA comes second in that race. Indonesia is about the same size as the US but culturally a million miles away.
The fact is that America is large … very large, and perhaps a corollary of that, is a lower average standard of living. It is therefore not a case of stupidity but rather on your part, a case of “the woman doth protest to much”. I am more likely to have a better standard of living migrating to Norway rather than the US .. I suppose that’s why it’s so hard to become a Norwegian and compaaritively easy to become a citizen of the United states.
Have you been to both Colorado and Norway like I have, cocojar?
If not then you really have no basis for an informed opinion. Americans like warm weather, sunshine, and freedom in abundance. None of those things are found in Norway.
@kokojar
Average GDP per capita:
EU $37,800
US $57,084
You better stick to cherry picking the blue-eyed Nordic countries.
I’m 100% Nordic descent by the way according to Ancestry DNA. But I’m here to tell you I don’t like a three week summer and being sin-taxed so heavily I can’t go out drinking with friends. I cry for what has become of my ethnic roots in northern Europe.
For instance Colorado has about as many people as Norway.
Who the f*ck would want to live in a frozen wasteland with no summer like Norway when they could live in glorious Colorado? I’ve been to Norway. It’s a suck-azz nanny state where alcohol is taxed so heavily few can afford have a bottle of wine with dinner or an ice chest of beer by the BBQ in the short cold summer. Norway is awful. Whoever put it at the top of the human development chart ought to live there and in Colorado each for a few years and write about the experience.
Springer, meet reality
Reality, Springer.
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/mar/23/norway-worlds-happiest-nation-report-beats-denmark
Have you been to both Colorado and Norway? If so and you prefer Norway please say why.
Hi Dave. Yes by chance to both (CSM is in the top 3 schools of it’s type in the world and has been for decades). Generally speaking I would far rather live in Colorado ….. If I could live away from the ocean. I enjoy a few beers and an uncivilised bottle of wine or two. If we were going to base our choices on alcohol alone then surely south africa would be the place to live.
South africa has boundless natural beauty, beautiful beaches and oceans, mountains and a spectacular climate. Beirut can make similar claims plus they have beautiful coast lines. But having spent 8 years in and out of South Africa (I even married one) the standard of living in general is very poor for everyone. Actually, the end of apartheid seems to have negatively affected all excepting the regulators and politicians. Whilst the whites are comparatively wealthy the cost of owning a car is less than the cost of insuring it. Add to that you feel constantly imprisoned and at risk … many only realise that when they settle elsewhere.
Norway is sensational for those reasons and because it is genuinely free … the USA is not. The poorist aren’t too far removed from the middle but also maintains some incentives to productivity. The USA lacks that mobility almost completely.
It often tickles me when United States of Americans proclaim it’s place ia the founding root of democracy …. I seem to remember that it was the last of the British colonies to do so. I’m quite proud to say that the country of my birth was the first! I’m a citizen of Aussie, New Zealand and Brittania.
And on another note, many in the world tend to equate colorado with arizona, nevada, texas and wrongly see them as deserts … far to bloody hot in the summer. In contrast canada, washington, oregon, etc are seen as a great place for a holiday.
Stop taking things personally. There are a great many reasons to be a United States of American but the world knows that, we don’t need trump or others to espouse it’s virtues … humility isn’t really a characteristic that springs to mind in american popular culture.
I had no idea you valued my personal anecdotes so highly Dave.
Norway is the happiest country on the planet, Dave.
Including high priced alcohol, cold winters, nanny state and all. Something tells me it’s not the booze or the temperature, so that leaves just one thing.
That’s right Dave, the nanny state makes you happy. Read it and weep.
“That’s right Dave, the nanny state makes you happy. Read it and weep.”
And Fidel Castro routinely got over 90% of the vote. I Kim in North Korea gets 110%. Clearly Cuba and North Korea are the happiest.
“Norway is the happiest country on the planet”
A person devotedly asserting a point like this clearly has no idea how stupid they sound.
Andrew
I shouldn’t even write “point”. It’s not a point. it’s an unscientific feelgood-ism.
Andrew
David Springer,
Whether one prefers Norway or Colorado is going to be a matter of temperament. verytallguy admits that Norway is a nanny state, but claims it makes people happy. I’m absolutely sure this is true for those who like to be nannied.
The problem with nanny is she likes to keep her charges in a state of dependence or they might leave her (which will surely break her heart) and so she ensures that they never advance into full adulthood (she lets them play dressing-up games if they like). That’s a blissful way to be if: –
a) You never disagree with nanny about who knows best
b) You never face a threat that nanny cannot shoo away
c) You have no self-respect
I’ve spent a lot of time in Norway (probably visited 30 times on business over a period of about a decade). I can confirm that they are very well behaved children, and that if ever a bigger and stronger nanny than the one they’ve currently got comes along the new nanny will find them ready to do as they’re told because they wouldn’t have a clue how to do anything different.
That said, you never know under what circumstances the viking spirit might return, but under current circumstances I’d rather be dead than live in Norway.
I weep for what has become of my northern European roots. I guess the strong independent people struck out to conquer new lands while the milquetoasts stayed behind.
Cokejar I must say you’re one of the least nutty examples of what happens when the gene pool of a prison colony is inbred for 20 generations.
aporiac
Good description of Norway. It reminded me of life in “the projects” in the United States. People can become quite content when someone else is providing for all their basic needs freeing them to just hang out with friends and family 24/7 without a care in the world. A zero stress environment. Military life in peace time was very similar because no matter what you’ll never lack for food, shelter, and clothing – a much greater power is always there to provide those things for you. In the military they also provide you with structure and a satisfying job so if the regimentation doesn’t bother you then it’s a socialist paradise.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #278 | Watts Up With That?
Yeah, the U.S. is in bad shape. Is that why you deigned to live here, yimmy? To help us?
It is ignorant to compare per capita incomes in the U.S. to little homogeneous nearly all white countries and oil rich sheikdoms. That is rayciss. Compare counties in the U.S. with similar demographics to the Denmarks, Icelands etc. and get back to us.
