316 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum Nov. 10, 2016”

  1. So far this link is the best one I have run across explaining Clinton losing the election in terms of actual understanding of the American political and economic scene.

    In general terms, I think nearly everybody here will find themselves agreeing with me that the author has a truly nuanced understanding of the country and the election.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/10/hillary-clinton-lost-bernie-sanders-could-have-won/

    It goes without saying that I supported Sanders, and said all along that Clinton’s negatives put the D’s at risk of losing the WH.

    Trump would have scored some points against Sanders, but the job was mostly finished for him, against Clinton,just leaving him with mopping up operations, even before he got the nomination.

    Imagine Sanders running ads, pictures of his house, beside pictures of Trump’s house.

    1. Sadly, the path not taken. I always thought of Sanders as the stronger candidate, despite his self declaration as a socialist. I thought declaring himself as a socialist was a very shrewd preemptive strike, put out there in the open, very early to make sure that him being a socialist was not an argument that could be easily used against him but, alas! His message definitely resonated with pretty much a similar constituency that carried Trump to the WH, the angry, white, working class, male.

      On another front, I foresee a serious problem in US politics going forward. A growing divide between rural and urban political sentiment. Does anyone else think this could one day break out into open hostility between rural and urban folk?

      1. Does anyone else think this could one day break out into open hostility between rural and urban folk?

        The future of the world is very much urban, already about 80% of the world’s populations reside in cities. Sure, cities need the rural areas to survive but they have the numbers to wield a heavy political influence over the rural populations. The situation in the US may be a bit distorted due to the peculiarities of our system. The fact of the matter is, Clinton actually won the popular vote but lost the election because of the way the electoral college works.

        Perhaps because of my personal life experience of having lived in large urban centers both overseas and in the US I’m a bit biased towards the idea of resilient cities. Cities are where centers of learning, art and culture have traditionally existed and that is where you find the largest concentration of the educated elite.

        To survive in a large diverse and populationally dense city you need to be more socially focused rather than being a rugged individualist more in tune with a rural environment. I think a large part of the red vs blue dichotomy that you have noticed can be traced to this fact alone.

        I think the US needs to reform it’s political system and do away with the electoral college altogether. Though that is a whole nuther ball of wax!

        Outside the US I don’t see so much antagonism between cities and rural environments.

        Check out Building Urban Resilience
        https://www.thinkdif.co/emf-stage/building-urban-resilience

        1. being a rugged individualist more in tune with a rural environment.

          Rural living requires just as much social integration as city living – you’re dependent on neighbors for survival.

          The difference is that up until the 20th century farm living didn’t require education. In fact, education was a threat: children might get ideas about moving away and abandoning the farm and their parents who depended on them. So, farm communities were deeply anti-education.

          Combine that with the fact that the Old South was dependent on slaves who could not be allowed to get an education; that the Old South saw African freedom as an existential threat; and that suppressing slaves required a lot of violence, and you get people who are prone to violence and deeply anti-intellectual.

          The objective reality: Clinton was at least as ethical and competent as Trump,and her policies are much better for his followers than his are.

          Rural voters were fooled. Conned. Played as marks, by a very skilled con artist. And their lack of education was the key reason they could be fooled. That’s not an insult, or a judgement. They’re victims of this situation, and they deserve our compassion” they will be deeply hurt by Trumps promised reductions in health care; greater marginalization of low wage immigrants; and tax cuts for the wealthy.

          1. Rural living requires just as much social integration as city living – you’re dependent on neighbors for survival.

            Um, what I was thinking of when I made my comment was more along the lines of riding a New York City Subway during rush hour…

            When your closest neighbor lives a mile or two down the road it tends to give one a slightly different perspective of social integration and community 🙂

            Anyways the point is basically moot since 80 percent of the world’s population lives in cities and 80% of the population generally has more political clout than 20%, should they care to exercise it. Of course in the US this dynamic is somewhat distorted by policies put in place during the the early part of the last century. But I was talking more from a global perspective than being strictly US centric.

            1. Hmmm. Well, It’s an interesting thought – rural folks are more isolated, and less connected? They certainly do spend more time in their day working alone.

              Mac, what do you think?

            2. My home state is mostly rural, the cities in the fifties, sixties, seventies, half of the eighties were Republican, the rural folks voted for Democrats more than they voted for Republicans… all of the time.

              The Democrats always had representatives from rural areas over all of those years.

              Not any more. It was a sin to vote for a Republican, I voted Democrat myself. All my relatives voted Democrat, all farmers. They will not do it again for a long time.

              What happened?

              The Democrats abandoned the rural folks, the folks out in the hinterlands became Republicans.

              What was once a Democratic stronghold, rural farmers and small town inhabitants dwindled to about zero Democrats.

              The Democrats are toast.

            3. The Democrats abandoned the rural folks

              Well, sure. Democrats signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

              That was unpardonable.

            4. Well clearly R Walter your head is somewhere that you can’t see. The Republican congress has obstructed every attempt to stimulate the economy and stop any attempt that everyone in the country has health care for the last 8 years. The only thing the Republicans want to give the rural farmer is to stop your gay neighbors from having the same rights as the rest of America. Oh, I’m sure the Republicans will also be happy sending your rural sons and daughter to war too.

              Just watch, Tverberg, Tea Party and conservatives will stop talking about debt. The Republicans now in power will start spending and stealing like drunken fools. Yes, the party and economy will feel good again for a few years until the hangover.

            5. You are stereotyping.

              Ronald Reagan was at one time a liberal Democrat.

              https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e3O-szw3Tx4

              I have never voted for a Republican for president.

              Politicians are all cut from the same cloth.

              McGovern? Check.

              Carter? Check, twice.

              Mondale? Check.

              I said that I have voted Democrat for many years.

              The Democrats changed.

              They suffer because of it.

              Nothing to see here:

              But Trump himself has donated to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $100,000 and $250,000 as of 2014 — a point Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon noted: Trump donated to the Clinton Foundation while HRC was Secretary of State. Doesn’t that mean he is calling for an investigation of himself?

              http://theweek.com/speedreads/644959/donald-trumps-campaign-manager-explains-trumps-6figure-clinton-foundation-donation

              Doesn’t blend too well with Trump’s credence.

              Looks like he is a Democrat in Republican clothing.

            6. “Looks like he is a Democrat in Republican clothing.”

              No, he looks like a fascist rolled up in lies. There is nothing that makes Trump look like a Democrat.

            7. Edward Brooke, Hiram Revels, both Republicans, both African-American.

              All of these Reconstruction era black senators and representatives were members of the Republican Party. The Republicans represented the party of Abraham Lincoln and of emancipation. The Southern Democrats represented the party of planters, slavery and secession.

              From 1868, southern elections were accompanied by increasing violence, especially in Louisiana, Mississippi and the Carolinas, in an effort by Democrats to suppress black voting and regain power. In the mid-1870s, paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts worked openly to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate blacks from voting. This followed the earlier years of secret vigilante action by the Ku Klux Klan against freedmen and allied whites.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_United_States_Congress

              Nelson Rockefeller, liberal Republican.

              There is nothing new under the sun.

            8. You do realize the Republican party flipped on race after the 1964 civil rights act

          2. Hi Nick,

            Spoken as always as either a true believer without the slightest glimmer of any real understanding of the culture you so utterly despise, or a totally cynical partisan.

            You quite obviously believe that anybody who doesn’t think the same way you do is ignorant, backward, uncouth, retarded, ………..

            So ………. were the numerous young well educated folk who stayed home, folks who wanted Sanders but got Clinton, played for fools by Trump? The margin between Clinton and Trump was close enough that almost for sure the ones that couldn’t bring themselves to hold their nose and vote for Clinton would have put her over the top. I am a single issue environment voter myself, but I would have had an extremely difficult time voting for her. Fortunately I know Virginia politics well and was convinced she had Virginia in the bag, freeing me to vote Green without supporting Trump.

            For a guy ( I suppose, but I have met a couple of feminine Nick’s ) who is extraordinarily adept at staying on message, as good at it as an advertising agency, or competent professional politician, you display an utterly incomprehensible lack of understanding of a very simple fact.

            When you go around insulting people, habitually, they have a tendency to say fuck you, and your candidate , and the horse you rode in on as well. I

            As a matter of fact, this election turned on so few votes that if people like you who post their comments in forums than ARE read by more socially or fiscally conservative people, rural and urban, had backed of on the condescending rhetoric, Clinton probably would have won.

            I can’t find a link I wanted to post, but it was a guest column at Forbes, by a Sanders guy who stayed home.

            He said the justice department may have to prove in court your candidate has committed a crime, but the voters DON’T.

            There is a great deal to be said for the way rural people live and the things they believe, although their lives and beliefs are far from perfect.

            I lived off and on in the university district in a fair sized city for fifteen or twenty years, where I could walk to restaurants and bars, bike to campus, picnic in the city parks, and hang out with people like you on a daily basis. It was good.

            But life out here in the boonies is better, so long as you have enough money. I don’t have a lot, but I live better here than my one per center attorney lives in town.

            I stopped a while back for somebody with out of state plates on their car sitting on the side of the road with the hood up, to offer assistance if needed. They had already called a tow truck, but they thanked me, and told me how amazed they were that I was the third person who stopped to offer at least the use of their phone.

            I have seen a dispute that was about to head to court, civil or criminal, resolved by a third party telling two men ready to sue or fight that they ought to be ashamed of themselves, given that their families have lived as neighbors for three generations without needing lawyers or police, that their parents and grandparents were all in the same cemetery.

            Tell be about the sort of people who REALLY stick together in the big city. I met a few along the way, because being a redneck, and proud of it, when it suits me, I spent time in biker bars and worse places, and know or used to know people who wear biker colors and gang tats. I have worked side by side on construction jobs with people convicted of various violent crimes ranging from robbery to assault and battery to murder.

            I know about the downside of urban life you so studiously avoid mentioning.

            Now of course you are most likely smart enough not to say the things you say HERE in forums that might be read by any significant number of rural folks.

            For the same reason, I can joke about Sky Daddy and Sky Mommy without offending my neighbors or any of the many millions of decent people who are committed Christians because none of them , or at most an extremely small number, read this site.

            I suppose you actually do think the millions of well educated women who voted for Trump are ignorant and stupid? The very large majority of them voted for Clinton of course, but saying that many people, women especially, are being lead around by their nose is sort STRETCHING it, maybe?

            MAYBE…… just maybe…… They have reasons that are sufficient from their perspective, to have either stayed home , or to have voted for Trump.

            There is a headline on my google news feed that says the D leadership blames Comey for Clinton losing.

            Well, the flip side is that since it turns out that thousands of emails that were SUPPOSED to have been turned over WERE NOT, and on top of that, they were on a computer in the hands of one of her VERY CLOSEST associates.

            It COULD be that maybe the people had a right to know about that, late breaking or not. Incidentally her bosom buddy Huma is intimately involved in arguably the sleaziest legal business in the country, the car title loan business. Two thousand percent annual interest rates.

            And if Clinton weren’t so arrogant, and so sure she could thumb her nose at the spirit of the law, and the rules everybody else is expected to obey, well, then there wouldn’t have BEEN any email problem, WOULD THERE?

            And she would be president elect.

            But since you are either a true believer or a cynic, I don’t expect you to ever acknowledge any fact contrary to your agenda.

            1. I don’t think it’s obvious at all from what he wrote that Nick believes “that anybody who doesn’t think the same way [as he does] is ignorant, backward, uncouth, retarded.

              What he wrote was that he believes that lack of education was the primary reason why rural voters were fooled by a very skilled con artist.

              Being uneducated isn’t synonymous with being ignorant, backward, uncouth, or retarded, and I at least didn’t interpret what he wrote that way.

              The salient point is that they were skillfully conned. In my opinion, worth little, anyone who voted for Trump was conned. That isn’t so much an opinion about the voters. It’s an opinion about Trump.

              My view of Trump is that he is a man driven by narcissism and greed. He is out for himself; his own aggrandizement, his own enrichment, and his own power. He wants to win, and a sociopathic dimension of his definition of winning, is that the other guy must lose. That makes them losers, and him a winner.

              Trump saw an opportunity, and he exploited it. He has an established track record of telling people whatever they want to hear, in order to win.

              Most people are not sociopaths. Most people are not pathological liars. This makes us vulnerable to those that are.

              In the very excellent Sam Harris podcast that Ron linked, Harris describes Trump as a dangerous con man, and I think there is plenty of evidence to support that view with an examination of his history.

              Harris also says: “We’re about to see an astonishingly vindictive man sweep to power, and with not many checks on his power.”

            2. Rural voters also don’t have access to high speed internet, which makes it harder for them to sift through the lies spread by TV.

            3. “When you go around insulting people, habitually, they have a tendency to say fuck you, and your candidate”

              “I am a single issue environment voter myself, but I would have had an extremely difficult time voting for her.”

              And yet Trump won. Just admit Mac you have a double standard for Hillary.

          3. Nick G said; “The difference is that up until the 20th century farm living didn’t require education. In fact, education was a threat: children might get ideas about moving away and abandoning the farm and their parents who depended on them. So, farm communities were deeply anti-education.”

            100 years ago, perhaps, but your bias is showing. I live in one of the most rural counties in NC (southern Appalachia) and the schools here have been some of the most successful is the state for 70 years. Education has been a priority for decades. My neighbor, now 70, was the son of barely literate parents, graduated from Brown on scholarship, and I know others of his generation that graduated from places like Cal Tech, Ga Tech, and Stanford. A client of mine, the son of many mountain generations, went to Va Tech in the 30s-40s, masters program at Ga Tech, and became a top dog at Dow Chemical. He’s still very “country” in his 90s. Go figure. Many older folks here went to UNC, and eventually came back to be sure future generations had the same opportunities.

            My step-dad grew up in a backwood, very rural part of central Alabama (dirt farmers, all), worked his way through Auburn with honors, went to war (eventually became a full “Bird”), went on to a PhD at Columbia, acting superintendent of Atlanta city schools, and the Dean of Education at a major university.

            Maybe you should rethink things.

      2. Hillary Clinton was the candidate that the Democratic party chose, and they lost because of it.

        I didn’t vote for Clinton, I voted against Trump.
        Similarly, a lot of people didn’t vote for Trump, but against Clinton.

        Is there a way to unite all of us that were compelled to vote against a candidate rather than having a candidate they wanted to vote for, and bring about positive election reform out of this dismal moment?

        Ranked choice ballots with a ‘None Of The Above’ option?

        Prohibition of straight party vote options, and prohibition of any indication of party affiliation on the ballot? Voters should know who they are voting for, and why.

        Campaign finance reform that limits contributions to a maximum of $25. per human person, per candidate, bans all paid political advertising, bans self financing, and bans all gifts?

        The system should be designed so that direct mobilization of mass volunteer support is literally the only path to office.

        Another radical notion would be to eliminate direct votes for candidates entirely. If you go to isidewith.com and answer a long list of policy questions, it will tell you which candidate is most closely aligned with your positions. What if that is how voting worked?

        I am happy that Clinton will not be our president, but I am absolutely terrified that Trump will be.

        1. Hillary Clinton was the candidate that the Democratic party chose, and they lost because of it.

          The primary reason Trump won was better propaganda, over a very long time. Again, the objective reality was that Clinton was at least as ethical and competent as Trump,and her policies were much better for his followers than his.

          If you doubt that, ask yourself: did it matter whether or not the various attacks on her ethics and competence were true? Let’s say they’re all completely accurate (which is obviously untrue) – if they hadn’t come up, wouldn’t other things have been invented, and believed just as much? Look at the primary reason Trump rose in Republican circles: the claim that Obama wasn’t a US citizen. 30% of US voters believe Obama isn’t a citizen!. Does anyone think that rural voters have deeply researched the various ethical criticisms leveled at Clinton? No. The truth of the charges didn’t matter, and there would have been other things, if the ones we’re familiar with hadn’t come up.

          So, Clinton’s ethics weren’t really the problem The problem was decades of unrelenting, successful propaganda.

          1. Decades of successfully entrenched propaganda is much more difficult to overcome than spurious propaganda on the fly.

            Clinton was not a popular candidate. She lost in 2008 to a little known black junior senator with the unlikely name of Barack Hussein Obama. He won with a campaign promise of hope, and change.

            Clinton didn’t represent change in any way, but it’s still a popular idea.

            Yes, perhaps she is the victim of decades of unfounded propaganda, but if you have a candidate that’s packing that baggage, perhaps it’s wiser to support a candidate without that liability if you want to win.

            1. Clinton didn’t represent change in any way

              She represented modest, incremental change. That was all that was possible, in the face of Republican resistance.

              Trump promises to repeal the relatively modest changes created by Obama.

              Clinton didn’t promise the moon (because she knew she couldn’t deliver it) – perhaps that honesty was her mistake.

            2. You guys can talk about who and why till the cows come home. The facts are a number of states seemed to be determined by very small numbers of voters. So called wins are often photo finish and about half the voters will not be represented, a dichotomous state. Even the popular vote difference was essentially only by one small city.
              Also there are over 40 percent of voters who did not vote, just a relative few of those getting out to vote could easily swing elections either way.
              So when all is said and done, an election win represents less than 30% of eligible voters. More people essentially “voted” they were not satisfied with the system or the options or both.
              I am sure of those that voted, many are also dissatisfied with the choices or system.
              Has any group or person put in a real effort to find out why the voting system is really so poorly represented and what might be done to improve it? Or do we just accept an addled system and run with it? Otherwise you have more than 70 percent of the population unhappy and/or unrepresented.

            3. And now the fun starts!
              http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/president-trump-denounced-protests-us-43438069

              And around the world it is even more interesting, was talking to my brother and sister who live in Germany, The US is not getting a whole lotta respect there.

              Was watching signatures to this letter by avaaz.org coming in this morning. It was a pretty steady non stop stream from all over the world.

              Here’s the text:

              Dear friends,

              The unimaginable has happened. President Trump.

              And worse, there are Trumps in every town. Threatening all our democracies.

              What’s most important now is to build a global movement to stop them. Over 2 million of us have signed the open letter, below, from the world to Trump, and it’s been covered across major media. Now it’s a manifesto for the next 4 years — one we’re going to run as a full page ad in major papers and project onto Trump Tower in New York. Forward it widely and sign below:

              Dear Mr. Trump,

              This is not what greatness looks like.

              The world rejects your fear, hate-mongering, and bigotry. We reject your support for torture, your calls for murdering civilians, and your general encouragement of violence. We reject your denigration of women, Muslims, Mexicans, and millions of others who don’t look like you, talk like you, or pray to the same god as you.

              Facing your fear we choose compassion. Hearing your despair we choose hope. Seeing your ignorance we choose understanding.

              As citizens of the world, we stand united against your brand of division.

              Sincerely,

              ADD MY NAME

              And I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson summed it all up quite nicely!

              Let’s make America Smart Again!
              Cheers!

            4. A lot more was possible. Republican resistance is like a border wall, it’s not really that effective unless you let it be effective.

          2. Hillary pledged to shut down coal.

            West Virginia voted for Trump with 68.7 percent.

            When you intentionally threaten the livelihoods of people working in the coal industry, you won’t have a lot of friends.

            When it goes all across the board, you don’t and won’t win much support.

            She became a liability at the end and hardly an asset.

            Nice propaganda about anti-Hillary propaganda.

            Propaganda exists in politics, business, everywhere you go.

            The anti-Hillary propaganda was better than anti-Trump propaganda, the proTrump propaganda was good propaganda.

            They’re politicians, they lie to the voters all of the time, in other words, propaganda.

            The voters weren’t buying Hillary’s propaganda.

            It didn’t work.

            Besides, your vote only counts to choose who votes for the President in the electoral college.

            Gore won the popular vote but still lost, all the way to the Supreme Court.

            1. Coal in West Virginia is dying anyway. There are only about 20,000 coal mining jobs in West Virginia. They also have a fairly low production rate per worker.

              The whole US has about 80,000 coal mining jobs.
              So what would a revival of the coal industry look like, maybe 5,000 jobs?
              Wind power jobs hit 88,000 in 2016 and is growing.
              Solar PV jobs amount to about 240,000. Job growth rate of 20 percent.
              I think that instead of trying to prop up the already rich owners of coal mines, we should be re-training some of the coal miners and others to enter the new and rising fields. Solar and wind should be gaining jobs for decades.
              Forget the car industry, most of it is super-mechanized. But I guess training in robotics and control systems repair would be good. The don’t fix themselves, yet.

          3. I voted Trump on Tuesday for several reasons. I wished our young people who are worried about their decisions whether to use birth control or abstinence as control over their “uterus” instead of thinking that killing a life is OK. Hillary took donations for her foundation from countries that throw gay people off buildings. I could go on and on, but I have been in the positions that many on here are at about your candidate losing an election and I can sympathize…but I hope that your practicing what you preach…Tolerance…including other peoples opinions when they are different from your own.

          4. Hi Nick,

            It’s CUSTOMARY for people who are wrong, and either don’t know it or refuse to admit it, to blame their problems on other people, lol.

            1. True.

              The voters made a mistake. Who should we blame that on, the con artists who deceived them, or the people who failed to reveal the deception?

              I’d blame the con artists.

          5. Clinton sucked at propaganda. Which is actuallythe reason she should not have been the candidate. Sanders was better at propaganda.

      3. re: urban vs rural hostilities. We already have it here in California. There is a huge movement up here in rural far northern California to separate from the state and form our own – the “State of Jefferson”. We have 30% of the state’s land, over half it’s surface water, most of its timber, about 30% of the agriculture, and 3% of its people. Very conservative territory – California’s Republicans mostly hail from here. No political leverage compared to the hugely-urban-rich-democratic SF Bay Area and greater LA/San Diego areas.

