Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Donald Trump thread

Alan Kendall 5:42 I certainly agree that not all climate science is wasted effort, but the majority of money is focused on trying to link CO2 with anything and everything, so it is safer to trust only 3% of climate scientists until such time as the other 97% give up pretending that 97% means anything in science at all.

Egyptology got going with the French , ( until Nelson ruined their travel plans at the Battle of the Nile - aka Aboukir Bay) and was continued by the British. Hunting treasure and glory was part of it, but proving the Egyptian element of the Old Testament offered the support and blessing of the Church. Chronology, Timelines etc were adjusted to make the Biblical Pharaoh Rameses II, whose name appeared on many of the most impressive buildings. Egyptology was started with the wrong motives, to prove the desired conclusion. Standard texts still make references to conclusions accepted 20-200 years ago.

Many people dedicated their lives to Egyptology, and worked very hard and diligently. Unfortunately, they wasted their time.

Jun 20, 2016 at 1:55 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan Kendall & EM 8:14 yes agreed, weather forecasting relied on matching past data and consequences with the latest data.

Alan Kendall 6:58 making stupid claims and false attributions for unusual weather was started by Global Warmists, and continues to this day. They continue to predict that things will get worse.

Jun 20, 2016 at 2:15 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie 1.55am. Egyptology is an excellent analogy to modern alarmist climate science, but I fear you have drawn the wrong conclusion from it. You write that "unfortunately [egyptologists] wasted their time". They didn't. They accumulated data and uncovered new information that eventually it became obvious that the earlier interpretations were incorrect. The data and information collected and interpreted incorrectly was not wasted, it was reinterpreted and incorporated into a new understanding. So it is, and will be, in climate science. You can see it happening today when people like Lintzen, Spencer and Christie use data, intended to prove AGW, to demonstrate other interpretations. Wrong interpretations are an integral part of all science. The overthrow of them give science its dynamism.

Jun 20, 2016 at 7:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan kendall has repeatedly stated his view that Trump does not have the political background to make a successful president. For example


I dread the possibility that Trump will get elected. Not for his political views, that's for the American public to judge upon, but because, although eminently electable, he has no political track record and displays little evidence of having any skill there. (...) ...the existing power structure won't let him function effectively, and the USA will go rudderless.
Jun 13, 2016 at 11:59 AM | Alan kendall

This does not accord with what I have seen and read about Donald Trump. And I don't remember such a notion being brought up in the Republican nomination process. I asked an American friend, who thinks Obama is a total disaster, for his views:

Somebody here said that if elected president he would be unable to get anything done because he lacks political experience and connections. Sounds like complete nonsense to me. What would you say to that?

Since you asked...........

The apparent lack of political experience may be something of a hindrance to Donald Trump, but considering the point where those with political experience have gotten us to, his lack may be an advantage. On the other hand, he hasn't achieved his business success by pure luck.

We have a democrat socialist party with a person in the WH who has taken powers to himself not authorized in the Constitution and burdened this country with rules and regulations and even laws, though he has done so illegally, if not with tacit approval, then certainly with no opposition from House or Senate.

The so-called opposition party, the establishment repubs, make little to no effort to stop or even challenge his unconstitutional reaches for power. In fact, whatever the community organizer wants, they hand him three-fold, and they are so far removed from reality they cannot see or simply don't care that this lack of opposition has infuriated and alienated their base to enable the success DT has achieved to become the repub candidate, mightily against their wishes.

Donald Trump has received opposition to his bid for the candidacy far in excess of any opposition the GOPe presented against the community organizer in either election.

Paul Ryan, House speaker, has publicly stated that, should Trump try to ban muslims from entering the country, Trump will be sued. Yet, nowhere in 8 years of the transgressions against the Constitution committed by the community organizer has any such action even been hinted at.

My feeling is that Trump truly does intend to actually make America great again. If he is unable to do it, there is nothing lost; the two-name/one-party system will destroy this country completely if Hillary is elected.

More succinctly, we have seen what the dem's will do, and the repubs have clearly shown us what they won't do. So Trump is our last best hope.

Jun 20, 2016 at 1:57 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A.
Sounds like a completely unbiased assessment!!!!!!. So all those millimetres ns who will be supporting Hillary will be completely wrong will they?

Jun 20, 2016 at 2:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

My infamous spellchecker doesnt like the word "millions" and substituted "millimetres ns".

Jun 20, 2016 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

There's a book called "Smartcuts" that describes how many presidents didn't have a lot of experience before coming president. Clinton, Kennedy and Reagan are some. It was more about how they were able to generate interest and get people to rally behind their cause for one. It goes against the idea of needing a lot of experience in politics.

As for Trump, his political experience is more from the business end, dealing with other governments and his own during the building of his businesses. A little different but it's all still negotiation. So I wouldn't immediately conclude his lack of political office will be a hindrance.

Edit: having just found the book, I'll correct the names. Reagan was 8 years as a governor, Lincoln only 2 as a lawyer, Eisenhower was a university president with 0 years political experience. His military career helped instead.