And yimmy, check out how much money is spent per pupil in places like Philadelphia and Newark. Show us the correlation between money spent and high school graduation rates.
Problems with the US education system go beyond money. You can pay a bad teacher a lot, but they are still a bad teacher. Bad schools remain poorly performing. Attempts to standardize education have failed. Why? It shouldn’t be this hard.
We have standardized education, yimmy. Public schools with union protected bad teachers. I bet you never thought of that angle. What political party do the teacher’s unions support, yimmy?
I think the teacher’s union is a problem if they don’t allow bad teachers to be replaced by good ones. The system is a problem, and this destroys mobility for students in poorer areas.
Not sure why Don Don would think that what got teh Donald got elected in the first place is a bad thing, Jim D.
No ifs ands or buts, yimmy. There is no question that teachers’ unions protect bad teachers. They protect bad teachers in school districts rich and poor. It’s lack of fathers what’s the problem. Google it, yimmy: “families without fathers”.
Fatherless kids don’t behave well in school. Schools with a lot of fatherless kids see good teachers leaving for self-preservation. They take safe jobs in bakeries and dentist offices. I don’t believe you get out much, yimmy.
Look at “Last Chance High School” on youtube, yimmy. You might learn something, if you can take it.
Blaming lack of mobility on fatherlessness is a new one. Thanks for that, Don. I still think it is the lack of education, however, and that has many other reasons too, some of which the state can fix. A proper education is one of those rights in a modern country, like proper healthcare should be.
Did you have a question, willito? You seem to be confused.
Here, Don Don. Educamate yourself:
It’s as if you don’t know why you and other fellow Freedom Fighgters are promoting Nixon’s playbook each and every day.
It’s got more to do with indoctrination than education, willito. The more years one spends in school, the more one is exposed to left wing brain washing.
Why are you yammering about Nixon, willito? Are you afflicted with the impeachment delusion? Trump Rules!
It’s a conspiracy!
@Wee Willard – Trump won yuge in all income brackets above $35K.
Let that sink in.
http://imgur.com/a/n6um3
Not that huge. Quite close in most high income brackets.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?mcubz=2
> It’s got more to do with indoctrination than education
Sure, Don Don, just like right-wing media are all about fairness and balance.
Try read the title of this analysis:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
Education ain’t what it once was. Witness our guesr meteorologist who fumbles on the concept of stealth advocacy.
I will help you, willito. Trump lost the low income voters to the old hag by a big margin and won among everybody else/the productive taxpayers. It’s not his fault that a lot of college educated fools can’t earn a decent living.
> I will help you
You tell me stuff that is contradicted by the two citations I offered, Don Don. How is that supposed to help me? It’s not like you’re trying to sell me an old car by just saying stuff, you know.
The race, gender, and education divides clearly show that the good ol’ reactionary populism got populist votes. The poor who voted for teh Donald to stuck it to those the Nixon playbook portrays as the elite. The rich voted for teh Donald because that’s the choice that will help sucker the poor even harder.
You’re just a crook defending a crook, you know.
> I will help you
You tell me stuff that is contradicted by the two citations I offered, Don Don. How is that supposed to help me? It’s not like you’re trying to sell me an old car by just saying stuff, you know.
The race, gender, and education divides clearly show that the good ol’ reactionary populism got populist votes. The poor who voted for teh Donald to stuck it to those the Nixon playbook portrays as the elite. The rich voted for teh Donald because that’s the choice that will help sucker the poor even harder.
You’re just a cook defending a cook. What else is new.
Exit polls are notoriously inaccurate. The data I cited has Trump winning yuge in over $35K and it’s not exit polling its 3000 voters tracked from July through the actual day of the election. It’s from the rather famous (among data junkies) USC/LA Times poll which was one of only two polls that predicted a Trump win.
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Low income voted huge for Hillary and everyone else voted huge for Trump. Denying reality seems to be what libtards do best. You keep telling yourself that smart people with good enough jobs to get taxed heavily and not qualify for gov’t subsidies, voted Democrat. Believe it with all your heart, send the wrong message again, and continue to be marginalized. I couldn’t possibly be happier if you do. In fact I don’t know why I’m trying to tell you the truth but I guess it’s because I know you will deny it and blame anything else for the yuge losses the Democrats have suffered since 2008.
How did Hillary get the popular majority with just the lowest 20% income vote? Think.
@Willard
Those silly libtards at 538 are in denial saying college education predicted the vote. College educated whites voted for Trump. Others for Hillary.
The plain fact of the matter is that race was the best predictor of the vote. Gender and income were also good predictors but none so lopsided as race.
Remain in denial of that at your own peril. Democrats have lost 1000 state and federal elected offices since 2008. Another 1000 and there won’t be any left to lose.
I’m sure Thomas So well has written more extensively on the subject and I wouldn’t want to misrepresent him. I believe the problem of poverty is not a problem of race. Poor white people commit robbery and murder as well. Just read Dickens. Poverty leads to robbery and murder if you are poor the need of money could lead to robbery and murder whether you are white or black poverty leads to drastic solutions that probably only lead to more poverty. Poverty is more a question of class i.e. the classist societies of preindustrial Europe. If you were rich upper class there is no need for crime. If you were poor lower class not so much. I’m sure poor African American mothers who are Christian, God loving people teach their children good moral values it’s just that they are up against very bad odds.
“Try read the title of this analysis:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/
Education ain’t what it once was. Witness our guesr meteorologist who fumbles on the concept of stealth advocacy.”
Oh dear Willard, did you actually read that analysis?
Notice something missing?
Actual analysis.
I especially like the way he argued San Fransisco was a diverse place,
and the own anecdotal appeal to his county in michigan.
there is an analytical tool he could have used to ascertain the role each of the various factors played. he didnt use it. hmm.
that would have allowed him to account for co linearity between education and income, quantitatively
Color me suspending judgment.
its also boring.