        A fun read on the State of Jefferson movement below:)

        http://interactive.nydailynews.com/2016/02/state-of-jefferson-secessionists-california-gun-totin-rebels/

        I don’t see this as an urban/rural argument, though – the dialog appears to be more about “past” vs “present” and accepting what is and moving forward vs reversing an unstoppable tide of a changing world.

        Here in the heart of the “State of Jefferson”, if you look at all the photos included with the article link above, you see that all the main XX rebels are grey-hairs – Baby Boomers who remember when logging was in its heyday and you could leave high school right into a job in the woods or at the mill that would pay you enough to buy a small house. Their kids mostly left.

        But their kids have grown up and are trickling back, and they aren’t looking for mill jobs. They are looking for tech jobs. Rebuilding downtown into a more urban living environment instead of retreating to the outlying subdivisions. It has created an interesting mix of cultures and ages. The returning generation of grown-up kids are now organizing their own movements, forward thinking. As a rural Baby Boomer “engineer in the wilderness”, I see and can connect with both worlds. It is fun to watch. Here’s the big movement by the State of Jefferson’s resurgent Gen X/millenial population (who will actually inherit control of this territory in a few years).

        https://www.meetup.com/ReddingCatalyst/?https=off

        1. Upstate NY, and even the Central Valley of California, have the same dynamic as NorCal. Even Texas has it to some extent.

          Unfortuantely some states are simply not attracting young people at *all*, and are losing young people at a high rate. Those are the states where the rural areas are going blood red. And all the kids are moving out. Kansas is an example. The kids move to Missouri at least, and quite possibly to Chicago, and if they want a more rural life… upstate NY, Vermont, California, Washington, Oregon.

      4. “His message definitely resonated with pretty much a similar constituency that carried Trump to the WH, the angry, white, working class, male.”

        I have never disagreed with Island Boy about anything, to the best of my memory, but in this case I could not disagree more.

        The Sanders believers were mostly white, true enough, but as I see it, this is because the minorities did not know him , and his excellent record in respect to civil rights, etc.

        Remember he never had much exposure on the national stage until it became obvious that Clinton had intimidated every other D into just folding up in front of her party machine steamroller.

        He never had time enough for the minorities to get acquainted with him. They were naturally in the Clinton camp as a matter of habit, with justification. The D party has rightly been their party, and Clinton had a very respectable record overall in this respect, and to them, Clinton and the party were pretty much one and the same.

        The typical Sanders guy I met was white, but he was also college educated, or a student. And while he was often mad, it was about altogether different things than the white guys who supported Trump. And there were PLENTY of young women in the Sanders movement as well, just look at any photos of Sanders events.

        The typical Sanders supporter was and is more liberal about just about every major topic than the typical or average Democrat. You can take this to the bank. This is not to say there were no redneck country boy types, on labor types, etc, in the Sanders camp, but they were not REPRESENTATIVE of the Sanders camp.

        Virtually all of them would have readily supported Clinton, if they had not suddenly had the opportunity to vote for somebody without the dead fish stink, without the ties to corporate America and the corporate World.

        Now I know that saying this sort of thing is sacrilege in a forum dominated by liberals who are NOT Sanders supporters, but such liberals, as I see it, have something in common with my old Daddy, and my many dead fore bearers who reside permanently on top of the hill adjacent to a part of the family farm.

        Both groups believe or believed what they WANTED to believe, and ignore or ignored any and all evidence to the contrary.

        1. Hi Mac, I was hoping that, with your experience in life in the cities as well as your intimate connection with rural folk, you might be able to shed some light on the reason why most of the counties that voted for Trump (Republican) were rural while Clinton (Democrats) won in the urban areas. Whether the state was won by Clinton or Trump, most of the counties containing a major city were won by Clinton. The list of major urban areas that were won by Trump is a much shorter one than the list of urban areas won by Clinton. In my mind, Trump owes his victory to rural America and most of the important states for Clinton were states in which the sheer size of the urban vote was able to overwhelm the rural, Republican vote.

          I looked up The Most Urbanized States in America and of the 20 most urbanized states, only five, Florida, Utah, Arizona, Texas and Pennsylvania were won by Trump. Conversely, of the 30 least urbanized states only four, New Mexico, Virginia, Vermont and Maine are confirmed to have been won by Clinton.

          I also did some poking around a the Huffington Post’s Presidential Primaries page for a look back at the results of the primaries and that’s where, as a foreigner, it gets really crazy. In most states, Clinton’s support on election day mainly came from the same or similar areas that supported her in the primaries. In the state of Utah, Sanders won the primary overwhelmingly with 79.3% of the vote and Clinton was unable to get more than 28% of the vote in on election day. Clinton’s loss in Utah was despite the fact that Trump came in last in the primaries with just 14% of the vote so, it would appear that both candidates were extremely unpopular to the voters of Utah and Sanders might actually have been able to win Utah. There were other states like Utah, in which Clinton did very badly in the primaries and only slightly better, in terms of percentage of the vote on election day.

          At this point I have to point out that I have never been as interested in a US election primary as I was this time and have very limited knowledge and understanding of the voting patterns of the various states. I would love to see a state by state postmortem of the election results including the primaries and I get the feeling that any such analysis will come to the conclusion that Sanders would likely have won the general election.

          Now, I want to refine my statement that “His message definitely resonated with pretty much a similar constituency that carried Trump to the WH, the angry, white, working class, male.” by pointing out that in many cases, it is the same counties and in some cases entire states, that elected Trump that showed a preference for Sanders in the primaries. It is a sense of this that made me make the statement.

          I am now even more mystified by the urban rural differences since, in many cases the rural voters went more for Sanders who is the more liberal/progressive candidate. That suggests that the rural voter, at least within the democratic party, is actually more liberal/progressive. It could also not be that the urban voter is more in touch and informed since, from all I could tell, it was primarily the younger more informed and better educated voter that was enthusiastic about Sanders. So why all the support for Sanders in the rural areas and in red states? I’m even more confused than when I started writing this comment.

          One of the reasons I am so interested in US politics at this time, is that I think it may give us some indication as to how people might react when faced with the twin realities of Peak Oil and Global Warming. It might offer clues as to how skeptical people are about FF funded messages or on the other hand, scientific reports. How likely is it that whether one accepts or denies Peak Oil or Global Warming, ties in closely with ones world view and political affiliations?

          1. Hi Islandboy,

            The primary doesn’t really tell you that much because many states have closed primaries where only registered democrats and republicans vote.

            So those rural areas that voted for Sanders might have had very few Democrats relative to Republicans, maybe a 5 to 1 difference, so when it comes to the actual election there is no way a Democrat is likely to win in those rural areas. That’s why most of the more rural states have been voting Republican since 1980 or so. What changed this election was places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania voted Republican, and Florida as well, in all of those states Sanders might have done better than Clinton. I liked Sanders a lot, but mistakenly thought Clinton was more “electable”. Perhaps many other Democrats made a similar mistake.

          2. Hi Island Boy,

            I will have something to say, perhaps mostly by way of posting links, about your question tonight if I don’t fall asleep or have unexpected company.

            It’s very hard, maybe impossible, to get a person from a far different culture to really understand an opposing culture in just a few words, or maybe even a few thousand words. Doing it right would take a serious book, and nobody who would benefit from reading it WOULD read it, because a major part of the problem is that the opposing camps are each thoroughly convinced the other has its head so far up its ass it will never see daylight.

            There is no workable way that I can see for this to change, or be changed, other than to allow the passage of enough time that the hard core of older rural and small town people pass on. The younger generation is far more attuned to more liberal values and different lifestyles. Cable tv, the net, popular music, etc, plus the fact that the older teachers who were also social conservatives retired long ago, with their replacements coming from the ranks of university education departments where social conservatism is a heresy not to be tolerated.

            Black guys are not in any significant danger of being lynched these days for dating white girls, even in the darkest corner of the back wood boonies. Ditto on lots of other things, times are changing, but they can change only SO FAST without the people who are on the receiving end of change they don’t like rebelling with a vengeance.

            Most of the comments I have gotten in response to posting this observation indicate to me that the responder has little sense of history, and expects cultural change to proceed at a pace comparable to technological change.

            But political backlash is just as real as the undesirable positive feed backs involved in climate change, etc.

            When you wish for too much too fast, and get it, you always get a lot of backlash. In this case, the backlash was sufficient in and of itself, everything else held equal, to put Trump in the WH.

            If the economy had been doing better, or Clinton hadn’t pissed off so many people with her overall arrogance and dirty tricks etc ( Sanders campaign sabotaged for instance ) she no doubt in my mind would be interviewing candidates for federal appointments this morning.

            I tried really hard all along to get the folks here to appreciate the fact that Trump might actually win, even though for the last part of the campaign I thought Clinton had it in the bag myself.

          3. No one person in the country could be more urban that trump. I doubt he has ever had the soil of this earth under his manicured fingernails. I’m sure he has never planted a seed in the ground or turned a pile of compost.
            Probably never changed the oil in vehicle, or repaired a fence. In fact he acts as if he despises rural people, along with all other ‘little’ people who don’t have lots of gold to buy the loyalty of their women, their children, the lawyers and the gullible voters, like he does.
            This master con-artist does not care even a mm about rural people or issues, as he sits in his golden tower.
            They have been duped by a salesman.
            They have been duped by a very effective right wing (Limbaugh etc) propaganda campaign over the years.
            And now much of this brainwashing is soaked deep.
            And sure, there is another version of it that affects democrats.
            But at least the democratic weren’t fooled by a juvenile, money grubbing narcissist, tax cheating, bankruptcy specialist, who cares only for one thing- himself.

            1. Yeah. I have more rural and blue collar cred than Trump. I’ve actually gardened.

              Trump was plainly conning rural areas. As long as we have an honest election in 2020, this is going to cause rural rage to come back against him in 2020… let’s take advantage of it.

      5. In their respective present forms, the Democratic Party is significantly out of touch with the rural electorate while the Republican Party is significantly out of touch with the urban electorate.

        What really confounds me though is how the Democrats seem unable to understand (or, perhaps, care) how much of an anchor their support of abortion is with rural voters. In the relatively rural part of the Midwest where I live, I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve heard somebody say that they likely would be a Democrat, if only the Democratic Party as a whole were opposed to abortion. A great deal of rural voters use morality as a principal means to guide their election decisions. Consequently, most Democrats will be seen as having completely incompatible stances on social issues and therefore will be considered unelectable.

        Certainly not all people in rural areas vote in the manner I just described, but enough of a plurality does that the threshold to elect a Republican is, in many cases, significantly lower while the threshold to elect a Democrat can be impossibly high. At the same time, it’s no coincidence that, since abortion was legalized, the Democrats who do get elected from rural areas, especially in the Midwest, are generally the ones who oppose abortion and other social crusades of the urban wing of the party. There are few of these more conservative types remaining within the elected ranks of the Democratic Party, however. Many were done in by their support (or perceived support) of Obamacare, while others were forced out by urban liberals who desire a more ideologically “pure” party where conservative social views are not tolerated.

        1. Hi Geoff,

          So where you live, a majority are anti-abortion?

          Amazing.

          1. No, that’s not necessarily what I was saying. In all honesty, I don’t know if a majority of people where I live are against abortion, although I’d say that’s not completely improbable. What’s more important, though, is that there most certainly is a large enough percentage of people able to sway elections toward candidates who explicitly oppose abortion.

            I feel this is best represented by the campaign literature and advertisements candidates release in advance of Election Day around here. Republicans almost invariably state their opposition to abortion while also indicating any positive “grades,” “rankings,” or endorsements given to them by anti-abortion organizations and voting guides. The Democratic candidates, on the other hand, typically try to eschew the issue altogether unless they too oppose the practice, in which case they are likely to advertise that information as thoroughly as any of the Republican candidates.

            1. Not a winning strategy for most presidential candidates. For every rural vote gained you would lose many elsewhere.

              People wanted a change.

        2. So Geoff, please explain the popularity of Sanders that I pointed out in the comment that appears immediately above yours (as at the time of this comment). It is in precisely these supposedly socially conservative counties and states where Sanders trounced Clinton in the primaries and Sanders is as liberal as you can get. Sanders:

          Is pro choice – √
          Supports gay marriage and LGBT rights- √
          Support freedom of religion – √
          Supports treating drugs as a health care and not a legal issue – √

          Please note that Sanders supported LGBT rights long before it was popular to do so.

          It cannot be that the primary voters were just toeing the party line on social issues since, in many cases, voting for Sanders was seen as a rebellion against the status quo (DNC) inside the party. Are you saying that Democratic primary voters who live in the rural areas are more out of touch with their fellow citizens than the DNC? Sanders was not who the DNC wanted, was more liberal/progressive than the DNC and yet won overwhelming support from Democratic primary voters in the more conservative counties and states. What gives?

          1. Rural people are still strongly pro-life.

            However, rural attitudes re LGBT have changed tremendously in a short amount of time. There are still issues, but I would say the vast majority are no longer homophobic, and those that have these feelings are generally older.

            Freedom of religion is not an issue, generally accepted.

            Drugs are also looked at as a health issue. After all, almost everyone knows someone who has drug addiction problems in rural areas. The problem is, we get zero funding for treatment, so our rural jails are de facto detox facilities. There would be almost no crime here if it weren’t for drug abuse. I’m including batteries, domestic batteries, thefts, burglaries, etc. We would have almost zero child abuse and neglect cases in rural America were it not for drug abuse.

          2. I think it helps to think of these things on a spectrum, rather than either-or. Yes there are folks that treat the abortion issue as an either-or, single issue, topic that is the only reason to vote one way or another. But there are a lot more folks who are somewhere else on that spectrum. As an anecdotal example, I know a rural friend who voted for Sanders in the primary, and presumably voted against Trump in the election because he was bemoaning the result. However, he did comment that the only good thing about Trump’s win would be the Supreme court becoming more likely to outlaw abortion again. So, there’s a guy for whom the abortion issue is very important, yet not strong enough to overwhelm his other progressive opinions. Sander’s coming across (legitimately, IMHO) as a stand up guy versus Clinton, and the strong appearance that Clinton got away with stealing the nomination, IMHO, led to Sander’s supporters either being pissed enough to vote against her, or to not voting, or not supporting her with the enthusiasm (volunteering, talking her up, etc) that they would have with Sanders. Voter turnout (% of voting age population) appears to be lowest since 1916, just barely worse than 1996 when original Clinton got re-elected…

          3. I think one problem is that the viewpoints and demographics of rural America tend to be far too generalized. To be sure, there are certainly liberals, socialists, atheists, LGBTs, and so on, living in rural areas. However, as a percentage of the citizenry, their numbers are just typically too small to strongly influence a general election.

            There is also the issue of primary elections not always being directly comparable to general elections. Primary elections have much lower turnout than general elections and are generally set up to bring out the most enthusiastically partisan members of a political party. This is especially true in the states that hold a caucus rather than a popular vote. Furthermore, usually owing to the lower cost of holding a caucus, the caucus states tend to be ones that have a low population combined with a more rural and conservative characteristic.

        3. What really confounds me though is how the Democrats seem unable to understand (or, perhaps, care) how much of an anchor their support of abortion is with rural voters.

          Yeah, I’m afraid you are right. As difficult as it is for me to accept that from a rationalist’s point of view. ‘Morality’ is important to these people.

          Jonathan Haidt: Can a divided America heal?
          https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_america_heal

          1. As a rural resident, I must say I find this conversation interesting.

            I have watched the tide changing in my community, from a Republican leaning county, to overwhelming Republican, in just 8 years.

            I do not know exactly why this has happened, but I do think there are different reasons for different rural people.

            I do note the comments lump rural folks into one group of “the uneducated”. That is too simplistic.

            I went to college with students who were overwhelmingly from a major US city. I was surprised to find many (not all) living a more sheltered, less aware life, than me, the country guy.

            Keep this in mind, the country people do come visit the city, from time to time. The reverse is generally not true. When I graduated undergrad, I decided to have a graduation party at home, and invited all my city college friends. For almost all, it was the first time they actually visited a small town. They were universally surprised at things like our nice golf course, that there were nice homes, that I had several college educated friends from high school, etc.

            “Moral issues” are a big part of it.

            Guns are an issue. A lot of hunters here. They are tired of being labeled as “dangerous” and in the same vein as gun criminals.

            Commodity jobs are almost all rural. Farmers are worried about the “waters of the USA” movement. Mac and Ronald mention coal. I am sure 95% of the employees at our local oil refinery voted for Trump, as did 95% of the oilfield workers here.

            Rural people really do not have a problem with urban people, on an individual basis. Most rural people have family living in cities, it is necessary due to the lack of good jobs in rural areas. My in laws live in a major city, we visit often, we really enjoy it. (Living there might be different, I like my 3 minute commute to work.)

            The hostility, if any, is not toward city people, it is toward the city political class that completely ignores the rural areas, or worse, attacks their jobs via proposed regulations. Promised job training isn’t going to win over the coal miner.

            Further, there is perception rural areas are shortchanged by the government. An example, my friend works in the probation department, with just one other person. One employee for every 10,000 people in the county. He goes to a meeting, finds out that there are 21 employees servicing a suburban community of 70,000.

            Likewise, school funding is not equal. $$ per student statistics bear this out.

            Whether unequal tax distribution is overall reality, I do not know. But there is the perception that rural is shortchanged in government services. So, the idea is, if we aren’t going to get anything in return anyway, vote for the guy who will cut taxes.

            Small town life can be a good life, great place to raise kids. But it is disappearing.

            The funny thing is, this did not just happen, it has been slowly coming in each election, just look at interactive maps since 2000.

            1. Hi Shallow sand,

              92% of school funding comes from state and local government and private funding, about 8% of K-12 education funding comes from the Federal government.

              So either higher state or local real estate taxes would fix the problem. If you want low taxes and good education, then you send your child to a private school or home school.

            2. Dennis. It is a perception, I do not know if it is reality.

              Do you have anything statistics more recent?

              School funding is largely reliant on local real estate taxes.

              Low real estate tax base in rural areas = low public school funding.

              I think people in small local districts in my state are trying to keep the public schools in their communities afloat through paying high real estate taxes. In some communities the annual real estate tax burden is in excess $5,000 annually per $100,000 of fmv, with 70% going to the school district. Except for facilities in place, such as playing fields, gymnasiums, band rooms, etc, all extra-curriculars are paid for by donations.

              School consolidation needs to happen financially and educationally, but in small towns, much revolves around the school.

              I went to a high school graduation in a neighboring town this spring, 40 graduates, over 1,000 in attendance (gym completely full). Spoke to many there who had no relative graduating, said they just go every year to support the community.

            3. Hi Shallow sand,

              The $$/student has very little to do with the Federal Government. That study is vey old, but I couldn’t find anything better, the last link is more recent (2013 and 2014) data but uses different metrics and is based on state rather than urban rural.

              I guess the principle is that states with higher population and higher income pay more in taxes than they get back in aid from the federal government, in most cases rural areas have fewer residents and possibly lower incomes so tax revenue flowing to the Federal government is relatively low, so if “fairness” means you get back what you pay in, generally it is the urban areas which are treated “unfairly”. Note that generally tax cuts have favored the wealthy and I don’t think the “fairness” measure that I suggested is a good one. The federal aid should flow to those places where it is needed. We could cut all Federal aid, but generally this hurts poorer states or those states that are suffering an economic down turn due to forces beyond their control (such as a crash in oil prices.) For that reason, a true Federalist system favors wealthy states, which seems like a bad idea to me.

            4. Dennis. I am speaking of perception, more than reality.

              I am not a Trump fan, I am just trying to explain what happened, why Trump received 70-90% of the vote in most counties with populations under 30K.

              Really, the vote was very much about voting R, or not voting D. Not one D won in my county, which shocked me. We have an all R county board for the first time ever. We had some good D candidates for county board, coroner, etc. Lifetime residents, known as good people. They lost, big.

              I do not think Clinton would have faired better in my county had Cruz or Kasich been the nominee. Trump beat Cruz by one point in the primary here, Trump received under 40%.

              South of us, several counties were strong D just ten years ago, and historically had been, as large union areas. Clinton received less than 25% in those counties, also. Further, the local offices were blood baths for the D candidates too. County offices in some places are held by R for the first time in decades.

              Again, Obama received 44% here in 2008, not out of the ordinary for our R leaning county, historically. That dropped to 33% in 2012 and 22% for Clinton this time.

              The numbers tell me that rural America, for some reason, is becoming almost completely R. I do not think this is good locally. I doubt we will have contested local elections for awhile, outside the R primary.

              I pulled a D ballot in the primary, it was pretty darn short, zero contested races. I bet in 2018 my D ballot will have nothing outside of governor and other state wide races. The state rep contest was 75-25. The state senate R was unopposed this time.

              Everyone wants to focus on Trump, but it is clear that rural America is voting R by 70% or more at all levels.

            5. Shallow, here again you raise questions when you state “The numbers tell me that rural America, for some reason, is becoming almost completely R.”

              I would really like to know what specifically “rural America” finds so revolting about the Democratic platform, bearing in mind that the alternative was a man who displays so little respect for religious principles? On the other hand what is it about the Republican platform that they find so alluring.

              The philosophies of the Koch brothers and their penchant for spending considerable sums of money to promote their views come to mind but, what would make rural America more receptive to their message?