Jun 20, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Registered CommenterMicky H Corbett

Martin, ah the "community organizer" in the White House. I guess 'nigger' was the word he wanted, but he was restraining himself.

Jun 20, 2016 at 5:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Your word Raff, not his.

I found an old email in which he said "...since Obama'a election, I am considered a racist because I disagree completely with him and his administration and their policies...".

You have just given an example of that.

Jun 20, 2016 at 8:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Considered a racist by who? By people who expect the President to be afforded some respect, perhaps, and draw their own conclusions when he is referred to as the "community organizer".

Jun 20, 2016 at 9:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

The most strident anti-Trump critics on this thread have not yet mentioned a certain something very bad he has said, as opposed to what they appear to want to imagine he has said. He has said something very bad. Something that he needs to repudiate or qualify before he can become electable.

It is astonishing that his critics, especially the MSM in this country, haven't made more of it. This suggests to me that they are really just regurgitating received anti-Trump sentiments and opinions from elsewhere without actually listening to much that he says.

Seeing as how this thread is likely to run on for a few months yet, I'll check back occasionally to see when the topic is raised, if at all.

Jun 20, 2016 at 11:20 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

"He has said something very bad."

He's said so many bad things that it is difficult to see why anyone would consider him suitable for president. But then again people voted for Hitler... Oh no, I mentioned Hitler - that's blown it!

Jun 21, 2016 at 2:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterRaff

Raff, lucky you didn't mention Hilary in the same sentence as Hitler.

Her track record on honesty in US Presidential politics is what is pushing some people towards Trump. Trying to lie and cheat about her record of dishonesty isn't helping.

Do explain how many times Germans voted for Hitler. Is it a greater number of times than either UK or US citizens have been able to vote for climate science policiies?

In fact, as you mentioned Hitler as a contrast to Trump, if Trump can end policies that are causing the deaths of so many in foreign countries, as endorsed by climate science driven politicians, Trump will have a lot of support from around the world.

Good call Raff.

Jun 21, 2016 at 8:06 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan Kendall 7:17 June 20 Climate Science and Egyptology

Egyptologists did waste their time trying to prove Christian Old Testament Biblical stories about Moses. It should also be noted that these Biblical references are taken from Jewish Scriptures, and do also have some relevance to Islam.

The likes of Lindtzen Christie and Spencer have been warning that 97% of Climate Science time and money has been directed at trying to prove a predetermined conclusion, from the outset. They have been scorned and vilified by those with 97% of the research money, and still are.

Egyptology has required re-evaluation of all evidence previously gathered and wrongly interpreted. Those least capable of doing this, were those involved in the original misinterpretations, many of whom had died given the length of time involved. With 97% of Climate Scientists still endorsing the wrong conclusions, trying to protect their past mistakes, and the mistakes of their distinguished colleagues, why should they receive another Pound or Dollar of Tax Payers money?

Corruption of Climate Science, by those within Climate Science, is institutional. Repeated claims that they are experts, and don't need outside supervision are farcical. They are unable to police or supervise themselves, and have assumed positions of power and authority, that they have serially abused.

Climate science is facing a probable financial meltdown. Rather than address the numerous failings, climate science remains in full blown Denial mode that anything is wrong, let alone needs fixing.

ECS Climate Sensitivity seems to me to be a good place to start looking for fundamentally flawed maths and assumptions in climate science. 97% of climate scientists deny this. Their only response is to produce lots of hand waving, and 'prove us wrong' responses. Climate science has never been proven right, about anything. How are they capable of re-examining their own conclusions and assumptions?

Climate Science has thrived on creating fear. Trump has created fear within climate science. Therefore I support Trump. A single term in office should be sufficient. Whatever his perceived wrongs may be, the ends justify the means, which, by coincidence, happens to have been the politcal message of support behind climate science all along.

Jun 21, 2016 at 9:19 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

ECS Climate Sensitivity seems to me to be a good place to start looking for fundamentally flawed maths and assumptions in climate science.

Climate sensitivity calculations are just complete and obvious total bollocks. Yet seem to be taken seriously by many people otherwise sceptical of climate science (so-called).

Jun 21, 2016 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

golfCharlie. You still haven't disproven my argument that the cataloguing, discovery and curating done by earlier Egyptologists was not wasted, but that this information has been used, and still is being used, to construct a truer chronology. Likewise much of the data collected and the expertise gained in computer modelling climate is not wasted. It may well be currently be misapplied but it is not all a wasted effort. Eventually, to understand the climate we will need to model it. We won't be starting from scratch.

Jun 21, 2016 at 11:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan Kendall, a lot of climate science has been based on false assumptions. There is no doubt an awful lot of good valid science has been carried out and incorporated, carried out by good honest scientists, that is of use now and in the future.

According to legendary fabrications of climate science, 97% of climate scientists are unable to spot the flaws in 97% of climate science. Climate science has proved itself unworthy of trust using taxpayers money, so who should taxpayers trust to sift through the wreckage of climate science, determining what is salvageable?