In ‘Wealth, Poverty and politics’ Thomas Sowell examines
in detail the factors that have limited or stimulated innovation
in countries over time. Geographic isolation, mountains, lack
of navigable rivers, etc resulting in lagging societies – bad!
Safe harbors and sea ports, messy city-interactions – good!
But beyond geographical factors, culture rules, some places/
times transcend natural disadvantage. Other places with
natural advantages don’t take advantage of them.
In Ch 4/ 5 of his book Sowell details advances of US black
society that moved north after the Civil War and took on a
new culture. First black public high school in Washington
with higher test scores than the 3 adjacent schools. In Harlem,
as of 1941, test scores in elementary schools were similar to
test scores in east-side schools. Until the changing social
climate of the 1960s, encouraged by white liberals, that
celebrated ghetto culture and promoted the stigma of
‘acting white’ many in the black community had made
advances out of poverty. The ghetto culture and welfare
focus led to regressions, one parent families and a drop
in literacy rates, which Sowell closely documents.
Unfortunately for libertarians, there are no libertarian paradises in the world to point to as role models. If it’s everyone for themselves, infant mortality goes up, for example, or the country ceases to have a military, or there are no pollution and safety regulations or worker and consumer protections, or perhaps even not a free police force and free schools. How far do you go down that anarchy road? Do people want that or haven’t they thought it through?
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/
> Low income voted huge for Hillary and everyone else voted huge for [teh Donald].
Big Dave sticks with his story right after showing Denizens graphics where we see that the millenials showed preference for Hillary by 15 points, that the college grads and up preferred Hillary by 12 points, that men preferred teh Donald by 12 points, and that whites preferred teh Donald by more than 20 points.
A young non-white woman with a college degree does not always dislike teh Donald, but when she does, it’s because she’s poor.
You can’t make this up.
Trump won among college educated whites, Willard.
Race is therefore a better predictor than college education.
I’m not debating you on this point I’m pointing out a fact.
“His question makes as little sense when you replace “libertarianism” with, say, “atheism” or “environmentalism” or “feminism.””
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2013/06/13/a-question-libertarians-can-answer-easily/
The often repeated, where are the libertarian countries?
“Although it is technically possible for any set of ideas or any person living at any time in history to be a utopian socialist, the term is most often applied to those socialists who lived in the first quarter of the 19th century who were ascribed the label “utopian” by later socialists as a negative term, in order to imply naivete and dismiss their ideas as fanciful or unrealistic.[79]”
Likewise, since there is not a utopian socialist country of any substance, the whole thing fails.
Libertarianism breaks down at the extremes. This might be said for captialism and socialism as well.
There are many examples of socialism working, mainly in northern Europe. You should look at health statistics, education levels, poverty levels, crime, etc. These countries come out on top. Crime comes from inequality. So, yes, socialist countries do exist. Libertarians have to find countries where the government doesn’t do much for its people. Not sure what a working example of that is.
Jim D:
This covers a lot of ground: Do not use force except for self defense.
Can you give me one statement that tells socialist what to do? Crisp, without waffling as above.
I’ll offer my own. Capitalism with equality. This is not well defined. I’ll tell you how much equality and capitalism is on the menu today, better yet, we’ll elect people to fight that out.
Sure. Taxes are for the General Welfare.
I am sure we’ll be told what the proper socialist level of taxes are. Some where between 40 and 50% someone says.
The proper level of libertarian taxes is 0%.
Socialism is undefined. It’s what we say it is.
So the liberatian is guilty of saying something, while the socialist is guilty of not saying something.
It is an experiment that works with taxes in the 40% range, but applied progressively, so that the poorer don’t pay as much. If you think the experiment of high taxes is not working in those countries, you need to say why. Social democracy has evolved mostly in the last century, and the northern European variants seem to be doing well for their people, which after all is what matters.
Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production…
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.
It will never work. Where is socialism? I don’t see private property. Collective ownership is good, but only up to a point. Let’s argue about where that point is. The experiment is to raise taxes until people vote Republican, then to cut government until they elect Democrats.
If I was a socialist, I’d tell people to stop calling Western Europeans socialists.
Unfortunately for socialists, there are no socialist paradises in the world to point to as role models.
OK, how do you name the northern European systems that I have been using as examples? Social Democrats? I think you are trying to make this about naming the system and not looking at those systems that I point to that are working. There are many working examples. Universal healthcare is one feature of these countries.
Check out per capita spending for school in the mainline, right across the city line from Philly. Amazing how those upper class folks in Lower Merion are stupid enough to pay twice as much per student as they do in Philly to educate their kids. What dopes. If only they could talk to Don. He’d straighten them out.
“We’re spending approximately $11,000 per student in the Minneapolis public schools, compared, for example, to about $6,000 or $7,000 in the suburban schools around Minneapolis. Yet the suburban schools have extraordinary success, very very highly ranked nationally, and the city schools are at the very bottom, for kids of color in particular. They do worse than most of the major cities, including Detroit, Cleveland, [and] Oakland, that one associates with problem urban schools.”
Minneapolis is a Democrat stronghold in a Democrat’s state. It is our largest city. If you are not white and live in Minnesota, there’s a good chance you live in Minneapolis. With the growth of its suburbs, Minneapolis lost some things.
I think our schools reflect something. The situations of those attending them. They signal the successes and failures of the parents in that district. It is more staight forward to ‘fix’ the schools than the parents.
Ragnar –
Who do you think the well-heeled residents of Lower Merion choose to spend double per student than what is spent a stone’s throw away across the city line?
Should be why do you think…
You’re an accountant. It takes about 5 seconds to figure it out.
It’s reality, yimmy. Kids with fathers are more likely to stay in school. If you weren’t blinded by left loon ideology, you would know that. If you had spent any time in communities with high drop out rates, you would know that. You are ignorant. Pathetically ignorant.
It’s just one of many factors. What about drugs, guns and gangs, bad neighborhoods, no jobs, etc. You are just fixated on that one for some reason.