              I had the Google 2016 Election results page in another tab in my browser and the widget that was displaying results since the close of the polls is still updating. (It is no longer accessible by just searching for “us election 2016”). At the bottom of the widget there was a section titled “Election Insights” offering data like:

              Trump won more counties where less than 5% of the population is foreign born

              Trump won more rural counties

              Trump won more counties where the median household income is less than $50,000

              Trump won more counties where the population is 10,000 or less

              Trump won more counties where less than 20% of adults have bachelor’s degrees

              Some of this we have discussed here already but, I am intrigued by the fact that the election was decided largely by a constituency that the GOP pays lip service to while doing the bidding of their one percenter campaign donors. How long is it going to take for the average low income, less educated, rural voter to realize that they’ve been conned?

              Maybe Nathanael has made the best argument yet in this comment when he wrote “Unfortuantely some states are simply not attracting young people at *all*, and are losing young people at a high rate. Those are the states where the rural areas are going blood red.” This does not explain the support Bernie Sanders got, sometimes overwhelmingly, in the deep red states. The idea of socialism is not supposed to be popular among older Americans. I remain mystified.

            6. “Moral issues” are a big part of it.”

              I have a hard time understanding how a woman who is pro choice and had an email problem is worse than a guy who says that he basically uses the (bankruptcy) laws to screw over his creditors and that’s just business or that “when your famous they let you do anything! you can grab em by the pussy!” and that’s just locker room talk.

              If Trump was more like his running mate or his fellow republican candidates I could go with the morality excuse but……

            7. I do not disagree. It astonishes me too.

              Especially as I assume he is really pro-choice too.

              But, it is assumed he will, among other things, appoint very conservative Supreme Court justices.

              We will see about that.

            8. Hi islandboy,

              Pence might seem nice, but he is on the far fringes of the right wing in the US, advocating such things as “conversion therapy” for homosexuals. Very homophobic in his policy stance and strongly anti-abortion.

              Amazing to me that a 57 year old man would think that way.

              That is not really that old, but homophobes come in all ages, I guess.

            9. Who said Pence was “nice”? He sounds like a religious prude to me, exactly the sort that people who are voting along the lines of “moral issues” might be inclined to vote for. Trump’s most recent wedding was in 2005, the same year he was taped asking for tic-tacs, in case he had to yield to his impulse to “kiss” a beautiful woman, presumably not his wife (or fiancée).

              If “moral issues” were very important, the religious right should never have supported Trump but, it seems they must have. Could Trump have won without the support of the religious right?

            10. Rural state dwellers should feel massively entitled, after all the votes by individuals in rural states count more than those in more urban states, courtesy of the electoral college.
              I live in Calif, and right out my door I can hear owls and crickets at this very moment, I see many wild turkeys and horses every day from my porch, I’ve got 14 kinds of fruit trees, and a degree in Agronomy. My shovels are worn in, my axe gets a file to its edge, my wheel barrow has plenty of dents and rust. My county is the #4 in the country for the value of its agricultural production.
              And yet, my vote for Clinton, and Gore in 2000, was valued at less than a vote for Trump or Bush that came from a city dweller in Little Rock, Boise, or Bismarck.
              With that electoral college favoritism “Rural” state dwellers ought to feel like the entitled elite, under this system.
              Note- as of this moment Hillary Clinton leads Trump in the popular vote by over 623,000 nationwide (urban and rural and in between)

        4. The abortion business is a pile of bullshit which was spread by a specific group of preachers in the 1970s/1980s. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, mostly. Evangelicals did not care about abortion before that — that was something Catholics cared about.

          People who think they are anti-abortion are brainwashed dupes. Over 50% of pregnancies are aborted spontaneously. The Christian position for nearly 2000 years was that “ensoulment” happened in the second trimester, which is precisely the rule from Roe v. Wade.

          Abortion is an excuse. People who say they’re voting one way based on beliefs against abortion are actually voting because their corrupt preacher told them to vote that way — no more no less. They haven’t turned their brains on.

          When you push them and say “Do you really think women should be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if it kills them, like Savita Halappanavar?” They’re in favor of abortion. When you push them and ask them whether rape victims should be forced to carry the babies of their rapists to term, they’re in favor of abortion. When you push them and ask them whether women who abort pregnancies should be arrested for murder and thrown in prison, they say no.

          Anti-abortion people are mostly in favor of abortion, they’re just hypocrites.

          1. People who think they are anti-abortion are brainwashed dupes.

            Good god Nathaneal, condescension much?

            Pro-life constituents are capable of having a nuanced position.
            There is a reason the words miscarriage and abortion have different meanings.

            I’ve got plenty of wonderful and intelligent friends and family who are staunchly opposed to elective abortion, who are informed by deeply held religious values. Are all religious people brainwashed dupes?

            Is it possible that pro-life and pro-choice groups could hammer out a middle ground position of abortion being legal, safe, and rare?

            Sure there is the difficulty of accommodating those who believe that any form of birth control is sinful, but that’s a fairly small demographic.

            Is it possible the left could gain traction on increased public support for contraception access and education under the goal of rendering elective abortion so rare as to make the legality of it virtually moot?

            You have just illustrated perfectly what Mac was talking about when he wrote: ”

            You quite obviously believe that anybody who doesn’t think the same way you do is ignorant, backward, uncouth, retarded, ………..

            We have a nation so divided by a manufactured tribal dichotomy of left vs right partisanship that we can’t even come to an agreement on what constitutes factual reality.

            In real life discussion with those whose viewpoints I don’t share, I’m going to try to listen better to their opinions, offer questions not arguments, and try to just have conversations that are respectful, open, and focused on policy, not politics. I might learn something.

            People don’t care what you know if they know you don’t care, and this name calling bullshit, from every side, is just dehumanizing The Other, so they can be dismissed.

            1. “Are all religious people brainwashed dupes?”

              Yes, I’d say that’s the case (in varying degrees) but especially those “who are informed by deeply held religious values.”

              BTW and for example, the Bible is a book written by idiots for idiots and is filled with utter nonsense such as: Gen. 22:2 – God accepts human sacrifices (including that of Jesus); Lev. 21:9 – Any priest’s daughter who fornicates must be burned alive; Lev. 24:16 – Blasphemers must be killed; Judges 15:15 – God enables Samson to kill 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass and Nahum 1:2 – God is jealous, full of vengeance and wrath.

            2. Indoctrinated Doug, not brainwashed.

              I come from a Christian family, and a Christian community. The fact that its sacred texts are full of a lot stuff that I consider sheer nonsense is why I’m now atheist, I can’t square my perception of reality with the theology.

              But we’re humans. We live by our myths. There appears to be a strong evolutionary drive for us to conform to the norms of the culture that we are born into.

              Call it brainwashing if you want, but all of us, every single one, believe things that are not true, and that we would have difficulty defending with objective proof if challenged.

              There is a broad range of opinion about what it means to be human, the value of a human life, and when that human life actually begins. To just dismiss those who believe that a fetus is a human life which deserves to be protected as such as just being brainwashed dupes is profoundly arrogant.

              And again, my own position is that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.

              I think that abortion should be the last possible resort as a form of birth control.

              And I’d like to see a world where we can discuss differences of opinions respectfully with each other.

            3. “To just dismiss those who believe that a fetus is a human life which deserves to be protected as such as just being brainwashed dupes is profoundly arrogant.”

              Well, I expressed no opinion about abortion, one way or the other: What I did was answer your question: Are all religious people brainwashed dupes?

              Respecting abortion I believe that’s a decision for the one who’s pregnant to make.

            4. It wasn’t clear in my post, but that was in reference to what Nathanael wrote about abortion which is what I originally responded to.

              In effect, to imply that all religious people are brainwashed, is to implicate that all culture is brainwashing.

              I enjoy your posts and admire your intellect.

            5. “In effect, to imply that all religious people are brainwashed, is to implicate that all culture is brainwashing.”

              Maybe it depends how you define culture Bob. For me culture involves art, music, & intellectual achievement, no religion necessary. There hasn’t been one religious person in my or my wife’s family in five generations. Does that mean we’re uncultured? My wife was a mathematical physicist, one daughter is a classical pianist the other a nuclear physicist. We speak several languages. Not suggesting that we are especially cultured but I doubt that if we bowed to some god or other that would upgrade our cultural status.

            6. I mean culture in the sense of generational transmission of normative behavior within a community context, including whatever mythology is used to encode and enforce acceptable behavior and group identity.

              As I mentioned, I’m not a believer, and I’m not going to argue in defense of religion. The loss of my own religious beliefs cost me a dear lover. She was a linguist, and spoke three languages including Arabic.

              I have friends and family who are intelligent and well educated, including college professors, biologists, geneticists, engineers, and doctors. They are smarter than me. They are better educated than me, and yet, they are devout believers in their religions. They aren’t hypocrites.

              I think it may be fair to say that they are indoctrinated, but not that they are brainwashed. They are simply human.

            7. Bob,
              Just what is the difference between indoctrination and brainwashing?
              Whether it is political or religious, I don’t understand the difference.
              Isn’t it just the process of getting someone to see that world in a particular contrived/make-believe way?

            8. Both from Websters:

              Brainwash: a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas.

              Indoctrinate: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach.

              But if were down to semantics, I’m probably just wasting pixels.

  2. This post is sort of relevant to some threads from the previous open thread but, I thought I’d start a new one here for more space. Back in the previous open thread, some commenters ((DC, GF) have been expressing serious misgivings about a Trump presidency but, maybe there are some circumstances that dictate that ones actions after one is inaugurated are somewhat different from the actions expected based on public pronouncements during the campaign. This is especially true when one is not an incumbent, IOW when one is not appraised of certain information which is not privy to to public.

    It is my understanding that one of the first orders of business for a new president is a meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence agencies, in which the newly inaugurated president is brought up to speed on the world situation as seen through the eyes of the military and the intelligence agencies. I have an impression, I don’t know why, of rookie presidents coming out of that meeting looking somewhat shell shocked after hearing from these guys.

    Now, I have a great deal of respect for the leadership of the US military based on stuff like their stance on Peak Oil and Global Warming, both of which they view as serious national security issues. In addition, in a recent interview with comedian/political commentator, Bill Maher, president Obama said at about 29 minutes in, “but what you also discover is my top brass, Joint Chiefs of Staff, they’re not the chickenhawks who are going around trying to get us into every single war at, you know, the the generals, the cardinals, the the the commander’s that I work with, they know that the wages of war and they’re actually pretty thoughtful about it and typically in the Situation Room, they’re the ones who are like, well before we go half-cocked on something, let’s really think about this because, this is what would be involved and they have seen what what’s involved because, most of them are people who were fighting in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan and they know how hard these environments are and and that no matter how good our intentions a lot of times they can go haywire”

    So yeah, thes guys don’t mess around and I can just see the Joint Chiefs of staff telling Trump that, regardless of what he or his party thinks, they still need to invest in alternative fuels and renewable energy because, Peak Oil is a clear and present danger etc. The CIA might also appraise him of some of the facts from their World Factbook that he may be unaware of, plus some stuff that is not in the public domain that, just might sober him up a little bit. Let’s hear what tune he sings after his first national security briefing.

    On the matter of where the military’s focus is in terms of technology, does anyone have a view as to why a Battery-Powered Helicopter Completes History-Making First Flight at a military facility rather than a civilian one? Despite the stated purpose of the aircraft, the fact that the test flights are happening at a military facility has me wondering if the military is interested in this technology. If they are interested, why would they be if there are no issues with Peak Oil or Global Warming?

    1. If they are interested, why would they be if there are no issues with Peak Oil or Global Warming?

      Perhaps there is a slight advantage to be had by flying with a little less noise… have you ever heard a chopper flying overhead. 🙂

      Edit: I should have watched the video before I made that comment, that bird sounds just as noisy as an ICE chopper.

      Oh, well maybe they are worried about Peak Oil and Global Warming after all!

      Cheers!

      1. Fred, they’re talking to you,

        COASTAL CITIES AT RISK FROM RAPID SEA-LEVEL RISE WITH WARMING ABOVE TWO DEGREE

        According to the National Oceanography Centre, the first predications of coastal sea level with warming of two degrees (by 2040) show an average rate of increase three times higher than the 20th century rate of sea level rise:

        “…. by 2040 with 2 degrees centigrade warming, more than 90% of coastal areas will experience sea level rise exceeding the global estimate of 20 cm, with up to 40 cm expected along the Atlantic coast of North America and Norway due to ocean dynamics. Furthermore, the impact of this sea level rise will be more pronounced in locations, such as Jakarta, where there is subsidence of the land…”

        1. Yo Doug, Listen here!

          The president elect of the United States of America has told me that climate change and sea level rise are hoaxes perpetrated by China!
          Clean coal is the future and I believe him! Quit trying to scare me!
          I’m not listening…

          Anyways, I live near Miami, not Jakarta and Trump’s beach resort is pretty close to my future island home in Hollywood, Florida! Even though he will be underwater and I won’t. I know this because I was on NOAA’s site playing with their Sea level Rise visualisation tool, this very morning. I’m good! 🙂

          Who knows four years from now we might even be reelecting Trump…

          1. Fred, the coal thing was just to get some votes. Everybody knows that renewable energy will provide many more jobs than coal. Coal is just a sideshow now, something for special interests to rally around and a good catch phrase “clean coal”.

            Soon DJT will be told our innermost secrets and plans, given the keys to the empire. I don’t think you have to worry about sea level rise at all.

      2. I have zero military experience, but could it be logistics?

        Supply lines are a vulnerability.

        If energy for warcraft could be environmentally harvested at location, this could be a large strategic advantage.

        1. I’ve been saying this for a while. I don’t think the US military industrial complex is capable of making that shift, because the military contractors who make fuel-powered products are nested too deep in the system and they won’t *allow* the US miltary to shift to on-site energy production from solar. But the first “solar military” will have a huge logistics advantage. I just don’t think it will be the US.

    1. Dennis,
      Forget solar, that was then, this is now and we need to work on bringing coal back to its rightful place as king! How else are we going to make America great again?!

      1. At the price of solar, coal may have difficulty competing before too much longer. Complement with wind and tied together with HVDC transmission with generation widely dispersed very little backup will be needed, use batteries, hydrogen, pumped hydro, and nuclear for backup.

      2. Hi Fred,

        Solar power output from the total electric power sector has been growing fast.

        Data from EIA for annual net power generation by state at

        https://www3.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#generation

        For US Total for solar thermal and PV net power generation in Megawatt-hours, I took the natural log to find the growth rate from 2009 to 2015. About a 60% increase per year over that period. It will not continue at that rate, probably more like 30% per year for the next 5 years and decreasing by 10 % every 5 years thereafter, hopefully this is conservative. I think when the growth rate falls to 10% per year the growth rate can be maintained. Chart for 2009 to 2015 natural log of Solar Power output vs Year below for 2009 to 2015.

        1. US Wind power growth rate using EIA data. From 2003 to 2010 growth rates averaged about 32%/year and decreased to 11.8%/year from 2011 to 2015. Data is electricity output for the year in Megawatt-hours.

        2. It’s a complete wild-ass-guess for you to claim that the growth rate will drop next year. I think the growth rate stays 60% per year for some time. Probably until solar power hits about 10% of power production (it’s currently 0.6% as of 2015). That will take about 6 years, so roughly 2021. Might actually accelerate, though.

          I think I’m being conservative in this assumption; the 60% growth rate could easily continue until solar power is 25% of power production (that would be eight years, 2023), and possibly until it’s 50% of power production (that would be ten years, 2025). At that point it will slow down quite a lot. Standard “S-shaped” adoption curve stuff here.

          There’s wads of low-hanging fruit in solar installation still. Wind is running up against siting limitations; solar isn’t. Also, solar is just now and in the next couple of years crossing the “unsubsidized solar is cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives” thresholds, and I really wouldn’t expect a slowdown while we’re *crossing* the threshold, which should repeatedly unlock new business. Once we’re past the threshold for a couple of years, then you see the slowdown (maybe 2023, as I said before).

          1. Hi Nathanael,

            Do you see how the wind power growth rate slowed? That happened at roughly a similar level to current solar power output and the rate of growth was cut by almost one third. My assumption is that something similar may happen to solar output and the rate of growth my drop to about 20% per year (fall to one third of the recent rate). If you thing your WAG of 60% per year is better, that is fine, just a different WAG than mine.

            I agree my guess about the future is a WAG, generally all assumptions about the future are WAGs. Just like you, I pick the growth rate that makes sense to me. So you expect the 60% growth rate to continue until 25 % of electricity is produced by solar. Why do you believe it will be different from Wind power, which slowed down quite a bit in 2011?

            1. I know you asked Nathaniel but I have some ideas as to why solar’s different. My insight stems from being interested in all renewables before attending the American Wind Energy Association’s Windpower 2010 Expo in Dallas. About the same time I read an article, basically outlining that Small Wind is pretty much a con game, in that the energy production per dollar invested is significantly better for megawatt class turbines.

              Wind is very location specific. You either have a wind resource worth exploiting or you don’t and if you don’t, there’s no way around it. Wind depends on moving parts that pose a hazard in the event of structural failure preventing the effective use of wind in built up areas. Wind technology prices are not falling as fast as solar pv, due to fact that solar pv is a semiconductor based technology that benefits from similar advances to other semiconductor technology. Concentrating solar thermal plants have not been able to match the price declines of pv because like wind, the technology is largely not semiconductor based.

              As the cost of solar pv come down, “soft costs” are becoming increasingly burdensome but reducing soft cost will probably be a political rather than a technical challenge. The DOE’s Sunshot Initiative is an attempt to address the issue of soft costs. The main issue is that, unlike wind, solar pv can be deployed on residential, commercial, institutional and industrial rooftops all over the US and and is being deployed in states that have not been subject to what Tony Seba describes as Regulatory Capture. Regulatory Capture is where vested interests, like the FF industry seek to influence legislation and regulations to make it more difficult for the disruptive technology to compete. Baring some Black Swan event, I believe solar pv and advanced battery technology will eventually overwhelm the FF industries.

              As I have stated here before, there are lots of sound cost reductions that are yet to have an effect on pv pricing like kerf-less wafer production and perovskites, so I think we have a longer run of robust growth than you foresee.

            2. Hi Islandboy,

              The problem with the “PV is a semiconductor” argument is that at some point the cost reductions become limited by other factors such as installation costs, inverters costs will not fall as fast as the panel costs etc.

              On solar rooftops everywhere, the price per kWhr of the electricity will still be limited by the insolation and at higher latitudes especially this become a problem in winter if electricity powering heat pumps is the future heating solution. It works for low latitudes pretty well, but we are looking for global solutions.

              Note that I assume the growth rate will be faster than wind initially by a factor of 2, but an assumption that 30% global growth rates for solar output do not seem realistic to me.

              Can you give me your guess for the long term growth rate of solar power AC output (AC is what matters for the grid)? I am suggesting 8% per year, after solar output gets to 25% of total global electric power output, prior to that I expect the growth rate will gradually slow down as the soft costs become more limiting than the PV chip costs. Perhaps the long term growth rate might be 10% at most and eventually will become demand limited, I also expect there will need to be a mix of wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear to help deal with intermittency, along with demand pricing and maybe some battery and fuel cell backup (low level maybe 1%). Total wind and solar capacity will need to be overbuilt by about 3 times average load to help reduce intermittency and reduce the need for high cost battery and fuel cell backup.

  3. Dear Donald,

    CLIMATE CHANGE ALREADY DRAMATICALLY DISRUPTING ALL ELEMENTS OF NATURE

    “Global changes in temperature due to human-induced climate change have already impacted every aspect of life on Earth from genes to entire ecosystems, with increasingly unpredictable consequences for humans, according to a new study… a staggering 80 percent of 94 ecological processes that form the foundation for healthy marine, freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems already show signs of distress and response to climate change. Impacts to humans include increased pests and disease outbreaks, reduced productivity in fisheries, and decreasing agriculture yields. There is now clear evidence that, with only a ~1 degree C of warming globally, very major impacts are already being felt…”

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161110115540.htm

    1. Playing god without real godlike ability and intellect is a fool’s game.

      We have really messed the nest and some of us are wondering how it got that way and by how much. Most others are still oblivious and rampaging about with little concern.
      Let’s hope the ecosystems survive our “terrible two’s” .

  4. Feedback from Mexico.

    I chatted to a few people today. Overall, the feeling was a bad result though we should wait and see what actually happens. People are not impressed with USAnian voters. There was some feeling that the USA could get hurt too, rising prices of high end USA goods mean less sales and more Mexican goods sold. Also Mexicans are helping provide labour for the USA economy. One comment was that Trump needs to remember that if he wants the people to work with him, he needs to work with the people.

    NAOM

    PS EDIT Missed a link from our local blood paper – NSFW

    http://impreso.meridiano.mx/edicion/vallarta/2016/11/10/politica/publicidad/01.pdf

  5. Hot time in Norte Americano on Wednesday.
    “In McCreary, about 150 miles northwest of Winnipeg, the mercury rose to 72 degrees (22 Celsius), obliterating the previous record of 52 (11 Celsius), the Winnipeg Free Press added.”

    “Many areas of Canada which normally have snow at this time of year have bare ground.

    As Canada is the source region for cold air over the Lower 48, it’s no surprise snow is lacking there as well.

    Snow covers a mere 0.4 percent of the Lower 48 states — the smallest area on record for Nov. 10 (dating to 2003). On average, about 10 percent of the nation has snow on the ground as of this date.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/11/10/north-america-is-flooded-in-warmth-and-there-is-no-sign-of-real-winter/

    1. After a quick initial freeze-up during the second half of September, ice growth slowed substantially during early October. On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year. After mid-October, ice growth returned to near-average rates, but extent remained at record low levels through late October. High sea surface temperatures in open water areas were important in limiting ice growth. October air temperatures were also unusually high, and this warmth extended from the surface through a considerable depth of the atmosphere.
      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-growth-in-the-arctic/

    1. Bullshit, the stupid Dem’s lost because they bought into the bullshit of crooked Hillary and letting Bernie divide them. Then staying home.