As a definite NON Climate Scientist, but someone who appreciates the benefits of improved weather forecasting, people who trained as, and identify themselves as Meteorologists, and not Climate Scientists would seem best able to assess what is useful research. If there are climate scientists who would like to emerge now, and disassociate themselves from the 97% farceforce of incredulity, they should do so.

Improved weather forecasting would help restore public confidence. Climate Science has got nothing right

Jun 21, 2016 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Alan kendall on Jun 21, 2016 at 11:33 AM

Granted, when a project ends up in an unexpected destination, it is more positive to say, 'We will continue with a reformed project :) , but every conclusion needs to be reevaluated, and that takes time. It takes untainted individuals, or reformed individuals, to do this, and for it to be seen to be done. Sometimes it can take longer than the original project itself, if it can done at all.

Tolstoy, 1898:
I know that most men - not only those considered clever, but even those who are clever and capable of understanding the most difficult scientific, mathematical or philosophical problems - can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty - conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.

You can say that again!

Jun 21, 2016 at 4:19 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Robert C. A good quote, especially the last part. Nevertheless change comes from within, from people who have been taught by those with, what will turn out to be, incorrect theories. It has always been thus. Revolution comes from young Turks who are unsatisfied by the status quo, but also from scientists with much experience who amass enough evidence to overthrow the current paradigm (Darwin is a prime example).

You are correct that sometimes it takes a long long time for the overthrow of old ideas, but it can be extraordinarily fast (adoption of plate tectonics being one such). In the case of climate science, I fear the extraordinary amount of political and economic baggage attached to it, will cause its demise to be slow and painful. This doesn't mean that all has been wasted, as I have been trying to convince golfCharlie about.

Jun 21, 2016 at 4:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan kendall on Jun 21, 2016 at 4:56 PM

"Nevertheless change comes from within ..."
But politics can inhibit the change, at great cost to the public, especially if the Establishment are threatened.

One of the first to criticise Darwin's theory was Darwin himself. Although it has been accepted by many that The Big Bang Theory explains many of the observations, it has been deemed internally inconsistent by one of the co-originators of the theory. And String Theory has created critics, not so much that it is wrong (as it can always be fixed by adjusting the parameters, or so I am told) but that they haven't really made any jump in knowledge or understanding in the last forty years, and that the World's prestigious jobs are clogged up with String Theory experts, creating a monopoly and inhibiting other ideas. The trouble with these ideas is that we are not looking at a general rule or law, but History, so I think 'prove' is too strong a word. Some like to keep it within geometric proofs, and bread making. :)

It doesn't matter too much, having the wrong idea, as academics can argue about as long they want, as long as it doesn't negatively impact on day to day life, like throwing money into a bottomless pit. And even if the theory isn't true, or cannot be proved, it isn't such a problem if it is useful: Newtonian mechanics isn't reality, but it is usually OK to use.

"Revolution comes from young Turks ..."
I like your topical sense of humour, I think :)

Jun 21, 2016 at 8:28 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher

Alan Kendall, I didn't suggest that all climate science be binned. I even suggested a Meteorologist might be the best person to conduct a review.

Unless of course some climate scientists have noticed the change in political wind direction, and want to start correcting past errors and mistakes now.

Jun 22, 2016 at 1:01 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

and the expertise gained in computer modelling climate is not wasted. It may well be currently be misapplied but it is not all a wasted effort. Eventually, to understand the climate we will need to model it. We won't be starting from scratch.
Jun 21, 2016 at 11:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

I don't agree. It's like any sort of software of poor quality. The only way to remove the poor quality from the software is to ditch it and to start again from scratch, rigorously verifying the correctness at every step. If poor quality has been built in to software, it is essentially impossible to remove it.

The essential initial questions that need answering before any model construction is attempted for a distibuted physical system (effects of finite discretisation step size, stability of error propagation,...) don't seem even to have been formulated in climate modelling, let alone answered.

Jun 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Martin A. I wasn't really referring to the programmes themselves, but to the abilities and expertise of the modelling community. Do you dispute this if and when we start to model climate more realistically? Do you dispute that meteorological forecasting has not been improved by the cross fertilization of interacting with climate modellers, or even that climate modellers might also be involved in weather forecasting? Even Madam Met Office started as a meteorologist before she sunk into the hubris of believing she could make predictions about climate decades hence using CO2 as a major driver.

Jun 22, 2016 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan kendall

Alan Kendall, it doesn't matter how good the computers are, if the programming and input data is flawed.

If someone could try a Computer Generated Climate Model with no fixed assumptions about ECS, possibly even deleting it altogether ........

Jun 22, 2016 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Martin A. I wasn't really referring to the programmes themselves, but to the abilities and expertise of the modelling community. Do you dispute this if and when we start to model climate more realistically?

Yes, I disagree with that. Computer climate modelling needs to be ditched and to be restarted from scratch, with careful system verification of things at each step. Above all, the attitudes and acceptance of things as correctly representing reality on nothing better than "these are the basic equations of the physics". Or a false understanding of what model verification means.

Jun 22, 2016 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A