I will have to spell it out for you, yimmy. Drugs, guns, gangs, bad neighborhoods etc. etc. are the result of no fathers. Try to use your –snipping– head for a change, yimmy. You have never been in a bad neighborhood. You can’t even imagine what it is like. You are pathetically ignorant.
Often it’s the reverse. No fathers is just another consequence of these things. Get cause and effect right. The fathers don’t just disappear for no reason, and their lack is not the sole cause of lack of mobility. Often it is better that they are not there to influence the kids, but that’s only if the mothers are any good. Think it through.
Enough with the pathetically ignorant blah blah blah, yimmy. You have never even been in a bad neighborhood. You don’t have a –snipping– clue. All you know are the left loon talking points that you receive from your higher ranking comrades at huffpo. You are pathetically amusing.
I hung out in the projects as a kid often enough to know what it was like but it was an all-white town. As a teenage Marine living off base I couldn’t afford anywhere but the worst apartments in Southern California. Never in any of those places were there any murders, gunshots, or anything that plagues cities like Detroit & Chicago. How many different low rent places do you have experience with, Don? Most are not like Detroit. That’s the worst of the worst.
Plain speaking from Thomas Sowell on the effects of
liberal welfare on black communities,. In 1960 1/5 of
children raised by on parent, thirty years later, 2/3 were
being raised without a father
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420807/scapegoat-strife-black-community-thomas-sowell
They shouldn’t be called Americans. They don’t represent us and makes good people like you and me look bad. They are beyond help and it’s not our fault anyway. Sowell’s remedy at the end of his essay is let the blacks find their own way out of poverty but I want the problem to go away now, not in 2 or 3 generations.
Little jimmy won’t read that. He prefers to remain pathetically ignorant.
Don said it wasn’t about blacks, and he is right that upward mobility among whites is also a big problem, and not just the fatherless ones. It’s a poverty issue. Sowell is a black libertarian. I am not sure he has said anything in favor of the 1960’s Civil Rights movement. Looks like he was against it, if anything.
Nice work, yimmy. Sowell was against the Civil Rights movement, if anything. It’s amusing how you draw and state conclusions on subjects of which you are pathetically ignorant. And always your conclusions are predictable. Straight from the huffpo playbook.
I found where he thought because he wasn’t a victim of racism in his university life, he didn’t believe people who claimed that was a big issue in the 60’s. Was his a sheltered life?
I have seen the standard left loon criticism/distortion of a comment of Sowell regarding a takeover by black student activistas of a Univ. where he was professor. They were hollering bout alleged “discrimination”. He said he had seen no discrimination at that institution. Is that what you are trying to say menas he don’t care bout black folk, yimmy? Nice work. I don’t have any more time right now for your disingenuous foolishness.
Has he ever complained about racial discrimination or injustice on anyone’s behalf or was he in denial about that?
You and your left loon huffpo kind are pathetic. I don’t recall if Sowell has ever complained about discrimination. I ain’t his daddy. I have read a couple of his books, some articles and seen him interviewed numerous times. I have never read or heard him say anything that indicates he is not firmly in favor of equal rights and opportunities for all Americans. Does that make him an Uncle Tom, or worse, yimmy? That is what you are insinuating. But that is how you people roll. You make me sick.
Enlighten Denizens, Don Don. Where did Sowell spoke about Civil Rights?
Let me help you out:
http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/24/books/hurting-the-disadvantaged.html
Sowell’s so Very Serious he’s pulling a Brooks:
https://twitter.com/SamAdlerBell/status/884791493982072836
Beth try sticking to the goddam topic please.
Apologies David – and Judith . Started with kids w/out fathers…
I think. :)
David. Beth didn’t change the topic it was already changed. It went from election polls to kids in projects to education etc. You participated as well.
Election 2016 is certainly relevant to climate change. Education is a stretch but that too insofar as students not prepared to grasp science & politics surrounding climate change. Slavery isn’t remotely connected.
Beth,
I greatly appreciate your comments. You certainly have a great deal of knowledge, and the commons sense of only a cow-girl and serf. Please keep it up.
Cow girl, thx Peter, lol, those were the days.
Edit, ‘one’ parent.
Where I can I like to go to the source and read it, Jim.
My take on Sowell, not from a privileged background, is
that he he promotes the dignity of people and doesn’t
bother with the ‘R’ word. As any self-respecting historian
would do, he studies contexts to understand problem
situations.
Here are some comments on slavery that I came across
when I did my 45th Serf Under_ ground Journal post,
‘ A Serf Musings on Slavery.’ The url includes comments
by Thomas Sowell, a penetrating observation on Lincoln
and more.
http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Politics/Quotes/Slavery.html
Jefferson.-$5th Edition
Beth
There was a very interesting article on modern day slavery in he Times today. There are many contries still practising it with African countries to the fore. The numbers involved were thought to be some 45 million.
Mind you, serfs were little better than slaves and the Barbary pirates captured a million white slaves until destroyed by admiral pellew from my own home town in 1821 .
Slavery was common in Roman times as you know, which raises the interesting question as to why one human wants to subjugate another and the answer generally is money although needing to get a project completed, such as the pyramids, another, or for military use.So contexts change continually as does justification.
Tonyb
Tonyb
You are quite right (correct) on slavery today. Much of Africa and Arab lands are quite difficult for freedom loving piople to survive. Slavery or serfdom are prevalent across much of the world. Peasants in Mexico and gang MI13 in El Salvador also are virtual slaves. Women in Pakistan and Afganistan are also virtual slaves.
Remember Great Britain virtually established the Atlantic slave trade till your Admiral Pellew and our Marine Corps (Shores of Tripoli) succeded in demolishing it in Africa and Algeria
At that time in history, the way one lived in luxury required labor producing workers that have since been replaced by technology. President Washington’s home Mount Vernon could not be run without cheap slave labor. Now dishwashers and vacumn cleaners do much of the drudge work without massive staff that could not be hired with wages.