    2. I’m afraid there’s too much truth in the article. It is painful to realize that elections do run on simple truths. People voted for Obama because he promised change. He was able to do, at least, a little like “Obama Care” and he got elected. But in fact things didn’t change much in his last 4 years and people still needed change, a lot of change and it didn’t happen.

      Another important thing I’m not sure most people are noticing is that the nation didn’t elect a Republican. They elected a change agent. I don’t think he’s the right guy for the job but the years of lies and distortions by the right painted Clinton as a parody of the corrupt insider elitist who despised the working class. Given her secretiveness on trivial issues it was an easy con. Given 25 years of lies and distortion I don’t blame her for being paranoid.

      Deep down I think she had the interests of the working people high on her agenda but she was definitly the wrong candidate for the time in spite of her qualifications. The fault really lies with the Democratic establishment who has lost touch with the people who gave the party relevance.

      1. Clinton was the consummate insider, and idiotically ran as an insider. There are good insiders, but damn it was bad branding.

        Bernie, despite decades in Congress, successfully ran as an outsider. That’s what we needed on the ticket.

    1. Hi Ron.
      Usually agree with you. Not this time.

      This guy’s central thesis- that people who voted for Trump aren’t necessarily racist, the example of racially insensitive halloween costumes as an example of bad identity politics while ignoring police shootings of black men, and that Islamic terrorism is a legitimate reason for fear- shows the echo chamber effect of living in the USA.

      The reason that people voted for a man who brags about sexual assault, who lies about almost everything, and who threatens to try and jail his political detractors as if he were a third-world dictator, is that they like that sort of thing.

      I remember watching the movie “Kelly’s Heroes” with my then 12 year old son. The movie is a dark satire on war and human nature, and one of my favourites.

      I did it so I could point out the various war crimes that Kelly and his squad engage in (and I’m sure someone with a greater knowledge of World War II US rules of engagement could have found more.)

      Compare it with “24” – a show where torture is advocated in many episodes. 24 was not a dark satire. It was propaganda for an “ends justifies the means” worldview.

      This is why you have Trump: the US is an ends justifies the means, winner take all, let the losers die, because, well, they’re losers, kind of place.

      I have US relatives: upper-middle-class Tea-party republicans. I clearly remember a conversation with an Aunt about 30 years ago: she was complaining about a woman who had laid charges against members of a college football team who had gang-raped her (as I recall, consensual sex with one man followed by non -consensual with team mates.) Her concern was how this was going to affect the team’s prospects, and the careers of the accused rapists. Her opinion was that the girl shouldn’t have pressed charges, that the team and the reputations of alpha males were more important. It didn’t actually matter if they were guilty or not; this didn’t seem to play into her calculus.

      I have used this conversation as a touchpoint for a long time. While I don’t often see it expressed so baldly, it underlies so much of the relationship of the US body politic to its citizens and the rest of the world: not only do you treat the rest of the world as sub-human, you treat those of lower economic status as sub-human. Foreign, black, female- not worth thinking about. It’s not racist or sexist: it’s Class-based.

      My guess is that Trump voters want to be on the winning side, and they don’t care how they get there or who dies in the process. They voted for Jack Bauer and torture, for black sites, for mass surveillance, for College sports despite rape culture, for guns to protect themselves instead of controlling guns to avoid mass shootings, for keeping those scary black and brown people under control, even if they have to use unconstitutional means (and kill innocent people) to do so.

      And they did it on purpose. They knew what they were getting.

      I see a combination of “I’ve got mine, Jack” on one side, and “I don’t have mine, and I ‘m scared” on the other.

      And a game where they had to go “all in” this time.

      While I sincerely hope that this doesn’t lead us back to the type of civil rights battles you had in the ’60’s, with protesters dying in the streets, it does seem to be what’s coming, if the protests we’ve seen the past two days are any indication.

      -Lloyd

      1. Excellent post Lloyd, thanks.

        Related, and moving:

        http://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/11/09/heres-why-we-grieve-today/

        “Every horrible thing Donald Trump ever said about women or Muslims or people of color has now been validated.
        Every profanity-laced press conference and every call to bully protestors and every ignorant diatribe has been endorsed.
        Every piece of anti-LGBTQ legislation Mike Pence has championed has been signed-off on.

        Half of our country has declared these things acceptable, noble, American.

        This is the disconnect and the source of our grief today. It isn’t a political defeat that we’re lamenting, it’s a defeat for Humanity.

        We’re not angry that our candidate lost. We’re angry because our candidate’s losing means this country will be less safe, less kind, and less available to a huge segment of its population, and that’s just the truth.

        Those who have always felt vulnerable are now left more so. Those whose voices have been silenced will be further quieted. Those who always felt marginalized will be pushed further to the periphery. Those who feared they were seen as inferior now have confirmation in actual percentages.

        Those things have essentially been campaign promises of Donald Trump, and so many of our fellow citizens have said this is what they want too.”

      2. This guy’s central thesis- that people who voted for Trump aren’t necessarily racist,…

        No, that was not the “central thesis” of his podcast. That was one of several thesis presented by Sam Harris. There were others. And very obviously many people who voted for Trump were racists. He made that point quite clear.

        And you did not mention what I thought was his main theme, that political correctness, not willing to call Islamic Terrorism for what it is, upset many people. And those people were not necessarily racists, they just saw Islamic Terrorism for what it was, terrorism fanned by fanatical religion.

        Racism was only one of the reasons Trump got elected. He certainly had the support of almost every racist and Anti-Semite in America. But he had other supporters as well. People who are very concerned about immigration, especially immigration from the Middle East.

        Did you listen to the whole podcast?

        1. Not all Republicans are Racist, but pretty much all Racist are Republicans. This has been the case since the Nixon southern strategy. Trump just traded in the dog whistle for a megaphone.

        2. Hi Ron.
          I did listen to the whole thing; I just took different things away from it.

          From your comment:
          And you did not mention what I thought was his main theme, that political correctness, not willing to call Islamic Terrorism for what it is,

          Actually, I did: from my original post:
          “This guy’s central thesis- that people who voted for Trump aren’t necessarily racist, the example of racially insensitive halloween costumes as an example of bad identity politics while ignoring police shootings of black men, and that Islamic terrorism is a legitimate reason for fear-

          My point was that I don’t think Islamic Terrorism is a legitimate concern. You are more likely to die in a non-terrorist mass shooting than from Islamic terrorism. You want the Muslims to stop bothering you, get out of the Middle East. Easy-peasy. If you don’t, you end up with an average of about 140 people a year dying from Islamic terror on American soil (if you average it from the first World Trade Centre bombing in 1993.) If you go from 9/11, 33 people have died. A little more than 2 a year.

          Not a real problem, and the fact that you think it is means that the terrorists have won a point.

          I did think that the idea that “political correctness” being the problem was particularly stupid, and central to his argument. I quote from the podcast:“I share the view that the election was generally a repudiation of the left and of political correctness in particular. As much as it was just a vote for change, it was a repudiation of black and brown identity politics by white identity politics. And it’s important to point out that this isn’t the same as racism.”

          To which I say: Bullshit. It is the very definition of racism.

          The term “Politically correct” was hijacked from the left and made into something ugly some 20 years ago. I read anybody who says “I’m not willing to be politically correct” to be saying “I’m an asshole, and I’m going to be {racist, homophobic, etc.} and I don’t care what you think.”

          It is the slippery slope.

          For example:
          http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/schools-report-racially-charged-incidents-election-43476177
          Schools Report Racist Incidents in Wake of Trump Election
          In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, reports of racist incidents are emerging from the nation’s schools and universities, including students who chanted “white power” and called black classmates “cotton pickers.”

          By calling someone “politically incorrect” rather than “racist, homophobic asshole”, you give them an out. You suggest that it’s really not so bad. It’s like saying “ethnic cleansing” rather than “Genocide”. You are a little bit of a mass-murderer, or a little bit of a racist. Not so bad that we can’t live with it.

          This is a new time, and we’ve got to start calling a spade a spade. And we can do that, because the phrase’s derivation predates the US racial slur. 🙂

          -Lloyd

          1. “I read anybody who says “I’m not willing to be politically correct” to be saying “I’m an asshole, and I’m going to be {racist, homophobic, etc.} and I don’t care what you think.” ”

            Exactly !!!

          2. My point was that I don’t think Islamic Terrorism is a legitimate concern.

            But whether it is or not had nothing to do with Harris’ podcast. His point was to voters it was a legitimate concern. It is what was in the mind of voters that mattered, not whether or not it is truly a legitimate concern.

            I did think that the idea that “political correctness” being the problem was particularly stupid, and central to his argument.

            Oh good God, you can’t be serious. Political correctness was largely what got Clinton defeated. People deeply resent the possible immigration of Islamic hoards from the Middle East. Because of political correctness, Clinton could not bring herself to support deep cuts in Middle East immigration.

            But what bothers me Lloyd, is that you haven’t a fucking clue as to what Sam Harris’s position really is. Watch this 10 minute video with Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Ben Affleck then perhaps, just perhaps, you might understand the real problem with Liberal Political Correctness. And let me tell you that I am a card carrying Bleeding Heart Liberal. But I agree 100% with the position of Bill Maher and Sam Harris, both liberals, and disagree 100% with that other liberal, that idiot Ben Affleck.

            Ben Affleck, Sam Harris and Bill Maher Debate Radical Islam | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

            The point is Lloyd, being politically correct is great, but when your political correctness allows you to support a society that kills homosexuals, allows the subrogating of women, kills apostates, allows female genital mutilation and by and large tolerates terrorism…. Then you have a serious problem with political correctness.

            1. Hi Ron,

              Just my two cents here (didn’t read the whole thread), but was Western military intervention responsible for floods of Islamic (and other) refugees in the first place, to say nothing of outright genocide?

            2. Really Caelan, what the fuck has that to do with why we elected a misogynistic, racist, con-man, science denier as president? Better yet, what has that to do with political correctness run amuck, supporting the killing of homosexuals, apostates and the horrible treatment because it’s their culture and religion and all cultures and religions deserve our respect? They don’t!

              I am not going to place blame on why the world is the way it is. It is bad enough without me, or anyone else, pointing a crooked finger at our historic past and saying, it’s all their damn fault.

            3. I understand, Ron and am inclined to agree, thanks.

              Incidentally, I just viewed that ‘After The Flood film’ you had mentioned.
              While it kind of bothered me to see Leonardo commit to so much effort, at least as portrayed in the film, to these people some call ‘leaders’, and to, for example, kiss their pope’s hand, at least he appears to be making an effort beyond what one might expect.

              I only hope efforts like his and films like that don’t have the counterintuitive effect of lulling some people into a kind of complacency.

            4. Coincidentally, you get to a point where there’s no point anymore.

              The de-fanged, de-clawed, self-domesticated house-cats can meow about their new homeowner in the kitchen beside the litter over a bowl of tepid tapwater and canned food.

              I’m heading out on the bike…

              Follow The Leaders

              “Man killed man and blood was shed (yawn!)…
              Follow the leader
              (look at the leader)…”

            5. Hi Ron.
              Geez, Ron, you’re making me admit I agree with Ben Affleck. 🙂

              From your post:
              you might understand the real problem with Liberal Political Correctness.

              As far as I can tell, you are using a buzz term to belittle a legitimate political difference. I believe what Hillary said was not coded speech: she believes that it was the correct course of action. To say what you wanted to hear would be to say something else. That “something else” would be the racist bile that Trump spews.

              I believe it is a legitimate course of action because it is how it would be handled in Canada. A Muslim family lived next door to me for 3 years (Hi Shiek!) and we have brought in 33,000 Syrian refugees so far. Our lone experience of Islamic terrorism did not cause us to ban Muslims or stop taking in refugees.

              Of course, we’re not an invading colonial power trying to inflict our ideology on the rest of the world. Here’s a quote from Sam Harris on the video you referenced: “We have to empower the true reformers (emphasis mine) in the Muslim world to change it.”

              Who decides who the real reformers are? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and all that. This is how you got the Shah, the Ayatollah, Bin Laden, and now ISIS. You put your nose in other people’s business for purely economic reasons, tried to justify it with “we have to save them” crap and seem upset when those people are pissed off.

              The point is Lloyd, being politically correct is great, but when your political correctness allows you to support a society that kills homosexuals, allows the subrogating of women, kills apostates, allows female genital mutilation and by and large tolerates terrorism

              By gosh, Ron, that sounds like Russia in the ’60’s or China in the ’80’s, or South Africa up until 1990…or any number of other regimes.

              Of course, they had no oil, and the cost of attacking them was the risk of nuclear annihilation or a ground war killing millions.

              There is much less skin in this game.

              -Lloyd

            6. I wrote: The point is Lloyd, being politically correct is great, but when your political correctness allows you to support a society that kills homosexuals, allows the subrogating of women, kills apostates, allows female genital mutilation and by and large tolerates terrorism

              You replied: By gosh, Ron, that sounds like Russia in the ’60’s or China in the ’80’s, or South Africa up until 1990…or any number of other regimes.

              Absolute nonsense. Now you are just being silly. Russia never subrogated women. They never practiced world terrorism by planting bombs on planes or flying them into buildings. I never heard of a Russian suicide bomber or Russian genital mutilation. And that goes doubly for South Africa as well as China. And Russian women were allowed to drive and were not required to cover everything but their eyes in black garb.

              A Muslim family lived next door to me for 3 years (Hi Shiek!)

              And I lived in Saudi Arabia for five years. Do you think you learned more from that family next door than I did from living among them for five years? I never saw a Saudi woman’s face in those five years, or even an ankle. They were dressed from the top of their head to the soles of their feet in black garb, even in 115 degree weather. It was torture to them.

              I have no doubt that you agree with Ben Affleck. Too many liberals do. And these folks haven’t a fucking clue as to the suffering of the vast majority of women who live in Islamic countries.

              They might start with this other Sam Harris podcast:
              #50 — The Borders of Tolerance: A Conversation with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

            7. “but when your political correctness allows you to support a society that kills homosexuals, allows the subrogating of women,” etc.

              Wrong big time- political correctness doesn’t allow anything of a sort. It’s being used as justification for the atrocities. There are bigger F’n problems. Blaming political correctness for the atrocities or hiding behind it is just another step towards fascism.

              Things are about to get really ugly. The farther you draw you line away from the norm Ron. The worse this is going to get.

              This morning at the gym, the Republicans were calling out to each other who they thought were the Democrats. A few weeks ago someone else was going off loudly about their hatred for Hillary. You live in the South, you must be able to see it.

            8. Wrong big time- political correctness doesn’t allow anything of a sort. It’s being used as justification for the atrocities.

              Apparently HB, you never watched the Maher Real Time skit. And you never watched any of the political campaign either. Societies that do all that shit was supported, big time, all in the name of political correctness.

              It is politically correct to say that Islam does not have a problem with terrorism… or a problem with the way they treat women… or homosexuals… or apostates. They do.

              Have you ever heard any democrat criticize Saudi Arabia for any of that shit?

              Political correctness cost Hillary, and all the rest of us democrats, the election. And that really pisses me off.

            9. Hi Ron, I’m with you and pissed off too. But not about political correctness. I’m pissed at the Dem’s who bought into crooked Hillary and stayed home. I’ve been watching Bill Maher since politically incorrect and saw the skit live on TV when it happened. I agree with you and Maher most of the time. And when I don’t, that’s when it’s worth making a comment here.

              If I understand Lloyd correctly. Saudi Arabia would be a good example of America being there for the money(oil). Let’s face it, we wouldn’t give a shit about the Middle East if it wasn’t about oil.

              “It is politically correct to say that Islam does not have a problem with terrorism… or a problem with the way they treat women… or homosexuals… or apostates. They do.”

              Here is my question for you Ron. How many of your neighbors do you call “white Republican Christian male racist” ? Because it would be politically correct to ignore the fact by your standards. Clearly it’s easy to link it all together, but not all Republicans or Christians or white males are killers. Do you deny there aren’t some?

              ISIS is just using Islam the way Republicans use Christianity for power. Can you deny in 2003 that Bush’s attack on Iraq was a terrorist act (it had 90% support of Americans) ? Religion is just a means of controlling the masses for the powerful with fear of the almighty in there everyday lives.

              The masses are asses

            10. Hi Ron.
              Do you think you learned more from that family next door than I did from living among them for five years?
              I learned different things: about a family assimilating into a foreign culture. My point was that it’s no big deal where I live.

              Russia never -snip– but their eyes in black garb.
              My point is that the USA ignores all kinds of ugliness and atrocities when there is no money in it. I think that there are things that the Soviets, the Chinese, the South Africans, the North Koreans, and literally dozens of others did that warranted action as much as anything the Muslims do to women. There is no absolute scale for suffering, no calculator that says three trips to the gulag equals 25 women not being allowed to drive.

              My feeling is that the US practices selective enforcement. And in the postwar period what makes it choose to enforce is related to economics almost every time.

              Also, I don’t mean to to suggest that your reporting of Saudi women’s suffering is not valid, and I’m sure that it is personal for you. I just happen to believe that their suffering is a convenience for the US to act on, rather than a solid point of policy.

              -Lloyd

            11. My point is that the USA ignores all kinds of ugliness and atrocities when there is no money in it.

              Goddammit, you think it is about money.

              I am outta here.

              Bye now.

            12. Ron, it’s about money and oil. Why do you think the US propped up Saudi Arabia for decades? Why do you think the US set up the coup against Mossadegh? Why has the US been the biggest backer of Saudi Arabia, evern though Saudi Arabia is the biggest backer of Islamic terrorism, since the 1980s? Because money and oil.

              The US supports the worst of the worst if they’ve got oil that ExxonMobil or BP want to extract. It’s gross.

              Get us off the oil addiction, stop feeding money to the Saudis, watch our policy change overnight, watch “Islamic terrorism” disappear. But that first step is so hard.

            13. Ron, “the vast majority of women who live in Islamic countries” live in civilized, normal countries like Indonesia, Malyasia or Bangladesh and they do just fine. (Often better than their Hindu neighbors in India.) This is a fact, statistically; the majority of women who live in Islamic countries are in the Eastern countries I mentioned above, NOT in the Arab world.

              Saudi Arabia is a bigoted shithole from hell, to be sure. It’s the most regressive, repressive country in the world; an absolute dictatorship and a theocracy. The US should have condemned it and embargoed it *decades* ago.

              But it’s not appropriate to generalize from the hell of Saudi Arabia to other Muslim countries. It’s completely incorrect.

            14. “His point was to voters it was a legitimate concern”

              Correction, he should have said – His point was to FOX NEWS voters it was a legitimate concern

              “we’ve got to start calling a spade a spade”

              Now let’s talk about Radical Christian Terrorists. In 2003, 90 percent of Christian U.S. Americans supported a terrorist act that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Islamic Iraqis. I guess the real difference between the spades is that Fake News didn’t make it a legitimate concern. There seems to be a double standard here.

            15. Twenty percent of the global population are Muslim. Are they unified in their beliefs and practices?

              There is simply no way that we will win the ideological battle against radical Islamists by becoming the enemy of Islam as a religion.

              Separation of church and state was the political innovation that moderated Christianity, and is there any reason to believe that it wouldn’t work with Islamism? They are both Abrahamic, and ostensibly believe in the same god.

              Moderate Muslims are the best defense against radical Islamism, and if Muslims are able to peacefully practice their religion in secular societies the same way that Christians, Jews, and others are, they won’t be anxious to go back to the oppression of theocracy.

              Mormons were a pack of militant, millennialist, socialist, separatist radicals that fled the union to establish a theocracy. Look at them now: fully normalized, and fully assimilated, aside from a small radical inconsequential subset.

            16. Hi Bob,

              With luck things could work out your way, long term, and maybe even in the middle term.

              But they might not.

              And while there are countless moderate followers of Islam, Islam is apparently dominated in some countries by militant hard liners.

              It may take quite a long time for the Muslim world to become well educated enough, and prosperous enough, for the your peaceful, cooperative, tolerant coexistence to come to pass.

              We may have to wait for the hard liners go die , hoping that they don’t leave behind too many younger adherents, and that we don’t spawn too many hardliners of our own.

              If it weren’t for our addiction oil and a few other things that come out of holes in the ground, there wouldn’t BE any radical Muslim problem.

              People don’t change as fast as some technologies.

            17. Saudi Arabia promoted the hard-line right-wing extremist Salafi variant of Islam worldwide.

              Using money from the West, which we gave them to buy oil.

              The madrassas promoting extremist hardline positions? Funded by Saudi Arabia. Worldwide. There are a lot of old-school local clerics in places like Pakistan and Malyasia and North Africa who are *very angry* about these revisionist foreigners from Saudi Arabia coming in and teaching the kids this violent, crazy version of the religion. They had a perfectly good religion before the damn Saudis came in…

              “If it weren’t for our addiction oil and a few other things that come out of holes in the ground, there wouldn’t BE any radical Muslim problem”

              Pretty much, yeah.

            18. HRC went with identity politics.

              Trump went with a class analysis (even if he didn’t know it).
              We can see the results.

              Identity politics destroyed what was left of a already diminished and ineffective Left.

      3. Lloyd, I agree with you and let me add.

        Democrats have themselves to blame. They bought in on the crooked Hillary bullshit. Guys like Republican OldFarmerMac did the dirty work of dividing the Democrats. His crap about voting third party is an example of why we now have The Donald. Not to mention his don’t worry Hillary is going to win.