So technology reduced much of the incentive for slavery except places that prefer it to spending cash of labor saving devices.
Regards, Scott
Aren’t you forgetting the prestige of owning humans AKA servants? We like to downplay the status angle but it’s still there today. Must be part of human nature since it is so universal.
js4tex
Both Washington and Jefferson, and Robert E Lee later disliked owning other humans (from their writings) but needed them to create wealth in a labor intensive society and accomplish luxurious lifestyles.
All gave lip service to freedom but needed them (slaves) to create wealth from labor intensive work and maintain their living standards. A shame.
Scott
Scott
This is one of the few paintings of white slaves being traded ( interesting article)
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-africa/white-slaves-barbary-002171
our local vicar cited it in a national newspaper as an example of the more usual slavery of Africans until I pointed out it didn’t show that at all. It made shaking his hand at the carol service a few days later a little awkward….
Dozens of people were snatched from my home town by the Barbary pirates and the local church set up a fund to repatriate them. The records exist to this day of the sums paid. Pellew loved very close to Thomas luny the renowned marine artist who produced a splendid painting of Algiers being destroyed. To this day the guns captured there are displayed in the town park. Pellews standard is in the museum.
It is shameful that slavery still continues in many parts of the world But I don’t see it ending any time soon
Tonyb
Loved should be lived, but who knows?
Tonyb
Yes Tony an Scott,
Slavery was UGE, espec. Arab slave trade from Barbary
Coast. Technology and West’s abolitionist movement and
naval battles against it reduced it but didn’t eliminate it.
You might like to read my 45th Edition of Serf Journal, I
had a close look at Jefferson, Scott, and Tony, I looked
at the raids on England and Ireland by Barbary Coast
pirates and Samuel Pepys in the British Admiralty building
up the British fleet. as a consequence.There are also
interesting comments from Faustino and mosomoso.
https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/45th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/
I will try to find the slavery article in The Times, Tony.
beth the serf.
beth
a very good piece. well done
tonyb
Beth,
Very nice article and journal entry re slavery. Thanks.
Scott
Thanks Tony and Scott. My next is on Free Will,
– God willing. )
Beth,
Will you be considering the research by David Eagleman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KpmBZ0gtLo
Maybe you meant The Triumph of the Will?
Jacksmith,
I alreayd have – in my 38th Edition,’Reflections In
The Looking Glass – nothing too deep,’
I read your essay #38 and you did include the most important insights from David Eagleman’s research.
It makes me wonder how we humans will react when the day comes when we manage to create telepathic connections to each other? Can anyone lie or deceive when everybody can read each other’s mind? Deep thoughts.
Something you rarely hear about is that indentured servants in the colonies during the 17th century made up about 2/3rds of the U.S. population. Most of them were whites. While indentured servitude theoretically only lasted roughly 7 years, many were in fact slaves for life. The slightest transgression led to extended servitude.
Sharon V. Salinger, UCLA professor and historian, research indicated that indentured servants and slaves were virtually interchangeable labor forces in the 17th century colonies. Her research revealed that the mortality rate for white indentured servants on ships at certain times equaled and surpassed that for black slaves in the ‘middle passage’ during certain periods.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for Hollywood to produce a movie about this, it doesn’t feed the identity politic beast.
Excuse me but WTF does slavery have to do with the topic here?
Science on the march!
“Psychiatry group tells members they can comment on Trump’s mental health”
… arguing they have a “duty to warn” the public about what they see as Trump’s narcissism, impulsivity, poor attention span, paranoia, and other traits that, they believe, impair his ability to lead.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/25/psychiatry-goldwater-rule-trump/
Crazy is in the eye of the beholder. This country has never been more rational and sane. Sec. Tom Price should disbar the entire mental health profession because they are all insane!!
Consider me “warned”.
Ding! Next!
Maybe they should warn us about people with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Or maybe they can’t due to their own affliction.
Physicians, heal thyselves.
Heal who?
“Sperm count more than halved in Western men”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318588.php
“Another general concern is that sperm count and other measures of semen quality might be a sign that we are living in a toxic environment.”
The EPA and FDA will protect us with fewer regulation.
Heal thyselves. I didn’t stutter.
Maibach at GMU was one of the Shukla Rico 20. Not to be trusted.
From Benny Peiser (GWPF) Newsletter
“U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is considering a former official in President Barack Obama’s Energy Department to lead the agency’s debate on mainstream climate science, according to a former leader of the Trump administration’s EPA transition effort. Steve Koonin, a physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, is being eyed to lead EPA’s “red team, blue team” review of climate science, said Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a Trump transition leader. When reached by phone, Koonin declined to comment on whether he was in talks with the administration about the climate job. But he added, “I think it would be a good idea if that kind of exercise took place.” –Hannah Northey,” Science Magazine, 24 July 2017 http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/epa-eyes-former-obama-energy-official-lead-climate-science-review
Who is Steven Koonin? What is his view of CAGW? Is he truly agnostice, unbiased, objective, or is he a CAGW alarmist?
No, Koonin is not on the consensus side. He unsuccessfully tried to hijack the APS climate statement towards backing off AGW, but was overruled by them, and became very upset. He later wrote op-eds in WSJ.
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8071/full/
I’d like to hear from people without an obvious pro-CAGW bias and socialist agenda. I want to know if Koonin is considered to be impartial. Is he the right guy to head the Red team. Is he the right guy to properly challenge the Blue Team, given they are alarmists and their agenda is well known.
If you read his writings you can form your own opinion. There have been many people including Judith and Republican politicians supporting Koonin’s op-eds. The anti-AGW people support him and the pro-AGW people don’t. That makes him weighted towards one side and not impartial.
We need great integrity and balance for the CAGW alarmists crowd, none of whom are anywhere near to being impartial. Perhaps the Blue Team should appoint Koonin as their head.
I guess this would pretty well demonstrate Koonin is not impartial:
Anyone tied to the Obama Administration and working with a pack of climate alarmist zealots cannot be impartial.
Read harder. Koonan is not heading up the red team. He’s heading up the entire review. Pruitt wouldn’t consider an alarmist for that position.
Just a quick glance through the summaries of Koonin’s activity reveals he’s no darling of the consensus.
https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+koonin+climate
Thank you for the correction.
I know Koonin is no darling of the consensus. But can he be considered truly impartial, objective, unbiased, given his long association with academia, climate bureaucracies and climate alarmists?
Furthermore, IMO, the person heading up the review, needs to be not only impartial, but he also needs to be highly competent in relevant fields: e.g. relevant economics, policy analysis, externalities analysis, etc. A Physicist is not qualified or competent in these fields. It is important for people to recognise that the real debate needs to be about the economic impacts of global warming and the rational justification for mitigation policies. It is not about physics, temperature changes and GCMs. We’ve wasted 30 years and trillions of dollars on that debate and the resulting policies that are doing enormous harm – such as mandating and subsidising renewable energy.
Managers of winning teams are seldom star athletes. Great referees are seldom star athletes.
Koonin doesn’t need to be a star climate scientist. He needs to have a good understanding of the science but what he really needs is skills that great managers and referees bring to the table.
I know his understanding of the science is good enough and I know he’s no shill for the consensus. What I don’t know is how effective he will be at organization, management, and refereeing.
That’s the problem. His understanding of the science might be good enough, but that is not good enough for analysis of the impacts of climate change, and for policy analysis. That is where the focus is needed, not on the science.
He’s already demonstrated failure at that – the APS fiasco.
At APS he was head of a committee with members hostile to non-consensus views with the leaders over him hostile in the same manner. Totally different situation now. It’s not a committee and his boss Pruitt is friendly to non-consensus views.
If he’s not perfect for the job he might be the best who was willing to take it on.
You seem to keep avoiding the key point. I’ve said it twice. I’ll repeat it a third time:
“Koonin’s understanding of the science might be good enough, but that is not good enough for analysis of the impacts of climate change, and for policy analysis. That is where the focus is needed, not on the science.”
If his boss is not impartial, that alone makes it a waste of time. Pruitt’s calling the Red Team to find what he wants it to find, and we know in advance what that is, especially if he is hiring Koonin to execute it. Maybe they can hire Bill Nye to balance Koonin.
An op-ed by Obama’s science adviser calls this idea a kangaroo court. Science already red-teams itself. That is how progress is made and how ideas spread. They pass all the tests.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/24/the-perversity-red-teaming-climate-science/VkT05883ajZaTPMbrP3wpJ/amp.html
It seems an apt description.
“A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.” – wikipedia
> Who is Steven Koonin?
A more crucial question is rather:
Who is John Galt?
Pingback: Creando el “consenso” del cambio climático
Re the Red Team, etc., here is my latest:
An official TV climate debate could be great
http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/26/an-official-climate-debate-could-be-great/
“All things considered an official TV debate on climate change science might be just what the American people want and need. They need to see the scientific debate in action, to see that the science is far from settled.”
I would love to design this debate. (I have been tracking and studying the structure of the climate change debate since 1999, when I founded http://climatechangedebate.org/.)
A Red Team exercise would be good but a TV debate would be great.
See also: https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education. Given the resources I would put on a TV debate.
Hey if you loose the debate we can always have a duel at 20 paces. That’s a popular option with some Republicans.
Search for Rep. Farenthold of Texas challenges Senator Susan Snow to a duel.
I would like to loose the debate.
Yeah but what happens if you lose the debate?
Just curious, Jack. Don’t answer if it makes you uncomfortable. What’s the highest grade you completed?
Partisan debates are typically not won or lost. How can they be with millions of different viewers, with many different views. The point is to articulate the different positions.
What I find especially interesting is that while there has been endless discussion of Pruitt’s Red Team suggestion, his dynamite TV debate proposal went pretty much unnoticed. Yet it is potentially far more damaging to AGW as a cause. Only a few experts will read the lengthy Red Team report(s). Millions of voters will watch the debate.
good point.
Problem with TV is you can invent stuff on the spot and people will believe it if it fits their worldview, No real-time fact-checking means much misleading. It is better as an online debate over days where you can quote sources in responses, and fact-checkers can check facts.
There are quite enough arguments on all sides, so no need to make stuff up, whatever that even means.
Cherrypicking is an example. You can quote one study that shows one thing and it is given equal weight to ten studies showing the opposite that can’t immediately be brought up in a debate format without advanced notice. The public goes way thinking it’s a wash – completely wrong. This is why debates over days by email are so much better, because research can go into responses, not top-of-the-head remembering someone said so-and-so. That just doesn’t cut it in scientific debates. I think a true skeptic would welcome a longer offline format to a debate where the debaters can also get responses from other people on their side in the scientific community to prepare expert-level responses to what comes up.
Unnoticed?
Judith said it was bad idea.
basically people are arguing for a Red team review, not a dog and pony show.
I don’t think a debate on climate change really achieves anything other than a lot of talking past the issue. Its also pretty hard to talk about climate change science without graphics to help explain trends to visualize the data. I additionally question whether a televised debate would draw much of an audience.
Debating things like whether the GHE is real would be a waste of time. The current state of the scientific debate is to what extent does adding more CO2 the environment/atmosphere cause warming? Going off into fringe theories popularized by self proclaimed skeptics who are just looking for a platform to espouse their own personal views and putting those at the same level of where most scientists are working does not give those skeptics balance or in anyway balance out the differences scientists have on climate change. Like in politics, those who cannot account for their biases will latch on to any theory that sounds good to them and not listen to anything else.
A debate will, IMO, only succeed in hardening the views of extremists on opposing sides of the issue and do little to inform anyone on the actual state of the science. It also will not change the science or the direction research is heading or where it currently is.
If skeptics want to get their views out into the public, just create an infomercial that covers what you want to say and pay to put it on TV. The idea that some big debate will help clear up differences, level the playing field or expand the level of knowledge among the common citizen borders on fantasy. The internet is already the big equalizer. I can find alternative theories and ideas about climate change anytime I want, no debate needed, right along side the most prevalent ideas with a few keystrokes on my computer.