        As a white male Democrat with no children. I’m tired of fighting for women, blacks etc. When they are to stupid to get off their ass and vote for common sense. Republican low taxes just means I don’t have to pay for your kids education or the unfortunate who need help. Democrats need to learn there is a time to love your candidate and a time to fall in line. Also, Bernie Sanders needs to take a lot of blame for this Democratic loss. He cut Hillary open to let the Republicans pour salt in the wounds. He never healed the party after his loss the way Hillary did for Obama.

        I will continue to say “Americans don’t deserve to be the leaders of the world after what they did to Iraq” This election is just another example of why it is so true.

        1. Hi Beach.
          I’m tired of fighting for women, blacks etc. When they are to stupid to get off their ass and vote for common sense.

          As far as I can tell, all the Blacks voted for Hillary. As for women who voted for Trump, I read that as being invested in white privilege over feminism, and yes, they’re complicit in Trumpist racism.

          We have to fight for the oppressed because they can’t make the change without us. We do it because we can, and because it is the right thing to do. The hope is that if the day comes that they’re after old white guys, there will be people who will stand with us.

          It’s like friendship: you don’t measure the exact number of favours you do. It’s enough to know that if you need to move a couch on short notice, you’ve got a guy who will help.

          Be that guy.

          -Lloyd

          PS. Though I do understand the fatigue. Chill for a few months, then think about the mid-terms: things might be scary enough by then that change in the House or Senate becomes possible.

          1. Hi Lloyd, your right. 95% of the blacks did show up. Even the 5% piss me off right now. Obama was 3 steps forward. Without a fight, the Republicans will turn him into a Jimmy Carter and it could be 4 steps back. Obama’s biggest fault was he was to nice at the beginning with the R’s.

            It was the rust belt Dem’s who bought into crooked Hillary and stayed home. They should have bolt cutters taken to their short hairs. Eight years of Obama couldn’t correct the damage of Bush. The R’s just stole the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. And now, the idiot’s are out on the street protesting. An F’n day late and dollar short.

            I’ve really come to the conclusion the Dem’s just don’t have it in them to win. They had it all going for themselves until 2010 and then they didn’t show up at the polls. Now there gerrymandered to loose in a fair fight. You can’t help someone who doesn’t make an effort to help themselves. You realize the Senate is gerrymandered too, with Wyoming getting the same number of Senators as California.

            Let me know if you need to move your couch

        2. obama’s radical way left democratic party was extreme…out of touch with the majority of american voter’s….bcuz most American’s want the country’s natural resource’s including the fossile’s like oil,coal,natural gas to be developed…for national homeland security reason’s along with all job’s and prosperity they bring us. as long as the radical’s in the D party keep on rejecting the importance of energy independance they will keep suffering at the poll’s for sure, and republican’s will keep on gettin elected.

          1. During Obama’s two terms in which he won with the majority of American voters. Oil production doubled and NG increased at the fastest rate in American history. Wrote regulations to double fuel economy standards.

            Cut the bullshit Trump lies. The only reason America isn’t producing more is because it can’t do it cheap enough.

          2. …bcuz most American’s want the country’s natural resource’s including the fossile’s like oil,coal,natural gas to be developed…for national homeland security reason’s along with all job’s and prosperity they bring us.

            Shit’s and’s I’s wa’s worried’s bout’s scientific’s literacy’s in thi’s stupid’s fucking’s country’s! Look’s like’s we’s got’s other’s thing’s to worry’s bout’s. first’s!

            Maybe I just need a fucking lobotomy…

            Away in a madhouse
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnG8nOK7nqM

            1. Hi Fred, HB,

              We all know that overestimating the ignorance and stupidity of the average citizen on the street is generally considered to be impossible.

              As Twain put it, paraphrased, in Huck Finn, one of his scam artist characters speaking:

              Ain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?

              Now if this comes across as an insult, I apologize, but we have members who are telling us that the people who voted for Trump are all backwards drooling idiots, and other than myself, and a couple of trolls, hardly anybody has bothered here to explore or explain their side of the story.

              In a democracy, fools have the vote.

              I used to know a couple of very wise men, now passed on, who couldn’t read, and I currently know some idiots with degrees from respected universities.

              If it weren’t Clinton we are talking about, the feminists and PC crowd would be raking anybody over the coals who that said forty percent of the white college educated women in this country are ignorant and stupid. Forty one percent of them voted for Trump.

              Incidentally, after trying for a response from several new ” members” such as “Nate Mahler” I conclude that they are virtually ALL of them bots. Fred, you are right about that.

              Nothing excuses the better educated and more enlightened part of the electorate from some major part of responsibility for Trump being prez elect.

              Anybody with the brains Sky Daddy gives a chicken should have REALIZED that HRC was the worst possible candidate the D party could have run, but hardly anybody was willing to listen to those of us who tried to point that out.

              I seldom saw an HONEST comment from a Clinton supporter that acknowledged her weaknesses all thru the primary process, or before that, other than in terms that could not be interpreted as other than deliberate slurs on the people who were inclined to vote against her.

              Insulting people, talking down to them, is not a good policy if you want to win friends or elections.

              I said here that if Trump were to win, the D party would learn a fundamental lesson about running a candidate with historically high negatives.

              I am not speaking as a partisan, but as a spectator pointing out that anybody capable of actually thinking a little ought to have been looking for an alternative candidate way the hell before the nomination process started.

              Running Clinton was like starting a cross country trip in a car with bald tires and a leaky radiator. It’s possible you will get where you hope to go……… but it’s prudent to get a better car.

              Clinton’s grip on the party apparatus, and most of the media, was so tight all her potential competitors were scared off, excepting Sanders, who arrived too late, considering her grip on the party machinery.

              Anybody who was not simply BLINDED by Clinton partisanship SHOULD have had eyesight enough, and comprehension enough to see, given Trump’s popularity, and given Sanders popularity, that the country was sick of Clinton, and desperate for anybody else.

              The hard core of young liberal well educated people, the people who are the future of the D party, didn’t want her, and the hard core of the R party has hated her guts since she arrived on the national scene anyway.

              We remember the precautionary principle when it comes to nature and natural hazards, and we understand that while forced climate change may not be as bad as projected by the mainstream climate establishment, it might be A LOT WORSE, and that the prudent thing is to play it safe, to the extent we can, NOW.

              But the D party and the liberal establishment forgot all about the precautionary principle. That’s understandable in respect to the D party AS SUCH, because Clinton OWNED the party machinery and the souls if not the hearts of most of the higher ranking party officials, well before the primary process was even started.

              Incidentally the NYT, the “paper of record” that sets the tone for the rest of that industry, just sent out a letter apologizing, in modestly veiled words, for promoting Clinton rather than actually reporting the news, and promising to do better in the future.

              So much for whether there is liberal bias in the msm.

              Note that I promote more actual D party policies and positions than not.In the case of the ones I do oppose, the R party supports some of them as well, so I am also against the R’s in those cases. I actually support only a VERY few R party goals and policies, but that is neither here nor there in terms of this comment.

              I ain’t no stinking Republican, and I am not apologizing for or defending Trump, who I am afraid is going to be the worst president in our history.

              And while I am a white southern male, and at least a nominal Christian as well, I don’t live in a trailer park. I have teeth. I don’t chew tobacco. I have actually read a few books,including some history books.

              History doesn’t necessarily repeat, but it does rhyme, lol.

              The country and the world will survive Trump, almost for dead sure, and maybe next time around the better educated leftish liberalish leaning element will remember the importance of the precautionary principle.

        3. HB,

          You are a politically naive a true believer.

          I TRIED TO TELL YOU , and your friends who are Clinton true believers, that she was an incredibly flawed candidate that meant running a very high risk of handing the WH to the R party, and Trump.

          The D’s pretty much had the election in the bag, but threw it away running the candidate with the highest negatives in party history. The ONLY D in the country Trump could beat, and then only in the electoral college, is or was HRC.

          I worked for Sanders, and I supported Sanders here in this forum.

          I tried like hell to get the message across that in running Clinton, the D party was running the risk of losing.

          But since you and some others like you are obviously blinded by your partisanship and personal loyalty to Clinton, you see ME as the enemy.

          Well, so be it. Lots of people lack the ability to actually THINK a little, when they are considering why things went wrong for them. They always blame their problems on somebody else.

          I see that Clinton has come out to say that she lost because of the Comey letter.

          Well, speaking as a non partisan, I see plenty of reason to think that the people of this country were entitled to know that after she SAID she complied with the requirement to turn over the relevant emails, and people like you defended her in this matter, that a lot more were found on the personal computer of one of her very closest associates.

          If Clinton had been Trump, I am one hundred percent confident you would agree with me on this point.

          Now go ahead and tell us how the whole email scandal is the result of the GREAT RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY.

          Even a child should understand that if she had not thumbed her nose at the spirit ( and in the opinion of my life long D attorney, the letter ) of the law, and displayed her awesome arrogance in setting up this secret system in the first place, well, then she WOULD BE president elect.

          It’s a democracy. It’s a historical happenstance that we have an electoral college system, but without that system, there would BE NO USA in anything like it’s present form, because the smaller states that got the two senators per state concession would never have joined up.

          The present day USA would probably look more like Europe, with lots of smaller sovereign states that go their own way most of the time. Even Sky Daddy would have a hard time saying what the course of history might have been, without this present day country having had a strong federal government historically.

          Germany would probably have won WWI if we hadn’t come in, and would almost for dead sure have won WWII for instance. If those two wars were even fought, lol.

          Since you are blind, I am the enemy. LOL.

          Be sure that I am keeping everything I say here, and everything said in response to it, so as to eventually work it all into my book to be, which is taking a hell of a lot longer than I ever thought it would.

          But now I am glad it’s not finished, because I would have written the aspects of it dealing with the near term future assuming a D prez, and D nominees on the Supreme Court, etc.

          If I ever finish it, the odds are very high you will be able to read it free on the net.

          I go my own way, and poke sharp sticks in blind eyes in every direction, hardly anybody will want to read it, due to being blinded by their partisanship.It won’t sell so I will give it away, lol.

          In right wing forums I am typically called a panty wearing pinko commie whale loving tree hugging idiot, or worse, but I usually refrain from using real cuss words in this forum, so I won’t repeat what real hard core right wingers have to say about me.

          1. “If I ever finish it, the odds are very high you will be able to read it free on the net.”

            Just to set the record straight. When I do read your comments, I only read about 10 percent of it. You ramble on and on and on. It’s like horse manure on the streets of New York a 110 years ago. A little is OK, but I don’t want to have to put my boots on to cross the street. You need to learn to make your point and STOP. It would be more effective.

            I won’t be reading your book even if it was free. But for those who have a hard time falling asleep. I’m sure you could make a fortune.

            Didn’t read 90% of this post either

            HILLARY VOTE LEAD NEARS 2 MILLION

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-victory_us_5827a2c5e4b02d21bbc91bbc

          2. Actually, Germany was going to lose WWI with or without the US. The reasons had to do with oil, funnily enough; Germany had run out of oil.

            They’d drained their own and they’d drained the Ukraine. There was no way they were going to make it across the Urals to the Siberian oil fields; they didn’t have the manpower. They had lost to Russia even though Russia was having a civil war and had basically surrendered whatever Germany asked for because of it. Because of logistics, and specifically because the German WWI military was dependent on oil. They had the territory but no way to hold it….

            Germany was set to repeat the same screw-up in WWII. Germany lost to Russia for essentially the same reasons. Hitler couldn’t see what was going on past the Urals, and his generals didn’t believe the reports they were actually getting of huge industrial cities behind the Urals…

            Speaking of oil, Japan preemptively *started* the Pacific War because they were afraid of running out of oil (having been blockaded out of Indonesia and the other far-east oil regions by the US alliance). Now, Japan certainly would have won if the US hadn’t gotten involved. But the US did decide to prevent Imperial Japan from having access to oil — because of Japan’s infamous behavior in Manchuria, which was a completely unforced error on the part of Japan.

            It’s going to be interesting to see what happens as oil becomes obsolete. We certainly won’t have wars like the Pacific War.

            1. “Actually, Germany was going to lose WWI with or without the US. The reasons had to do with oil, funnily enough; Germany had run out of oil.”

              Oil was not a very important factor during WWI. The military fleet and railroad transport was powered by coal.

              “They’d drained their own and they’d drained the Ukraine.”

              There is no much oil in Ukraine and it was not discovered at the time of WWI

              “There was no way they were going to make it across the Urals to the Siberian oil fields; they didn’t have the manpower. ”

              Siberian fields were discovered in the 60s, 50 years after WWI

              “They had lost to Russia…”

              They had lost WWI to western allies, Britain and France.

              “Germany was set to repeat the same screw-up in WWII. Germany lost to Russia for essentially the same reasons. Hitler couldn’t see what was going on past the Urals, …”

              Oil was indeed a much more important factor during WWII.
              But Siberian fields were discovered 20 years after WWII.
              The main oil-production base of the Soviet Union was Baku (Azerbaijan), which Hitler was not able to occupy as his troups were defeated in Stalingrad.

            2. Thanks for the corrections on WWI relying on coal. Germany had quite decisively run out of manpower (and frankly were running out of horses) by the end of WWI; I hadn’t realized that they were driving cars on coal. Russia was basically surrendering, but only because they had their own civil war to deal with and Imperial Russia had been completely incompetent.

              I simply can’t conceive of Germany successfully conquering Vladivostok, though; it’s not plausible. It wasn’t possible to beat Russia as a whole and they had a stalemate in the trench warfare in the West.

              The key mistake in WWII is that Hitler simply didn’t seem to understand how large the Russian Empire was.

            3. “Actually, Germany was going to lose WWI with or without the US. The reasons had to do with oil, funnily enough; Germany had run out of oil. ”

              Nonsense. The German offensive in France 1918 was done without much oil and was stopped by 800.000 well fed and supplied US soldiers.

              Without them, the game would very likely have been over in summer 1918 for France and to a lesser extend UK.

      4. I will point out that it is not a good idea for a right-wing authoritarian minority to taunt and oppress liberals too much. Push liberals too hard, and you get the US Civil War. Liberals are slow to violence, but when liberals are violent, we are way more systematic than the thuggish, brutish violence of the right-wing. We don’t do random beatings, we do Sherman’s march to the sea.

        Right-wing authoritarians don’t seem to understand this.

  6. A WARM CLIMATE IS MORE SENSITIVE TO CHANGES IN CARBON DIOXIDE

    “It is well-established in the scientific community that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels result in global warming, but the magnitude of the effect may vary depending on average global temperature. A new study concludes that warm climates are more sensitive to changes in CO2 levels than cold climates….
    Our results imply that Earth’s sensitivity to variations in atmospheric CO2 increases as the climate warms,” explained Friedrich. “Currently, our planet is in a warm phase — an interglacial period — and the associated increased climate sensitivity needs to be taken into account for future projections of warming induced by human activities….
    Using these estimates based on Earth’s paleoclimate sensitivity, the authors computed the warming over the next 85 years that could result from a human-induced, business-as-usual greenhouse gas emission scenario. The researchers project that by the year 2100, global temperatures will rise 5.9°C (~10.5°F) above pre-industrial values. This magnitude of warming overlaps with the upper range of estimates presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…..
    The results of the study demonstrate that unabated human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are likely to push Earth’s climate out of the envelope of temperature conditions that have prevailed for the last 784,000 years.”

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161110153332.htm

    1. Hi Doug,

      The results of the study demonstrate that unabated human-induced greenhouse gas emissions…

      You realize that “unabated human-induced greenhouse gas emissions” is code for RCP8.5.

      That scenario is not consistent with available fossil fuels.

      Studies that use RCP8.5 as their basis should be ignored. There are many who believe my “high” fossil scenario is much too optimistic and it has less than 0ne third the fossil fuel emissions of RCP8.5.

      1. Oh dear, and here I thought the article was about Earth’s sensitivity to variations in atmospheric CO2 as in — A WARM CLIMATE IS MORE SENSITIVE TO CHANGES IN CARBON DIOXIDE. But sure, if you prefer to believe there isn’t enough FF floating around to generate catastrophic climate change results, go for it Dennis.

        1. Dennis has his own interpretation of things so he can perform his mantra: Pay no attention RCP 8.5. There are many who believe… The RCP files.

          It’s obvious the ocean will release more CO2 (or at least absorb less) as temperatures warm. It is also obvious that natural releases of CO2 and methane will increase as temperatures rise. Snow cover will decrease, giving extra heat due to albedo loss. Forests will cover tundra, lowering their albedo. Drying at higher temperatures will increase forest fires.
          Of course a warmer world is more sensitive, and it’s not just CO2.

          There is no way the sensitivity of climate is a constant.
          Imagine a forcing that just happens to concentrate in an area where there is not only a large percentage of land but one where there are vast areas of permafrost. Or one that increases in an area that happens to have a lot of sea ice cover, so the melting could happen faster than with ice sheets.

        2. Hi Doug,

          Can you interpret the following:

          Using these estimates based on Earth’s paleoclimate sensitivity, the authors computed the warming over the next 85 years that could result from a human-induced, business-as-usual greenhouse gas emission scenario.

          Do you think they mean that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase for the next 85 years? I have created a Business as usual scenario where fossil fuel emissions continue to increase (land use change follows RCP2.6 scenario) and compare it with my medium fossil fuel scenario which in your opinion is too optimistic (decline rate should be steeper as I understand your view). When they say “unabated emissions”, they mean they are using a scenario like the BAU scenario below. It is likely that warming will not be linear, that is what most of the models show. The degree of non-linearity will depend on emissions, realistic scenarios give a better understanding in my view.

          The “BAU” scenario cannot happen, not enough fossil fuels are feasible to extract to make it happen.

          1. Not enough fossil fuels within current ability and understanding. Not enough fossil fuels if no progress is made in the field.
            The technology for extraction can improve, new sources discovered and access to methane hydrates may become possible, which makes RCP 8.5 way too low.
            Remember we are predicting the future and fast technological advances have been the norm in recent centuries.
            So if nothing changes and no advances are made, Dennis may be right about the amount of fossil carbon available for burning.

            1. Hi Gone fishing,

              Yep, and don’t forget the methane which might be extracted from Titan. 🙂

              I suppose anything is possible, only progress will be made in extracting fossil fuels and there will be no advances in wind, solar, nuclear, or any other form of energy. In addition we could assume population never peaks and that there will be no future improvements in energy efficiency.

              At some point RCP8.5 starts to seem reasonable with the correct assumptions. 🙂

            2. Get real Dennis, you promote current posted numbers from select sources. So why would they represent the future?

              If you don’t believe there are methane hydrate deposits, no problem. I don’t believe your Titan plan would be economic and could never ever happen because everything stays the same.

            3. Not never just not likely in my opinion.

              There are those that believe fossil fuels leading to 5000 Gt of carbon emissions are likely. People like Yergin and Lynch, who are sometimes referred to as cornucopians, think fossil fuel resources are very large. I just don’t find their reasoning persuasive.
              Steve Mohr’s thesis reviewed most of the fossil fuel literature.
              Peak fossil fuels by 2030 and Scenarios higher than RCP4.5 are not logically consistent.

              Most readers here believe even my “medium” fossil fuel scenario is too high.

              You seem to believe my “high” scenario is too low, consistent with the “cornucopian” view.

            4. I don’t mind your disagreements, sometimes they are helpful in pushing me to think further. However, lately you seem to be going too far.
              You always were tolerant of other’s views and that was appreciated.
              Trust me, I would not be acting as a foil to your work if I did not appreciate it or view it as valuable. But there are other solutions that are just as likely.
              However, let’s not drop into the dirt with labeling and grouping. Calling me a cornucopian is very far off the mark.
              I do admit to a penchant for alternatives and see them as a forward step, but I do not see them as a real solution to global warming, we seem to be past that point and the world needs to realize it is time to prepare for a new world as best we can.
              Right now, all we have is technology and conservation to help ourselves and the environment. Will it be enough? I don’t know, the future is uncharted territory and the present doesn’t look very good from some perspectives.

              If it bothers you too much, I can withdraw from climate change comments. Keeping the site up and keeping you actively interested is more important than my commenting, fun and interesting as it is sometimes.

            5. Hi Gone fishing
              Sorry I intended to say that believing that 5000 Gt of C will be emitted seems consistent with the cornucpian point of view.

              Does RCP8.5 seem reasonable? That scenario requires about 5000 Gt of C emission from 1800 to 2200.

            6. First we do not need 5000 GT C to have temperature follow the path or close to the path of RCP8.5, probably a GT will do.

              Is 5000 GT reasonable? From the list of known fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, NGL, oil, methane hydrate; it’s possible. Would the human race be insane enough to do it or try it? Let’s hope not, but I doubt if 5000 GT could be released before 2100, it would take longer.
              But it doesn’t matter, the temperature will rise to above 3C soon and in the longer run up to 6C without a high fossil fuel scenario.
              Just remember the additional 20 percent C added eash year from forest loss.

            7. Hi Gone fishing,

              I guess the difference is that I eliminate from consideration “resources” that are not likely to ever be extracted.

              How much methane hydrate and kerogen have been used as an energy resource?

              I assume the amount of energy provided by these resources will be negligible before 2300.

              Perhaps I am incorrect, certainly there are economists that will argue with a straight face that fossil fuel resources are essentially unlimited.

              I don’t find such arguments persuasive and they are needed (with a dash of magic) to make an emissions scenario like RCP8.5 remotely possible.

              As to 1000 Gt of Carbon emissions from 1750 to 2300 resulting in global temperatures similar to RCP 8.5, that disagrees with mainstream climate science.