John Carpenter,
Anything to avoid a debate, in other words.
Andrew
BA, putting two, four or ten people on a stage to try to get a gotcha moment, which is all I think your after, does nothing and will change nothing. If not for the potential of a gotcha moment for skeptics to look forward to, what does the debate achieve? In reality, there is no gotcha moment.
“there is no gotcha moment”
John Carpenter,
You are so right. There would be no gotcha moment. The event would be rife with gotcha moments.
The best thing to do is avoid participating in a debacle of that kind, to avoid looking bad.
And we are back to my original point. And all the excuses.
Andrew
What the debate achieves is demonstrating that there is a debate. This is presently denied by one side. Pruitt and Perry got hammered for suggesting that there is in fact a debate. So it is time to show the debate.
People here at CE are so used to the debate that they think everyone knows about it. This is false. Few people know about it in any detail.
See my http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/25/show-students-the-climate-debate/.
John C says: “The idea that some big debate will help clear up differences, level the playing field or expand the level of knowledge among the common citizen borders on fantasy.”
I disagree completely. Very few people understand even the simplest differences. Explaining them in non-technical language will certainly expand the level of knowledge among the common citizen.
> putting two, four or ten people on a stage to try to get a gotcha moment, which is all I think your after, does nothing and will change nothing.
Isn’t that DavidW’s very point? Our man from the Heartland Institute held many times that all contrarians need is a draw.
AGW pushers will never agree to a debate, as it would be be a matter of seconds before large holes were poked in the AGW speculation.
Andrew
You underestimate their conviction that they are right. Greatly. They dismiss the skeptical arguments as trivial and wrong.
I do not underestimate their conviction. It’s right up there with their desire to not look bad in front of an audience.
Andrew
They have no expectation of looking bad.
They do. That’s why they don’t debate.
Andrew
No, to the extent that they do not debate it is because they think there is nothing to debate, that debate gives false balance to the settled issue. This is said repeatedly. Plus they do debate, here at CE for example.
I anticipate no problem in getting AGW proponents to debate.
The problem becomes difficult when the protagonist alarmists’ sole position is derived on the basis of a heavenly consensus.
We’re drawn to point out that consensus is irrelevant … but the trouble seems often to be that they either have never heard of a fallacious argument, or if they have, the better qualified “scientists, all 97% of them, would have pointed that out.
We can also argue that the consensus surveys demonstrably lacked veracity and that information derived from the data was at best shamatuer, at worst ….criminally fraudulent relying upon the presumed ignorance of the news reader, politician, school teacher etc. and who are we to question the IPCC, NASA, Est Anglia and that bloke doing a media PhD in Aussie (Skept Sci website owner). Furthermore the meteorologists, greenies, green peace are attributing nearly all climate related events as bearing the AGW signature.
Even when Peilke stands up and illustrates the decline in extreme weather events they remain unphased. In New Zealand many of the glaciers have started to grow back, oceans are draining, short cold winters blah blah blah. It’s also been pointed out that our neighbouring islands were identified as being subject to unundation before 2010. All 18 have increased in size. The great barrier reef bleaching is now thought to be caused by lower mean sea levels which removes some of the filter atop the reef …… And the cryospere down here …. it’s frustrating.
I could go on and on …. Michael Mann should be grateful he’s not here because I have is bloody stick!
If you read my article, I am not looking for scientists for the debate. I want people who can clearly state the primary arguments at roughly the high school level. Few scientists qualify.
“Plus they do debate, here at CE for example.”
No they don’t. They push their narrative. If held captive to rules of debate/logic/evidence they would not look good. Thus, no debate.
Andrew
Sadly I think they would come away quite satisfied that the consensus was all the justification required … We could systematically build a coherent argument for natural processes, with or without human influence, that is far from alarming. We don’t want the research to stop, but we do wish to quell the masses … somehow I don’t think red wine will do it.
BA says “No they don’t. They push their narrative. If held captive to rules of debate/logic/evidence they would not look good. Thus, no debate.”
I have no idea what rules you are referring to. In a debate each side presents and defends its strongest case, or “pushes its narrative” if that is what you want to call it.
As for evidence, keep in mind that the weight of evidence is relative to the observer. Much of the climate change debate is over different people weighing different evidence differently. For example, I do no accept the global surface temperature estimates derived from the surface statistical models. See my http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/18/fake-temperatures/.
But others do. This is the primary reason why there is a debate.
“In a debate each side presents and defends its strongest case”
This is at best an incomplete/erroneous description of what a debate is.
For starters, a proposition to be debated must be agreed upon.
Andrew
I would think the proposition to be debated, actually a question, which is common in debates, would be something like this:
“Do we know that humans are causing dangerous climate change?”
Yea versus nay.
“Do we know that humans are causing dangerous climate change?”
“Yea versus nay.”
As a skeptic, I would accept this as the proposition/question to be debated, provided terms are defined as scientifically as possible and some simple rules are established.
An AGW believer would never agree to debating this. It’s too much a risk of an embarrassing defeat for a Warmist.
Andrew
Here’s the question I’d like to see:
Do we know that human activity causes beneficial climate change?
It would need to be accompanied with a trigger warning of course.
I saw Dunkirk in a movie theater last night. Great movie. Before it started, one of the previews was for Gore’s new sequel to an Inconvenient Truth. It was an audience of mostly millenials and they jeered, booed, and laughed loudly during the preview. The preview was intensely, obnoxiously partisan. The jeering and booing started with the clip of Gore claiming Paris was going to save the world until Trump got elected. People started laughing at it when he made the bizarre claim that the only criticism of his movie was that he exaggerated when he said global warming would flood the WTC site but Sandy proved him right. The preview ended with footage of Gore shouting from a podium that we all need to “speak truth to power.” I heard someone shout “back to your cave man-bear-pig!” It wasn’t me.
People are tired of the exaggeration and the political gamesmanship.
Oh, and yeah, Gore’s still standing in front of pictures of hurricanes and claiming they are and will continue to be bigger, meaner and more prevalent than before. Despite the fact that we’re in a decade long hurricane drought.
They already lost the debate and now they’ve lost the policy-makers.
Stick a fork in global warming science it’s done.
Just tell them (threaten) that we will have Bill Nye represent them.
“Broadcast meteorology?” What is that, you learn how to stand in front of the blue screen and point at things while you watch yourself on the monitor, plus you get a handout of weather-related web sites?
Yes. At some point after getting a Bachelors or higher degree in meteorology, which is required to assume the title meteorologist, a broadcast meteorologist has to demonstrate some talent on camera. You’re very perceptive to have figure that out by yourself.
A change in the response rate from 52% to 33% would seem to indicate that many of the weathercasters simply did not wish to give them the bad news that they had changed their minds.
The Beast:
Kia Ora Dave.
EU is not north western europe. Western Europe leaves out, Poland, Romania, Spain, france, spain, greece, yugoslavia etc. etc.
I’m also of the 199% nordic but via my Shetland island background and a predominantly nordic slice of scotland. We’re pretty much brothers!
Never heard of western Europe not including France. Typo?
Judith Curry
”Climate change is important, but so too is science”.
As far as I am aware, the Paris agreement, in order to control climate warming by cutting anthropogenic CO2 emissions, have not been found to have any scientific basis. I regard that only as a political consensus based on hypotetic climate model results adopted by IPCC.
At first we have to remember that already in the Rio conference 1992 there was not found any final evidence for anthropogenic warming of climate as I have even ealier written: ”Even UN politicians in the Rio conference 1992 stated that anthropogenic warming caused by CO2 emissions from fossile fuels can not finally be proved to be true. In spite of that, there the risk of warming was then regarded as so threatening, that precautionary and cost-effective cuttings of CO2 emissions were regarded to be necessary. Anyhow, the cuttings of CO2 emissions according to the Kyoto protocol caused only losses. As I have even earlier claimed, that was not caused only by disproportionate targets between state governments, but even by lack of knowledge concerning influences of both anthropogenic and total amount of atmospheric CO2 on climate warming.”
At second already you Judith Curry etc – and even Nir Shaviv by scrutinizing – have stated, that the climate sensitivity, on which the Paris agreement is based, is deeply uncertain and exaggerated. In addition there are experts from several points of view, who have in reality observed that the climate sensitivity is so low that it can not be distingguished from zero (e,g. Cripwell, Wojick, Arrak etc; and even Scafetta and Lindzen have claimed that climate sensitivity is less than 1C or 0.5C).
At third trends of increase of CO2 content in atmosphere follow trends of climate temperature and not vice versa i.e. according to geological observations during last 100 million years in 10 million years periodes CO2 contents in atmosphere have followed changes of climate temperture; during glacials and interglacials trends of CO2 content in atmosphere have followed trends of temperature changes in climate; and the last nearly two decades prove that CO2 content in atmosphere has been increasing by lag after climate warming. This all should make anyone true that climate sensitivity is so minimal that it can not be distinguished from zero.
At fourth I again repeat what I have written earlier:
”We have to understand that the CO2 content in atmospfere is controlled by the natural law, according to which CO2 content in atmosphere is determined by striving for dynamic balance between all CO2 emissions from CO2 sources to atmosphere and all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to CO2 sinks. If the emissions are more than absorptions, the CO2 content in atmosphere is increasing, but if they are less, the CO2 content in atmosphere is decreasing.
Recently the CO2 content in atmosphere has increased about 2.2 ppm a year. As the total amount of CO2 emissions to atmosphere has then contained only about 4 % CO2 from fossile fuels, in this yearly increase of 2.2 ppm in the atmospheric CO2 content there has been only about 0.088 % CO2 from fossile fuels, at the most; https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/20/discussion-thread-improving-the-interface-between-climate-science-and-policy/#comment-842716 .”
As a summary we can repeat my earlier statement: ”You see that already influence of the CO2 emissions from fossile fuels on the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is minimal. Even though the total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere would dominate the present climate warming, the share of CO2 content from fossile fuels would there be too minimal in order to cause any threat of climate warming. In addition, according to geological and recent observations, trends of CO2 content in atmosphere follow trends of climate temperature and not vice versa. There are no observations in reality, according to which cutting of anthropogenic CO2 emissions could have prevented or lessened climate warming. As, for instance, CO2 cuttings according to the Kyoto protocol have caused only losses, the same kind of failures can be expected concerning cuttings based on the Paris agreement.”
Science teachers are struggling to convince students the earth is round thanks to Kyrie Irving
https://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2017/7/28/16059566/kyrie-irving-flat-earth-science-teachers-middle-school
“I think people should do their own research, man,” Irving told ESPN. “Hopefully they’ll either back my belief or they’ll throw it in the water. But I think it’s interesting for people to find out on their own.
“I’ve seen a lot of things that my educational system has said that was real that turned out to be completely fake. I don’t mind going against the grain in terms of my thoughts.”
I doubt they are struggling, but that the Earth is round is not easy to demonstrate. I take it on faith, as with most of what I have learned, because it explains a lot. As Descartes pointed out, the physical world we think we know may not exist. But as Descartes also pointed out, the fact that something we believe may be false is not evidence against it. And this was 400 years ago.
Human belief and understanding is a fabulously complex system, and not well understood.
One thing about human belief is well understood, once we accept a belief as truth it’s darn near impossible to change their minds. Say what you want about Trump but his followers are the most committed people a leader could hope for.
True or false? All members of Trump White House administration must sign a personal confidential/loyalty agreement. I honestly don’t know if it’s true but there are copies of it all over the internet. If none of the people who have resigned (I’ve lost count) haven’t written a book in the next year it might be a clue.
Most people have observed the curved shadow of the earth on the moon’s face during a lunar eclipse haven’t they?