              RCP4.5 has about 1450 Gt of carbon emissions from 1750 to 2200. That will be too much, but 1000 Gt of total carbon emissions (from 1750 to 2300)might keep us under 2 C of global warming relative to 1850-1900 average temperature (which is about 0.5 C below the Holocene mean global temperature from 10,000 BP to 1750 CE), if ECS is about 3 C.

              ECS is uncertain, but the science suggests it is in the 2.5 to 3.5C range.

          2. Dennis, I have no idea how things will play out and I have no faith in projections where so many non-linear phenomena are involved. The Trump victory (with the possibility of a US withdrawal from the Paris Accord) was one non-linear event that wasn’t likely built any of the models. More unpleasant shocks are very likely to arrive over the next several decades.

            1. Hi Doug,

              Yes I agree the future is difficult to predict. Maybe Trump will turn out to be the best president ever…

              Even I am not that optimistic. The recent election has made me wonder if the worst possible outcome, rather than being statistically unlikely is in fact the most likely outcome.

              My understanding of statistics is that it’s not supposed to work that way. Maybe I just don’t understand statistics.

              Oh and the climate models are physics based. Hopefully Trump doesn’t repeal and replace the laws of physics. 🙂

              Trump’s election may make it harder to do any better than RCP4.5.

            2. So let’s see if I’ve got this right: The annual growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide jumped by 3.05 ppm in 2015, the largest year-to-year increase in 56 years of research; in another first, 2015 was the fourth consecutive year CO2 grew more than 2 ppm; in Feb. 2016, the average global atmospheric CO2 level stood at 402.59 ppm; the last time the Earth experienced such a sustained CO2 increase was between 17,000 and 11,000 years ago, when CO2 levels increased by 80 ppm and today’s rate of increase is 200 times faster.

              But, we’ve nothing to worry about because we’re going to run out of FF which will stop global temperatures from reaching catastrophic levels – just in time. Guess I left out the Tooth Fairy bit.

            3. It’s the Climate Fairy Doug, stop getting them confused or you might wake up with no teeth.

            4. No, no, this is the situation: we’ve already baked in so much climate change that we’re guaranteed to reach catastrophic levels. However, cheap fossil fuels are also running out, and renewables are finally cheap (about 10 years too late), so renewable energy (mostly solar) will take over what remains of the economy, at the same time as the flooding and famines destroy entire cities.

              There are different degrees of catastrophe. Total human extinction is probably still avoidable, although it remains a very real possibility.

              I believe given what I know about climate forcings that in order to avoid the total human extinction possibility, we will have to actively pull CO2 out of the air. Luckily this is possible given sufficient energy — energy which is not derived from fossil fuels — and I believe we will have that energy. Unfortunately, even if we do this, the intermediate dislocations from CO2 rising (before we lower it) will cause mass famines, floods, even more mass extinctions than are already happening, etc.

            5. Hi Nathaneal,

              Just keep in mind that most of the catastrophic scenarios are based on 2000(RCP6) to 5000 (RCP8.5) Pg of carbon emissions. An optimist about the speed that renewable energy will ramp up (usually you comment that my “optimistic” scenarios are far too pessimistic) would believe that 1000 Pg of Carbon emissions is achievable. Many climate scientists believe such a scenario would have about a 50% probability of keeping Global temperatures at 2 C or less relative to 1850-1900 average temperatures. Also note that the Holocene mean temperature from 10,000 BP to 1750 CE was roughly equal to the 1951-1980 average global temperature. See Marcott et al 2013 for Holocene global temperature estimates or

              http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

              The catastrophic estimates are based on emissions scenarios such as RCP8.5 with emissions from 1800-2200 of 5000 Pg of Carbon. That would be catastrophic, but reasonable estimates such as the following by Steve Mohr (or estimates by Jean Laherrere, David Rutledge, or the Energy Watch Group) suggest 5000 Pg of carbon emissions is not very likely.

              http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6782

            6. Yes Doug,

              You have that right, if you add the assumptions that technological progress in wind, solar, and nuclear decrease their cost so that fossil fuel use is phased out from 2040 to 2060 and innovations in new types of cement that absorb rather than release carbon dioxide as they are produced and changes in land use are also instituted which might reduce emissions from land use change over time. Without those changes we are likely to see something similar to the RCP4.5 scenario (1500 Pg Carbon emissions).

              1000 Pg of carbon emissions is likely too optimistic, it is technically possible with proper policy, probably 1200 to 1300 Pg of carbon emissions is likely and about 2.5 C of warming if the IPCC AR5 mean estimate for ECS (3 C) is correct.

              If one does not believe that fossil fuel output will peak by 2040, then higher temperatures would be possible. If ECS is higher (say 3.5 C), temperatures would also be higher and if fossil fuels do not peak because methane hydrates and kerogen become important energy resources as well, then more catastrophic levels of temperature change might occur.

              You often say that you don’t have confidence that we can predict the future. I agree, but note that scenarios such as BAU or “unabated human-induced carbon emissions” are projections of what will happen in the future. The catastrophic climate change scenario depends on that assumption and the assumption of very high equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 4.5C and very high earth system sensitivity (ESS) of 6C or more.

              The high ECS and ESS estimates do not match well with paleoclimatology (ECS=3C and ESS=4.2C work better for current Earth albedo) and the BAU emissions scenario does not match reality given limited fossil fuel resources and lack of economic feasibility of methane hydrate and kerogen (shale oil) resources.

              No tooth fairy needed, just rational analysis. 🙂

            7. Dennis,

              There are two kinds of scientist: there are the ones who realize every model contains flaws and works to find and correct these flaws. Then there are the ones who accept the “in” models and repeat them over and over and over: a mantra. The first type of scientist advances knowledge; the second holds it back. For me GF is an example of the former. If you were to actually listen to him you could learn — a lot. I realize that’s unlikely but then so was Donald Trump’s win so you never know. 🙂

            8. Hi Doug,

              I am well aware the models have flaws.

              It is also clear that the climate scientists are well aware of the nonlinear chaotic nature of climate, if one reads AR5 they repeat this over and over, so implications that climate scientists are unaware of this are unfounded.

              On many occasions you have stated that my fossil fuel scenarios are unrealistically optimistic, the medium case would result in less than RCP4.5 and the high case about 1600 Pg of carbon emissions.

              Recently Gone fishing has claimed 1000 Pg of carbon emissions would result in a global temperature change of 9.4 C (the change expected in 2500 from RCP8.5) based on the simple MAGICC 6 emulator (CO2 eq 2730 ppm in 2500).

              This would imply that the climate models are wrong by more than a factor of 4 and that Earth system sensitivity is about 12 C (if we are considering millennium time scales.)

              I am not trying to advance climate science, I do not have the resources to accomplish that (nor the required geophysics knowledge), I am simply reporting the findings of the IPCC and there are scientists that believe the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity are too low and others that believe they are too high.

              I don’t know and just go with the best guess of climate scientists which at present is ECS=3 C and ESS=4.2C. I do not pretend to know more than the experts in the field.

            9. Yair . . . .

              Hello folks.

              Re US Election.

              We awake down here this morning to news reports of major riots/discontent in many centres due to the election of Trump . . . I wonder what would have happened had the election gone the other way?

              Trust cooler heads prevail and my thoughts are with you from half a world away.

            10. There have been protests but haven’t heard of any actual riots. Media tends to trump up things.

          3. The “BAU” scenario cannot happen, not enough fossil fuels are feasible to extract to make it happen.

            Dennis, take a look at what happens to this double pendulum’s regular highly predictable motion, when that one tiny, insty, binsty, little screw is removed…

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU

            I think what GF, and Doug, have been trying to say is that there is already more than enough CO2 in the atmosphere right now, to cause completely unpredictable results in the climate system, which, BTW, unfortunately is connected to a lot of other systems.

            In other words, even if the so called BAU scenario for fossil fuel extraction is no longer feasible, which I agree it probably isn’t, that is not what is worrying ‘Alarmists’ such as GF and Doug. It’s the potential chaotic behavior of the total system.

            Now if what you saw in that video is the result of removing one little screw, imagine how well you might be able to predict the behavior of a pendulum with thousands of linkages where the removal of the first screw could lead to the other screws spontaneously popping out completely at random. Let me know when you come up with a model for that!

            Call me an alarmist as well! right now I’m more worried about the potential for completely unpredictable behavior due to unknown unknowns.

            So knowing that fossil fuel emission will slow down due to depletion in the next decade or two is a very small comfort indeed.

            And my sincere apologies to GF and Doug if I have mischaracterized their initial positions, (pun intended) 🙂

            BTW Here’s what happens with a triple pendulum, it’s kinda mesmerizing

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDU2JsgLpm4

            1. No need to apologize Fred, you have a fairly good handle on what I have discovered. There really does not need to be much more fossil fuel burned to force the world into a whole new climate regime, because the system will push itself into that new climate/environment. Much like a boulder levered off a mountaintop, it only needed a strong push then the rest happens naturally.
              My discovery that just losing the snow cover from 35N to 45N would cause an added forcing of over 1 watt/m2 globally (and much more locally) was enough for me. That in turn causes other feedbacks.
              We have about 1 w/m2 leverage to play with in adjusting our CO2 output, yet most of feedbacks are larger than that, so acting early and strongly was the way to go if we wanted any real control.
              Speaking of control
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CtjhWhw2I8

            2. And US President-elect Donald Trump has said he will rip up America’s commitments to the fight against climate change.

            3. To quote George Carlin
              “the Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas”

            4. I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean
              I love the country but I can’t stand the scene
              And I’m neither left or right
              I’m just staying home tonight
              Getting lost in that hopeless little screen…

            5. Hi Fred

              First I have never referred to anyone as alarmist.

              I am reporting what the science finds.

              We are currently about 1 C above preindustrial the science suggests 1000 Pg of total C emissions has about a 50% probability of keeping us less than 2 C above pre industrial.

              Other science suggests fossil fuel will peak and decline making the 1000 Pg scenario fairly likely under reasonable scenarios.

              I don’t know the future.

              Just guesses based on main stream science.

              The Earth was at present levels of CO2 3.2 my BP, roughly 2.7 C above preindustrial based on modelling with a range of 2 to 3.5 C.

              MAGICC 6 at ECS of 3C suggests 1.7 C above pre industrial with 1000 Pg C emissions from all sources from 1800 to 2200.

              I have shown what IPCC AR5 predicts. Note that a 1000 Pg C scenario is between RCP 2.6 and RCP4.5.

              I guess you find the science done by the climate scientists less than compelling or believe there is a lot more fossil fuels than my medium fossil fuel scenario or that all progress in the energy sector will be only in fossil fuel extraction.

              If a realist believes the worst case is always the most likely outcome, then I am an optimist.

            6. Well, here’s a statement by some climate scientists for you:

              “Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate.”

              http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

            7. The atmosphere does control 70 percent of the radiation, so for scientists to allow such an important variable to go unfettered is just horrifying. How are we going to have any confidence in them if they don’t have confidence in their own understanding?
              We need more sensors, more satellites, increased educational and job opportunities in the climate field and a lot more field teams. Better computing would help too.

              Hansen’s earlier findings of an initial sensitivity of 3C that would evolve into 6C may be right after all. We need to find out.

            8. I see a problem with the trillion ton limit for carbon. About 606 billion tons carbon have already been emitted.

              There are over 900 billion tons of coal left (proven recoverable).

              ‘Leaving aside the politics for a moment, what does this mean for global emissions? A web site set up by climate researchers at Oxford University, England, is counting the tons in real time: http://www.trillionthtonne.org. The
              With current trends, it is estimated that the trillionth ton of carbon will be emitted in November of 2040.
              world has now emitted over 574 billion tons, it says. “Based on emission trends over the past 20 years, we expect the trillionth ton will be emitted on Sunday, 25 November, 2040.” This presumes that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems will continue to absorb roughly half of our emissions — a big assumption, many climate scientists believe. But it is the best guess we have. ”

              Based on emission trends over the last 20 years we will reach 1.5 trillion tons carbon emitted by 2053.

              To stay below the trillion ton limit will mean a drop of carbon output (all sources) of 2.47 percent per year starting in 2013.

              http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_trillion-ton_cap_allocating_the_worlds_carbon_emissions/2703/

              Of course there are a few more problems with these assumptions but they will not be discussed here.

            9. But Fish, that’s only 24 years from now (or 21 years if you go by the “clock”); Dennis says we have until 2200. Yikes!

            10. If we assume the EIA forecast is correct, then that would be correct. I think fossil fuel consumption is likely to peak before 2035.
              I also think fossil fuel prices will increase and other energy types will decrease in price. So the assumption of continued exponential growth of fossil fuels is not a good one. Coal reserves are likely overstated.

            11. First I have never referred to anyone as alarmist.

              Oh fer crimminie’s sake, doesn’t anyone have a sense of humor anymore?!

              I have consistently sided with GF and Doug and have even called myself an ‘ALARMIST!!!’

              With apologies to Monthy Python!

              I’m an ‘ALARMIST!!!’ and I’m OK
              I sleep all night and I SCREAM all day.

              He’s an ‘ALARMIST!!!’ and he’s OK
              He sleeps all night and he SCREAMS all day.

              It’s intended partly as sarcasm, partly tongue in cheek and partly gentle ribbing!

              That being said, humor and sarcasm aside, GF and Doug have both raised what are IMHO very valid points that are based on an understanding of non linear dynamics and chaos theory.

              I highly doubt either one of them is unconcerned about the need to curb CO2 emissions or ignorant of the fact that burning of fossil fuels will continue to decline due to Peak Oil.

              What they are saying is that where we are right now with the current levels of roughly 400 ppm and less than 1C warming we may have already put the climate system past certain tipping points that can set in motion feedbacks and forcings that might have unforeseen consequences.

              Cheers!

            12. “What they are saying is that where we are right now with the current levels of roughly 400 ppm and less than 1C warming we may have already put the climate system past certain tipping points that can set in motion feedbacks and forcings that might have unforeseen consequences.”

              I won’t speak for Fish but that is EXACTLY what I’m saying: thanks Fred.

            13. “I’m an ‘ALARMIST!!!’ and I’m OK
              I sleep all night and I SCREAM all day.” said Fred

              You sleep at night?

            14. I’m an ‘ALARMIST!!!’ and I’m OK
              I sleep all night and I SCREAM all day.

              Finish the lyrics and take that show on the road, boys!

              -Lloyd

            15. Yeah, imagine all the cool special lighting effects shining through the stage filled with dense smoke made with dry ice and water…

              Then the rumbling sound of gigantic cliffs of ice collapsing into the ocean… drum roll followed by the crashing sound of the cymbals! A gigantic metronome rises out of the smoke on a giant screen…starts tapping!

              …followed by the piercing scream of the MC shouting: “Tonight, live, here in Carnegie Hall, THEEEE ALAAARMISTS!!!” As Doug and GF walk out of the fog into the spotlight dressed as fleecy clouds and play the first mournful notes on their bagpipes…

              And the audience goes wild, young climate denier damsels are fainting!

              Hey, ya, never know it might actually work 🙂

            16. Fleecy clouds with bagpipes! I better be paid a lot to do that one.

            17. I better be paid a lot to do that one.
              GF,
              Have a heart! Remember this is for a very good cause!

              All proceeds are donated to the families of the soon to be unemployed climate scientists!

              Besides, you’ll be quite the hit in that fleecy cloud outfit 🙂

            18. Hi Fred,

              I agree that there is the possibility that climate sensitivity may be higher than the “best guess” of most climate scientists, most of the models that match historical global temperatures well are in the 2.5 C to 3.5 C range for equilibrium climate sensitivity.

              The paper below by Hansen et al

              http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/

              has mid Pliocene warm period at about 1.5 C above the Holocene average temperature (roughly equal to the 1951-1980 average global temperature based on Marcott et al 2013), the Pliocene modelling comparison project estimates atmospheric CO2 at about 400 ppm during the mid-Pliocene, this suggests an ESS of
              2/[ln(400/280]*ln(2)=3.9 C.

              If we manage to keep total carbon emissions (including land use change) to 1000 Pg of carbon or less from 1800-2200 we might remain at about 2 C or less above pre-industrial temperatures.

              Yes there is uncertainty and it would be better to have lower carbon emissions, in case these estimates are too low. There are many interconnections within the climate system which make the behavior of the system difficult to predict. There are those that argue that the estimates of the climate scientists are too high (that ECS and/or ESS) should be lower than the best guess and others that believe the opposite.

              I don’t know, I just report what the science finds and the expert opinion of the climate scientists, informed also by other scientists who are familiar with the fossil fuel industry and who suggest that scenarios with very high fossil fuel emissions (anything more than RCP4.5) are not very realistic.

              Is it possible that there will be technological progress that will enable higher fossil fuel extraction than my high scenario (roughly equal to RCP4.5)? Yes.

              Is it also possible that there will be no technological progress in alternatives to fossil fuel such as wind, solar, and nuclear power? Yes.

              Is it very likely that both of these will be true?

              My guess is no.

              Oh and many of the estimates for extraction of Kerogen or methane hydrates which require technology that has not been invented to make them economically feasible and which are required for scenarios leading to 5000 Pg of carbon emissions are about as likely as the development of a nuclear fusion reactor. Very low probability in my opinion within the next 300 years.

            19. “the next 300 years” Really Dennis? Within ten years is MUCH more likely.

              METHANE HYDRATE EXTRACTED FROM SEA OF JAPAN

              “…The agency also said a sonic survey of some 20,000 sq. km Japan’s coastal waters found geological structures — suggesting possible reserves of the natural gas — at 746 locations. That comes on top of 225 locations found earlier. It is estimated that there is enough methane hydrate beneath coastal waters to meet the nation’s natural gas needs for 100 years. But technology to extract methane hydrate has yet to be fully developed..”

              http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/12/25/business/economy-business/methane-hydrate-extracted-sea-japan/#.WCpOxNIrKUs

            20. Yeah, I’m certainly not in the prediction business but even I believed the likelyhood of A president Trump to be an extremely low probability, though not a non zero probability event.

              Yet here we are!

              And he continues to say that among his very highest priorities is to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Agreements. Maybe even if he does, it will make no difference at all but who knows what consequences his actions might have.

              Do any of us have any idea what effects any of his policies might have on the world?

              Read the letter that real climate posted before the elections
              http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/dont-make-a-choice-that-your-children-will-regret/

            21. Hi Doug,

              Methane hydrates are a little like fusion reactors and shale oil, they are the energy of the future and are likely to remain so for 300 years or more. 🙂

              Get back to me when they find a way to produce it commercially.

              That article was from 2 years ago.

              Methane hydrate is likely to be expensive see

              http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988309000413

              As a first estimate, $CDN2005 12/Mscf is the lowest gas price that would allow economically viable production from gas hydrates in the absence of associated free gas, while an underlying gas deposit will reduce the viability price estimate to $CDN2005 7.50/Mscf. Results from a recent analysis of the simulated production of natural gas from marine hydrate deposits are also considered in this report; on an IROR basis, it is $US2008 3.50–4.00/Mscf more expensive to produce marine hydrates than conventional marine gas assuming the existence of sufficiently large marine hydrate accumulations.

              From Wikipedia

              Recent estimates constrained by direct sampling suggest the global inventory occupies between 1×1015and 5×1015 m³ (0.24 to 1.2 million cubic miles).[18] This estimate, corresponding to 500–2500 gigatonnes carbon (Gt C)…

              Note that this is a resource estimate, viable economically recoverable resources are likely to be 30% of this at most so for a mean optimistic estimate maybe 450 Gt C.

              I am doubtful that this resource will be produced in significant quantities, but I am usually much more pessimistic than you. 🙂 Maybe the more optimistic (as far as energy availability) perspective is correct in this case, but I am skeptical.

  7. Meanwhile,

    China successfully launched a Long March 11 rocket with a group of five satellites, including XPNAV-1, an experimental X-ray pulsar navigation spacecraft. Liftoff took place at 7:42 a.m China Standard Time on Nov 10 . XPNAV-1 will conduct tests of autonomous spacecraft navigation and more precise deep-space navigation by using the signals of X-ray pulsars.

    Now is that cool or what? 🙂

    http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/china-national-space-administration/long-march-11-launches-pioneering-x-ray-pulsar-navigation-spacecraft/

    1. Very interesting. Why are they interested in deep space navigation, headed to Mars?

      1. Maybe the Chinese want to investigate a potential form of “navigational security”; it would be hard “disrupt” a pulsar signal. More likely, I suspect the Chinese want to distance themselves from the perception they’re followers in space science rather than leaders. For example, China’s new quantum satellite designed to teleport data outside the bounds of space and time and establish ultra-secure quantum communications but one that could also conduct experiments on features of quantum mechanics, such as entanglement.

        1. But if the information is outside our space-time continuum, won’t creatures from another universe be able to intercept that information and follow it back to the transmitter? Sort of like a light appearing from nowhere with no visible source, we sure would investigate such a happening here.

          1. Fish, as soon as I typed “outside our space-time continuum” I kicked myself twice expecting that very response… Shambles away muttering.

  8. A few thoughts about the urban/rural divide.

    First, when we talk about ‘rural’ we really don’t mean farmers. A tiny percentage of people are farmers now, and many of them have investments of several hundred thousand dollars in their farms. White, relatively well-to-do native American farmers are small to middle sized business people. On certain types of farms, there is a laboring underclass of seasonal work, much of it performed by immigrants.

    So, what do we mean when we talk about ‘rural’? Here is a picture of a relatively small town in Oklahoma where I lived 65 years ago. This is the flour mill my father worked in.

    https://www.google.com/maps/@36.702387,-97.08498,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s47006978!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2FSaEqw0CAB15mrJsXti-H0JWGFd36oi54EGzZum8X5U_tWg-zIntdUvuj-5tY87iMXLNa7Kej3oToew78-WAk-eYxDO08NQ%3Dw203-h134!7i5325!8i3525

    It’s still there. But the mill has been gone for 40 years or so. My sister in Los Angeles cannot understand why this property has not been redeveloped. If this land were in Los Angeles, it would be worth a fortune. Down the street is the old Conoco and Cities Service refineries. The refineries still operate, but Conoco decamped for Houston decades ago. If you read the obituaries, you will find a lot of people who are dying now who worked for Conoco. Many of them were professionals with assignments around the world. Those professional jobs are gone.

    Here is a video from the town I was born in 75 years ago.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxlRRFEHefY

    And here is a picture of the principle train station. Please note early in the video the picture of Harry Truman on his ‘whistle-stop’ campaign. Look at the smartly dressed people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d3wREWkzzA

    The house I was born in is still there. The house can be bought for 30,000 dollars. Many of the lots are now vacant. You can buy one for 2,000 dollars. The downtown looks like the victim of a neutron bomb. The buildings are just as I remember them from 70 years ago, but now they are vacant.

    What you see in all these pictures is decay. Where once there were thriving communities with a variety of opportunities, today much of the income of the people is in the form of government payments for social security and military retirement and disability and so forth. Whatever ‘class’ the towns have now is heavily dependent on television. Many of the obituaries now list the favorite TV programs.

    As the small cities have declined, automobiles have become the linchpin of life. My father never drove a car to work. Now, people in these ‘rural’ towns routinely drive great distances to work. I lived in Atlanta in the 1980s, and many people commuted a hundred miles a day from ‘rural’ towns in Georgia. But their jobs have nothing to do with rural life.

    You don’t have to have much imagination to figure out that there is a lot of simmering discontent with the way things have worked out. The fact that a decent garage in Palo Alto sells for a hundred thousand dollars is small comfort in these towns. The discontent can be fanned by Bernie Sanders or by Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, in my opinion, has no clue as to what has gone wrong.

    Don Stewart

    1. Don, I don’t believe Hillary doesn’t have a clue to the blight you described. Most people have seen it and know it. The rural area in America is the only place left for the poorly paid, unskilled can afford. A high school drop out can afford to live in a trailer in rural South Carolina. Here in Southern California minimum wage can get you a bedroom to rent with a friend. Even with today’s low interest rates I couldn’t afford to purchase the home I bought 35 years ago.

      Today most college educated can’t find good paying jobs. It’s not just the rural area. I blame it on deregulation, demonization of unions, reverse progressive taxation(cuts for the rich), defunding education, off shoring manufacturing and wasteful military spending. Oh, and if your driving a foreign car. Do you really have the right to complain ? Because you sure as hell didn’t help your neighbor who got laid off work at the auto assembly plant and now isn’t going to buy anything your selling. A lot of blame to go around.

    2. Thanks — this is a good point. The “rural” people are not farmers.

      The rural areas *I* know, being from upstate NY, are still populated with small family farms which are actually pretty successful. However, it’s still true that most of the people ‘lving rural’ are driving to work in the cities (though I do certainly know people who work on farms). But this part of the country is waaaaay less Republican than places like Oklahoma, and the greater vibrancy of the farms and small towns may have something to do with it.

      We still have decaying small towns here — and, this being the Rust Belt, decaying big cities — but some are enjoying a revival. Nothing in Oklahoma is reviving.

  9. thought I would drop by and say told you so??
    now lets get to work on making America great again?

    1. So nice of you to drop by, Tea!

      Personally I’d like to see us all make America Smart Again and to do that you need an educated and scientifically literate populace.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/richard-dawkins-and-other-prominent-scientists-react-to-trump-rsquo-s-win/

      This administration may be the least science- and science education–friendly one in generations. One possible nominee for the education department, Ben Carson, is a young-Earth creationist. Vice President[–elect] Pence has supported antievolution legislation in Indiana and has even pronounced evolution as unscientific on the floor of the House of Representatives. At the National Center for Science Education, we found that creationists are emboldened to act locally and at the state level when the “bully pulpit” of the presidency favors them—even if the federal government has little or no role in determining local curricula. Nominees for Energy [the Department of Energy], EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency], NIH [National Institutes of Health], NSF (National Science Foundation] and other agencies are likely to be equally problematic and, of course, many members of the administration have declared their rejection of climate change. Should they and their appointees act upon that belief, agreements made with China and other nations by the current administration are at risk—which means that the future of the planet is at risk. Science and science education did not come out ahead in this election.

      —Eugenie Scott, founding executive director, National Center for Science Education

  10. The abortion problem is easy to solve. Just throw in some KNO3 into every municipal water system in the US.

    Not really a solution, pun intended, but it would be a kick to see everybody wandering around in the mist wondering what the hell is wrong. har

    It is a woman’s choice, it is her body, you can’t legislate morality.

    You don’t want to see a woman’s dead body in the middle of a hotel room floor because of a botched abortion.

    Legal abortion is a must when you think about it. In 1951 there were some 1.5 million abortions in the US, all illegal.

    Illegal abortion doesn’t work.

    1. RW, you said 1.5 million abortions in 1951, that is larger than the current number.

      1. Yeah, it seems like a number somebody made up with no proof. Probably was, since there is no information, all unreported abortions would only be a wag. How in the world am I supposed to know, let anyone else.

        My wife owns a book that has a title of ‘Our Bodies, Ourselves’. It is a book for women about women. I asked myself why she would own a book that has information that is so full of misinformation about how women live their lives. What I was reading was not what women are really about. Women can have some very radical ideas, which should never be repeated let alone find those ideas in print in a publication. To add insult to injury, she bought two brand new copies and gave one to each of our two daughters, I was horrified, it just cannot be true. Of course, I am being sarcastic.

        I didn’t have to read it from cover to cover, I got the gist of it in a few snippets. I read the number in that book, which should have probably been banned and never reached publication, but it did. If you read some of the content in the book, it will raise awareness.

        Sigmund Freud’s ‘Cocaine Papers’ was banned in the US, I have only ever seen one copy of that book in the United States. In the early seventies, a town about sixty miles from my hometown did have a book burning and all copies that the Germans in the town could get their hands on of Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five were set ablaze. Some people can’t handle the truth. Just like some of those childish sore losers who voted for Hillary Clinton, they won’t accept facts, can’t handle them at all. Too funny, crying and wailing and going apeshit nuts. A hoot.

        Adlai Stevenson would be appalled at their behavior. “When the Republicans stop telling lies about us, we’ll stop telling the truth about them.” – Adlai Stevenson

        Adlai is spinning in his grave these days, just would be inconsolable to what has happened to the Democrats, they became just like those rotten Republicans. The truth does hurt.

        Back to the number.

        The Soviet Union did legalize abortion in 1928. The Soviets did keep records of reported abortions.

        http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-russia.html

        The numbers of abortions in the Russia during the heydays of the Soviet Union do reveal that abortions do occur in rather high numbers.

        Modern birth control methods need to be implemented in this world.

        One more thing:

        The secularization of the church was carried to a pitch never before dreamed of, and it was clear to all Italy that he regarded the papacy as an instrument of worldly schemes with no thought of its religious aspect. During his pontificate the church was brought to its lowest level of degradation. The condition of his subjects was deplorable, and if Cesare’s rule in Romagna was an improvement on that of the local tyrants, the people of Rome have seldom been more oppressed than under the Borgia. Alexander was not the only person responsible for the general unrest in Italy and the foreign invasions, but he was ever ready to profit by them. Even if we do not accept all the stories of his murders and poisonings and immoralities as true, there is no doubt that his greed for money and his essentially vicious nature led him to commit a great number of crimes. For many of his misdeeds his terrible son Cesare was responsible, but of others the pope cannot be acquitted.

        http://www.nndb.com/people/159/000092880/

        Can you think of anything that might be close to what the Borgias were up to that applies in today’s post-modern society? Does it look like it can happen here just like it was back during that time?

        There is corruption in anything and unfortunately, it happened to those now dirty Democrats too. How dumb can they get? They have been driven into the dirt, they did it themselves.

        Never again will I vote for another Democrat for as long as I live. At one time, it was my only choice. My Dad would always tell me to not vote for those money grubbing Republicans, a bunch of greedy bastards. Needless to say, he didn’t like Republicans. You can throw a rock anywhere in my home state and hit a Republican.

        Now, you can say the same for the Democrats. They’re toast. har

        1. Even with the lower numbers, the legal abortions are about 25% compared to live births. So that is about one-eighth of a kid per family, if kids came in eighths. Not much compared to the old day of 3 to 8 kids per family. A family back then could provide cannon fodder and still grow the population.

        2. Maybe we all need to reexamine how we frame things… har 🙂

          https://www.thinkdif.co/emf-stage/changing-the-frame

          There is more to the line that “stories are data with a soul”, surely. Though it’s beautifully put, the fact is that not every story resonates, and often the reason for a story’s failure is the way in which that story is told. George Lakoff reminds us that words evoke frames which affect how we think about particular issues. As a result, some words conjure up frames that are unhelpful to an argument. How could stories of progressive ideas make use of frames in a way that gains them popular favour?

          1. Frame it this way:

            “The didactic assaults the fortress of my mind, but the story goes through the back of my heart.” – author unknown

            Words I heard a lute-rin pastor speak at a church meeting one night.

            I was stunned, taken aback. One of the most poignant and profound statements I had ever heard.

    2. The abortion problem is easy to solve. Just throw in some KNO3 into every municipal water system in the US.
      ——-
      what on EARTH are you talking about?

      1. Potassium nitrate

        Saltpeter

        http://m.kno3.org

        Urban legend has it that salt peter was once used to induce impotence in males, decreasing their sex drive and inhibiting erection. Salt peter, or potassium nitrate, is a naturally occurring mineral source of nitrogen, a chemical compound with the chemical formula KNO3.

        The practice of adding saltpeter to foods to curb libido in male prisons, the armed forces and boys schools, is a myth that can not be confirmed. However, potassium nitrate is used medically to treat high blood pressure and relieve angina.

        Although potassium nitrate is widely used as a fertilizer, its most important use was as an oxidizing component of gunpowder. It was used in the production of matches and slow burning fuses. It is still used today in fireworks, pyrotechnics and explosives.

        Saltpeter is used in many products including ice cream, as a food preservative in the pickling of meat, toothpaste and fertilizers.

        Potassium nitrate can be toxic in large quantities. It can cause headaches, anemia, dizziness and an upset stomach.

        http://www.huliq.com/8326/87440/saltpeter-once-claimed-decrease-sex-drive-males

        Also used in the solar business, has a high latent heat capacity, stores heat.

        The molten salt mixture is both non-toxic and inert. Together with the SolarReserve technology design, the use of molten salt represents the most flexible, efficient and cost-effective form of large scale energy storage system deployed today. This storage feature enables stable and dispatchable power delivery without the need for any backup fossil fuel such as the natural gas needed for many other CSP technologies. SolarReserve’s experience with molten salt includes salt specifications, equipment metallurgy, tank foundation design and engineering, as well as initial salt melting and commissioning processes.

        See more at: http://www.solarreserve.com/en/technology/molten-salt-energy-storage#sthash.WFcFkvwz.dpuf

  11. Fred,

    Some people– perhaps even you (*gasp*)– seem so lost in their intellectual sludge of technology and the BAU status-quo that they can’t think straight– never mind ‘different’– or discern their ass from their elbow.

    Ripped-off asinine corporatespeak, gobbledygook, buzzwords (like ‘disruptive technology’, ‘systems thinking’ or ‘thought-leader’) puffed-chests and doublespeak, etc., aside, people do not need to know a shipload of overcomplex nonsense to live in harmony with the planet.

    Incidentally, with regard to Nikki in that video you mentioned, if you sweep aside all that puffed cruft she seemed saddled with (along with her obvious ‘tongue-biting’), her contention appeared as simple as people first, technology later.

    Birds, squirrels and moose live fine on the planet without any technology or ‘chaos theory’.

    1. With regard to my above comment, the italics are not deliberate, except with the first word where they begin.

    2. Caelan,
      I have no idea what you have accomplished in your life so far or what you want to achieve.

      I have worn more than a few hats on a couple of continents. I am quite proud of the fact that I have had the opportunity to work some extremely bright and highly ethical scientists, engineers, doctors, technologists, and leaders at many corporations around the world.Most of these people understand the reality of the world quite well. They understand that the world changes constantly.

      As for the link I provided to the Disruption innovation Festival if you found nothing of interest to you personally there, so be it. I see it as as a glimpse at what people are doing around the world to try to change things away from systems and paradigms that are no longer working. They are cutting edge ideas in technology, business, social systems, urban design, and yes, even permaculture, to name a few.

      If you don’t think that circular regenerative systems of all sorts are a better paradigm than linear extractive systems based on a fundamental need to continue growing for ever, if you see no value in ideas such as prosperity without economic growth even if we as yet have no idea how to get there from where we are now, If you don’t want to grapple with complexity or trying to understand chaos math and non linearity, if you can’t see any value in learning and applying knowledge through biomimicry or finding ways to protect biodiversity then you are certainly free to pursue whatever path you wish to pursue and I wish you well in your endeavors.

      As for myself, I would like to believe that I’m a decent human being, I hold humanist values, I am pro science and technology, I would like to see humanity continue to progress by building on the values of the enlightenment. I think that change is inevitable, I also think that change to most people is very hard and often scary. I truly believe that a large part of what we have just seen in the US presidential election of 2016 and the recent Brexit vote in the UK is a visceral reaction to change and disruption.

      I don’t pretend to know the future but I do know that sticking our collective heads in the sand and trying to close our eyes to what is happening in the world at large around us and ignoring reality simply isn’t going to work. I’m willing to support people who are willing to take risks and experiment and fail on occasion.

      I’m not a big fan of ignorance and scientific illiteracy…
      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/donald-trump-s-lack-of-respect-for-science-is-alarming/

      And last but not least you said:

      Some people– perhaps even you (*gasp*)– seem so lost in their intellectual sludge of technology and the BAU status-quo that they can’t think straight– never mind ‘different’– or discern their ass from their elbow.

      It is laughable to attempt to characterize me as even remotely BAU status-quo. Unless you think that this is BAU…

      https://www.thinkdif.co/open-mic/what-is-the-problem-were-trying-to-solve-with-circular-economy

      Cheers!

      1. When True Disruptive Innovation Means Not Only The Ethical Termination/Obsolescence of One’s Own Job, But Also No New One To Replace It

        Hi Fred,

        Sometimes, perhaps far more often than not, true innovation is no technology at all (and even much less of it) and democratically-/equitably-derived, maintained and repaired/replaced, etc..

        And that’s a scary (leading/cutting-edge/dif™) thought– and truly or potentially very disruptive– to industry that is still seeing people and planet as a profit mill.

        Because it would seem to mean rendering much of industry/corporatism, and/or how it operates, and the jobs of those with vested interests in them, obsolete.

        1. Because it would seem to mean rendering much of industry/corporatism, and/or how it operates, and the jobs of those with vested interests in them, obsolete.

          Gee Caelan, seems you are starting to grasp a little of what we are facing! Yes, that’s what disruption and paradigm shifts can and probably will do. A lot of this is completely uncharted territory.

          What I think you are still missing is that the people participating in the Disruptive Innovation Festival, or proponents of ‘The Circular Economy’ and the people exploring radical economic paradigms such as Prosperity without growth do understand non linear dynamics and complex systems. They are not particularly pro or con anything nor are they left or right or even pushing a singular political ideology.

          They are just exploring possibilities and trying to learn and share as much information as they can about what they see as an emerging reality.

          I guess if one is still stuck in a world view where a fossil fuel based economy that needs infinite growth is the only possible way forward and that system is just being pulled away from under your feet, that might be a scary world indeed.

          The old concepts of capital and labor, even communism suddenly don’t mean much in a world where 85% of the service economy no longer needs humans. How do you continue to find meaning and purpose as an individual, what kind of communities and society are evolving? Do we need to create government paychecks for everyone? What does it even mean to be a consumer in such a society? What is the future role of governments, businesses, higher education, etc… etc…

          Lot’s and lot’s of questions, that much is for sure.

          1. Hi Fred,

            People can use a lot of words to make a very simple concept, complicated.

            I’m talking about appropriate technology; ethically and equitably-derived in a care of earth, animals and people context.

            Anything else is a fail.

            And the way ‘we’ are going about it now, it’s a failure-in-progress.

            Self-described ‘thought-leaders’ propaganda, by the way, and for example, and as mentioned often in your links, including here and in your previous Tony Seba ones, are red-flags.

            We all need to be consulted and to be able to have adequate input in and control over what affects our lives. And as I’ve said before; we don’t need any ‘suits’ telling us what’s good for us.

            1. Self-described ‘thought-leaders’, by the way and for example, as mentioned often in your links, including with your more recent one, as well, if recalled, in your previous Tony Seba links are red-flags.

              You are still confusing the messenger with the message. If you wish to use Tony Seba as an example.

              He could grow dreadlocks, cover himself in gold paint and wear a pink G-string instead of a suit while giving his presentation to the sounds of reggae music. It wouldn’t make a difference…

              He isn’t selling any merchandise or trying to convince anyone to follow him on a mission to the Bastille to overthrow the king and the lords or start a revolution. He is not a self describe thought leader and he is not in any way trying to change the world with any kind of technology.

              What he does is describe a phenomenon which is called disruption. He explains what it is, how and when it happens and he gives examples of past technological and social disruptions. Then goes on to describe where he thinks disruption may be occurring.

              For the sake of argument I’ll just cite one of his examples as an illustration. At one point in the not too distant past Kodak was a well established business that produced film for cameras.

              Then along came some innovators and developed the technology that led to the ubiquitous use and dissemination of today’s digital camera technology that is now incorporated in billions of smartphones that people use to send each other digital images every day! Today nobody uses film any more and Kodak is out of business.

              Now, at no point in time did anyone wake up one day and make a conscious decision and start plotting to put Kodak out of business. The suits at Kodak or any other suits for that matter never saw it coming.They were simply caught completely by surprise. That’s how disruption works.

              Now whether or not the use of film cameras or digital imaging technology is good or bad for humanity or the planet is a completely separate discussion. However, part of the discussion around the idea of say the circular versus the linear extractive model of economic organisation does begin to try to address such issues.

              That may or may not lead to disruptions in the way we organize our societies and you and anyone else can chose to be part of that discourse and either try to lead, follow, or get just get out of the way and let Donald Trump and his associates try to bring back Kodak or king coal… I’m guessing they will fail.

              In the meantime I will be sprouting dreadlocks and wearing my new pink G-string while I jog along the beach in front of Trump’s Miami Beach resort listening to Bob Marley on my smartphone while live chatting with people giving their presentations at the Disruptive Innovation Festival. Who knows, someone might make a video of me and then post it on Youtube and you too can watch it. 🙂

            2. Hi Fred,

              I was in fact going to somehow integrate or replace ‘suits’ with ‘sociopath’ (with maybe the word, ‘corporate’ or ‘corporatocracy’ thrown in for good measure) using the speedy and convenient Coyne-operated editor, but ran out of change and had other things to attend to. I also figured that suits was a good enough idiom for some of that anyway.

              And thanks for playing into it as it plays nicely into where we find ourselves today, in the context of an increasingly sociopathological society (where analyses of its technologies and disruptive technologies might be rather like analyses of the results of sociopaths.)

              That said, I did notice that your most recent link also includes the term, ‘sharing economy’ in the blurb under the About link. I think it’s a better term than ‘circular economy’, because it seems to better reflect where we need to go.

              “You are still confusing the messenger with the message. If you wish to use Tony Seba as an example.” ~ Fred Magyar

              Did I write Tony Seba links, rather then Seba, themself?

              “Caelan, I have no idea what you have accomplished in your life… I have worn more than a few hats on a couple of continents. I am quite proud of the fact that I have had the opportunity to work some extremely bright and highly ethical scientists, engineers, doctors, technologists, and leaders at many corporations around the world…” ~ Fred Magyar

              Uh-huh… so impressive… Aside from working with corporations, were there any other ‘people’?

            3. The suits at Kodak or any other suits for that matter never saw it coming.They were simply caught completely by surprise.

              Actually, Kodak was part of digital photography from the very beginning. But…they weren’t able to translate their dominance of film into dominance of digital.

              THAT’s a big lesson: transitions can’t be controlled by industry leaders, even if they have the very best foresight in the world. That’s why Tesla terrifies the existing car companies. They know how to do EVs, but once the genie of disruption is unleashed, there’s no way to control the outcome…

            4. Cameras were a small part of Kodak’s business with the larger part consisting of film, processing equipment chemicals, and paper. I’ve read an analysis that suggests that Kodak failed to see the opportunity to become a portal for digital photography like flickr, facebook, instagram, snapchat and others. These services became a big part of how people access and share photos while Kodak’s business dwindled away to nothing.

              The suits at Kodak probably never realized just how the internet was going to affect their business until it was way too late.

            5. Kodak failed to see the opportunity to become a portal for digital photography like flickr, facebook, instagram, snapchat and others. These services became a big part of how people access and share photos while Kodak’s business dwindled away to nothing.

              Flickr and the rest have much smaller revenues than Kodak’s historic numbers (about $50B in today’s dollars). If Kodak had provided all of these services and gotten all of these revenues (a very unlikely scenario given that Facebook for instance, despite the portrait pictures, wasn’t really oriented around photography services), they STILL would have declined sharply.

              The suits at Kodak probably never realized just how the internet was going to affect their business

              That may be true, but I can’t imagine how they would have prevented it in any case. Online services are a completely different industry. That’s the point – there’s no particular reason to expect that the companies that dominate a traditional industry will have success in a new disruptive industry.

    1. He said nothing that wasn’t said on other places of the internet, many times over.
      He was detrimental- the Trumpists used his statements as their own.

      Moore is a complete dope

  12. The chain smoking hard drinking compulsive gambling William Bennett wanted to behead drug dealers in the US. Also, he was appointed Secretary of Education, idiocy has no bounds. Stupid hypocrites run amok in America! har

    The French were fairly adept at using a guillotine to chop a lot of heads off of aristocrats, if you had a new pair of shoes, you were thrown into the fire. French sociologists studied the severed heads to determine how long the head remained conscious.

    We’re all in the same boat.

    The pot calling the kettle black, there is nothing new under the sun.

  13. Here is a wake up call for Americans. Maybe you don’t have it so bad after all. Of course you could have just put a guy in the Whitehouse that will set us on the road to something similar.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/22/nothings-changed-10-years-after-french-riots-banlieues-remain-in-crisis

    This is about the country that helped us win our freedom then took drastic measure to remove the elite. Now they are in a sad situation, it can happen.

    1. This is about the country that helped us win our freedom then took drastic measure to remove the elite. Now they are in a sad situation, it can happen.

      Maybe we should just dismantle the Statue of Liberty and ship it back to them… they can sell it for scrap!

      1. Hi Fred,

        THE KU KLUX KLAN SAYS IT WILL HOLD A TRUMP VICTORY PARADE IN NORTH CAROLINA

        http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-updates-trail-guide-kkk-trump-north-carolina-1478822255-htmlstory.html

        Many years ago my wife and I attended a jazz performance in NY. At the door we were handed the following “POSTCARD” which somehow wound up a bookmark in one of her math books. I found it while cleaning up and your comment about “The Statue” reminded me of its existence. I’ve just now retyped the text, no doubt with errors, but the above headline makes it especially relevant — and sad.

        “LIBERTY ENLIGHTENING THE WORLD,” indeed! The expression makes us sick. This government is a howling farce. It cannot or rather does not protect its citizens within its own borders. Shove the Bartholdi statue, torch and all, into the ocean until the ‘liberty’ of this country is such as to make it possible for an inoffensive and industrious colored man to earn a respectable living for himself and family, without being ku-kluxed, perhaps murdered, his daughter and wife outraged, and his property destroyed. The idea of the “liberty” of this country “enlightening the world,” or even Patagonia, is ridiculous in the extreme.”

          1. Hi Fred,

            Funny? I suppose but in a humor-pathos kind if way. Owing to my privileged background I cannot relate to racial or gender prejudice: privileged in the sense of spending so much of my life immersed in “foreign cultures”. Further, my wife and two Daughters are/were all much smarter than I which doesn’t bother me even slightly, it just makes me proud of them.

            1. Hey Doug,
              I can relate. I was born in Brazil to Hungarian parents and part of my ancestry traces back to royal Danes. I grew up going back and forth between the US and Brazil with numerous stints in Europe. I speak three languages fluently and and get by in two more.

              I can find myself across the table from the CEO of a major corporation or drink a beer with an illegal immigrant and not be overly impressed by power and wealth of the former nor feel the need to think myself superior to the other.

              While I myself have little wealth or personal power I do think of myself as having lived a highly privileged life. My own son is also a math whiz and much smarter than I and studying computer science.

              Though I have to admit that I am quite despondent and deeply troubled by the turn of events that have placed an anti science, racist, xenophobic homophobic and misogynistic individual at the helm of the USA.

              Who knows how things will turn out but I don’t think this bodes well for the future, I sincerely hope I am wrong!

            2. Donald Trump is a New Yorker and a life long Democrat who hijacked the Republican Party, duped them big time.

              If he is a racist and a xenophobe, why would he marry a woman from a foreign country?

              Doesn’t really fit the description.

              As for the Ku Klux Klan, they are a product of the southern Democrats.

              Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s. After a period of decline, white Protestant nativist groups revived the Klan in the early 20th century, burning crosses and staging rallies, parades and marches denouncing immigrants, Catholics, Jews, blacks and organized labor. The civil rights movement of the 1960s also saw a surge of Ku Klux Klan activity, including bombings of black schools and churches and violence against black and white activists in the South.

              http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan

              History tells a different story.

            3. History tells a different story.
              Yeah, Abe Lincoln was a Republican, times change…

            4. We had to destroy the Democrat Party to save the Democrat Party are true words today.

              The real goal is a dissolving of the Republican and Democrat parties, bote of dem. There they were, gone.

              America will survive with those two parties disbanded for good. It is as bad as it can get.

              And once they are both gone and gone for good, happy days will be here again.

              From the New York Post:

              Campaign rhetoric on both sides — and venomously pro-Clinton coverage in most of the media — often obscured a fundamental truth. Donald Trump is a practical man, and a lifelong New Yorker — not some hick bigot.

              And shame on Sen. Harry Reid for blaring on post-election about Trump’s “grave sins” of “bigotry and hate”: Responsible leaders right now should be telling America to wait and see what the 45th president actually does.

              His reported choice of GOP chairman Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff, for example, is a clear sign the crazies won’t be driving the ship.

              We understand that many Americans, having been led to believe that Trump was a horrible ogre with no chance of winning, were shocked by his victory. Peaceful protest is a perfectly acceptable response, though we hope some will start realizing that The New York Times and its ilk may have been wrong on all counts.

              We also know that it’s not Hillary Clinton voters pushing some protests into violence — but rather anarchist agitators who’ve plagued the nation’s far left for decades.

              That said, we hope more Democratic leaders follow Clinton and President Obama in aiming to calm the waters — and in sitting on idiots like Harry Reid.

              http://nypost.com/2016/11/13/democrats-should-join-trump-in-calming-the-nation/


            5. If he is a racist and a xenophobe, why would he marry a woman from a foreign country?

              He didn’t marry a woman from another race, and as for marrying a foreigner, it’s his version of a mail-order bride: someone willing to put up with his crap for a few years until he gets bored and divorces her. He is a serial adulterer, after all. Couldn’t find a citizen who would put up with him.

              History tells a different story.
              And your constitution was written by rich, slave-owning white supremacists who denied the vote to women. The Republican party of today bears little resemblance to the party of 150 years ago.

              -Lloyd

            6. I know, Trump’s book of faults would fill every library on the planet.

              Faultfinding always makes your blood boil, it can’t be helped. Human nature rules the beast. The Old Adam in us all takes over.

              It is easy to fit a lot of vitriol into the bias, the many sins of Trump will generate much hate.

              Manifested by those who protest and riot, it maybe will continue.

              It might not stop. The situation can get worse.

              Since Hillary allegedly activated the campaign to subvert the process of the selection of the Republican candidate, the weaker or weakest candidate chosen, she can only blame her own ambitions.

              If you want to find fault, begin there.

    2. It is generally true that elimination of the French elite was no loss to the people of France, with some notable exceptions. Some very good and decent people did lose their lives, including at least a couple of science giants of the times, but as they say, you gotta break eggs to make omelettes.

      Now I don’t want to sound too much like Trump, and I haven’t read the link, but I read the Guardian regularly, and there is no doubt the people there have their hearts in the right places. But they also tend to believe in their own political agenda as if it consisted of religious absolutes.

      Diversity is fine, in small quantities. We live in a Darwinian world, life is all Darwinian, even the cooperative aspects thereof.

      When you mix cultures that have diametrically opposed values, you get a fight. Anybody who believes otherwise is an IDIOT, to put it bluntly.

      When some people find themselves falling WAY behind economically, you should expect them to riot.

      I am talking purely practical aspects of human relationships and cultural relationships.

      But if anybody here wants to see religious riots here in the USA on a scale that will utterly dwarf the occasional church bombing or lynching we have experienced in recent decades, well………

      You should and can expect such riots if we allow in enough people who are immersed in cultures and religions opposed to our own, and they settle in particular communities, and resist assimilation.

      Enough diversity means the end of any hitherto established national identity as such, political or cultural. I am not saying we will ever see that much diversity, but the truth of this statement should be obvious.

      This last election should enable those who doubt it to see a little into the issue.

      My belief is that the national culture will come to accept same sex marriage, etc, with the death of the two oldest generations, and but we are at this time about evenly split on this and similar fundamental cultural questions. Everything else equal, these issues put Trump in the WH.

      Fortunately as a nation, we do ( mostly ) share the common value of accepting the ruling of our courts and the laws passed by our elected leaders, so we don’t experience much outright violence in respect to sexual rights.

      Unfortunately immigrants from nations that have historically been and are currently ruled by men and priests don’t share this value with us.

  14. 2016 ‘VERY LIKELY’ TO BE WORLD’S WARMEST YEAR

    “2016 looks poised to be the warmest year on record globally, according to preliminary data. With data from just the first nine months, scientists are 90% certain that 2016 will pass the mark set by 2015. Temperatures from January to September were 1.2C above pre-industrial levels, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”

    “In parts of Arctic Russia, temperatures were 6°C to 7°C above the long-term average. Many other Arctic and sub-Arctic regions in Russia, Alaska and north-west Canada were at least 3°C above average. We are used to measuring temperature records in fractions of a degree, and so this is different,” said Mr Taalas.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37949877

  15. GLOBAL CARBON GROWTH STALLS AS US COAL CONTINUES TO SLUMP

    “Declining consumption of coal in the US last year played a significant role in keeping down global emissions of carbon dioxide, according to a new report. The Global Carbon Project annual analysis shows that CO2 emissions were almost flat for the third year in a row, despite a rise in economic growth. The slowdown in the Chinese economy since 2012 has also been a key factor limiting carbon. Experts believe it is too early to say if global CO2 emissions have peaked.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37949878

    1. However, according to R Walter (parallel thread) coal consumption worldwide is increasing, not decreasing: INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2016

      “In the IEO2016 Reference case, coal remains the second-largest energy source worldwide, behind petroleum and other liquids, until 2030. From 2030 through 2040, it is the third-largest energy source, behind both liquid fuels and natural gas. World coal consumption increases from 2012 to 2040 at an average rate of 0.6%/year, from 153 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 169 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 180 quadrillion Btu in 2040”

      https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/coal.cfm

      1. Nothing to worry about Doug, at this point it looks like the biggest danger to the world is not climate change or overpopulation. Those are mere side effects.
        It’s very likely that all those huge predicaments we have been wasting our time with will be eradicated by a bigger one.

        As intellectual exercises climate change, resource analysis and overpopulation will still be discussed, but they lack significance now.

  16. Food for thought,

    O2 DROPPING FASTER THAN CO2 RISING

    New research shows oxygen depletion in the atmosphere accelerating since 2003, coinciding with the biofuels boom; climate policies that focus exclusively on carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans…

    Mention climate change and everyone thinks of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect heating the earth, glaciers melting, rising sea levels, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and a host of other environmental catastrophes. Climate mitigating policies are almost all aimed at reducing CO2, by whatever means…

    Within the past several years, however, scientists have found that oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere has been dropping, and at higher rates than just the amount that goes into the increase of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, some 2 to 4-times as much, and accelerating since 2002-2003. Simultaneously, oxygen levels in the world’s oceans have also been falling… It is becoming clear that getting rid of CO2 is not enough; oxygen has its own dynamic and the rapid decline in atmospheric O2 must also be addressed.

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

    1. Apparently removing half the forest cover and acidifying the ocean has not been a very good idea.

      Although I do wonder about the effect upon humans or other large mammals.
      The people in Colorado Springs are living with 78% of the oxygen at sea level.

  17. Doug,

    Fuggedaboutit! Humans can’t change no climate!

    This message brought to you by anaerobic bacteria for a better world…

    We have been waiting in the wings for almost 3.5 billion years to get our revenge on cyanobacteria!
    And all you dumbass philosophers wondering about the meaning and purpose of life?
    Well now you know, it was to recreate the conditions for us anaerobes! And now we have elected Donald Trump!

    🙂

    1. Well I met some purple sulfur-fixing bacteria one time but they weren’t friendly: You see, I tossed a boulder into an alkali lake and a whole bunch of them came up for a look and then they just disappeared. No, not friendly at all but maybe they said the same about me. 🙂

      1. No, not friendly at all but maybe they said the same about me.

        The forms of life this planet harbors are just so incredible!

        Below the surface, anoxygenic photosynthesizers using other substances than carbon dioxide for photosynthesis also contribute to primary production in many soda lakes. These include purple sulfur bacteria such as Ectothiorhodospiraceae and purple non-sulfur bacteria such as Rhodobacteraceae (for example the species Rhodobaca bogoriensis isolated from Lake Bogoria.[15])
        The photosynthezising bacteria provide a food source for a vast diversity of aerobic and anaerobic organotrophic microorganisms from phyla including Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Spirochaetes, Firmicutes, Themotogae, Deinococci, Planctomycetes, Actinobacteria, Gemmatimonadetes, and more.[1][3] The stepwise anaerobic fermentation of organic compounds originating from the primary producers, results in one-carbon (C1) compounds such as methanol and methylamine.
        At the bottom of lakes (in the sediment or hypolimnion, methanogens use these compounds to derive energy, by producing methane, a procedure known as methanogenesis. A diversity of methanogens including the archaeal genera Methanocalculus, Methanolobus, Methanosaeta, Methanosalsus and Methanoculleus have been found in soda lake sediments.[1][16] When the resulting methane reaches the aerobic water of a soda lake, it can be consumed by methane-oxidizing bacteria such as Methylobacter or Methylomicrobium.[1]

        Source Wikipedia

        Do you think Donald Trump has any curiosity whatsoever about the natural world?

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUxZwEYeuXE
        Carl Sagan – Pale Blue Dot

        1. “Do you think Donald Trump has any curiosity whatsoever about the natural world?”

          I imagine Donald Trump thinks the natural world is a golf course and I worry he may be a major obstruction on the way to avoiding a (possibly inescapable) crisis. But there has been so much unadulterated crap put forward throughout the election campaign this may be a wrong guess: I hope so anyway.

  18. On Continued Scientific-Technological Ideology In A Technologically-Pseudo-advanced Sociopathic Culture

    Continued from here

    Another explanation of Milgram’s results invokes belief perseverance as the underlying cause. What ‘people cannot be counted on is to realize that a seemingly benevolent authority is in fact malevolent, even when they are faced with overwhelming evidence which suggests that this authority is indeed malevolent. Hence, the underlying cause for the subjects’ striking conduct could well be conceptual, and not the alleged ‘capacity of man to abandon his humanity . . . as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures.’ ‘

    …social psychologist Clifford Stott discussed the influence that the idealism of scientific inquiry had on the volunteers. He remarked: ‘The influence is ideological. It’s about what they believe science to be, that science is a positive product, it produces beneficial findings and knowledge to society that are helpful for society. So there’s that sense of science is providing some kind of system for good.’

    Building on the importance of idealism, some recent researchers suggest the ‘engaged followership’ perspective. Based on an examination of Milgram’s archive, in a recent study, social psychologists Alex Haslam, Stephen Reicher and Megan Birney, at the University of Queensland, discovered that people are less likely to follow the prods of an experimental leader when the prod resembles an order. However, when the prod stresses the importance of the experiment for science (i.e. ‘The experiment requires you to continue’), people are more likely to obey. The researchers suggest the perspective of ‘engaged followership’: that people are not simply obeying the orders of a leader, but instead are willing to continue the experiment because of their desire to support the scientific goals of the leader and because of a lack of identification with the learner. Also a neuroscientific study supports this perspective, namely watching the learner receive electric shocks, does not activate brain regions involving empathic concerns.” ~ Wikipedia

    See also here.

    “In any case I’ll defer to the civil engineers who sign their names to the permits… I have had the opportunity to work [with] …scientists, engineers, doctors, technologists, and leaders at many corporations around the world…” ~ Fred Magyar

    “…[e]lite professional groups . . . have come to exert a ‘radical monopoly’ on such basic human activities as health, agriculture, home-building, and learning, leading to a ‘war on subsistence’ that robs peasant societies of their vital skills and know-how. The result of much economic development is very often not human flourishing but ‘modernized poverty,’ dependency, and an out-of-control system in which the humans become worn-down mechanical parts.” ~ Ivan Illich

    “The Circular Economy might, and I emphasize MIGHT, be a way to bring all of the above to work in a new paradigm. Then again it might not and we all die anyway.” ~ Fred Magyar

    Especially if we; pay less attention than we should, such as to where our technology comes from (and how it is derived and mismanaged, etc.); ‘suck up’ to and/or plug the corporate/systemic sociopathologies; and posture behind, throw around and/or wrap ourselves in buzz-terms like ‘thinking different’, ‘systems thinking’ or ‘thought leader’ and when we’re really doing little of the sort.

    syc·o·phant
    ˈsikəˌfant,ˈsikəfənt/
    noun
    noun: sycophant; plural noun: sycophants

    a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage.
    synonyms: yes-man, bootlicker, brown-noser, toady, lickspittle, flatterer, flunky, lackey, spaniel, doormat, stooge, cringer, suck, suck-up
    ‘I thought you wanted a competent assistant, not a nodding sycophant’ ” ~ Google dictionary

    1. Caelan, do you actually have a fucking point or is your sole purpose in life to find fault with everything?!

      Yeah, life ain’t fair, humans are stupid, They are greedy and seek power over others. The system sucks there are bad consequences to way technology is used. We are in the throes of the sixth mass extinction caused by our own existence and our complete dominion over nature through our hunter gathering ways, agriculture multiple rises and falls of civilizations, religions, the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, economic systems such as capitalism and counteracted by Marxism and communism followed by corporatism and consumerism up into our present crisis of Peak Oil, Climate Change and now President Trump. To name a few things about our bad human history.

      Most of us here are reasonably well educated and have seen a bit of the world and we know all this. We don’t need some twit like you to keep preaching to us about how bad we are!

      Guess what?!

      There is a whole nuther side to the coin and humans can do great things and be loving and empathetic and use their high intelligence. Now go back to your cave and burn your computer or do something useful like meditation!

      1. “Most of us here are…” ~ Fred Magyar

        Oh but my comment is essentially or mostly meant for you, Fred, dear, in case you hadn’t noticed, and for your apparent and dubious corporatocratic/institutionalized (and maybe general) sycophantilism. So don’t worry your poor self about ‘most of us here’.

        I imagine that if ‘most of us here’ or elsewhere want You to speak or think for them, they’ll ask.

        But hopefully they can and will do both for themselves– ‘thought-leader’-free– and that’s in part what this is about; freedom and independent thinking and doing, and stuff like that, as well as having a say in and control over their technology.

        As for your ‘well-educated’ angle; it’s also a wank, and I’ve already included in part why I think so in my previous comment.

        I mean, you can help drive your garbage society, in well-educated fashion, off a cliff, such that we’re already doing.

        Engineered garbage in and garbage out.

        “doc·tor
        ˈdäktər/
        verb
        past tense: doctored; past participle: doctored

        1. change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) in order to deceive; falsify.
        ‘the reports could have been doctored’
        synonyms: falsify, tamper with, interfere with, alter, change; forge, fake;
        informalcook, fiddle with
        ‘the reports have been doctored’ ” ~ Google dictionary

        1. Hi Caelan,

          I do believe most of us here are very firmly on Fred’s side of your little tempest in a tea cup, and if polled, I think ninety nine percent of the people who comment would agree with Fred that you don’t really have a point worth repeating in this particular forum.

          1. Hi Glen,

            You can believe what you will, but not to worry: Compared with an average windbag comment of yours, my ‘tempest in a teacup’ is but a drop, if that, in the bucket.

            (Perhaps you could direct the bulk of your comments toward a windmill?)

            There are not too many left on here, at least on the non-petroleum threads, so maybe there’s a bit of commentary/ideological inbreeding as well.

            And I do seem to recall, quite clearly, you writing (and my criticizing it) to the effect that you wanted BAU to continue for as long as possible…

            Now, that doesn’t take someone with a La-Di-Da Degree to figure out how that might mate well with islandboy’s or Nick G’s (BAU-derived) EV’s/PV’s and Fred’s ‘disruptive technologies’ does it?

            Hence in part I guess, my inspiration for the term and comment regarding, ‘sycophant’, incidentally.

            BAU is a vast monoculture that has been spread around the planet. Now if I can play you on your own field, we both likely have an idea of potential and actual pitfalls behind monocultures, yes?

            So it is highly doubtful that extending and pretending’s the best way of going about it, despite attempts at rebranding and pseudo-hip terms surrounding it.

      2. Incidentally, to draw attention to POB’s header:

        Nowhere does it remotely suggest that the site’s a platform for, and about bobbing our heads in approval like good little sycophants to, Fred’s dubious comments, corporatocratic (etc.) links and videos, as much as he might like nothing better.

        1. Whatever, Caelan! Be well! In future please leave me out of your comments, don’t address me and don’t quote me. If you see me post a link please don’t follow it.
          I have no interest in having any kind of discussion with you. I’m tired of your personal attacks. Thank you.

          1. So says someone who just called me a twit; who announced (‘Here ye, here ye!’) ~ last summer that he wouldn’t respond to my comments; and who’s called someone on here– TechGuy– an asshole. You for real?

            So personal attacks? Just cuz you declare it so? Oh my. (Not that I don’t think you don’t deserve them mind you).
            But of course they are critiques on your bullshit, which of course you don’t like. Tough shit ay?

            Smarten up, Fred, get some consistency and maybe read properly.

            “Caelan, do you actually have a fucking point or is your sole purpose in life to find fault with everything?!” ~ Fred Magyar

            You wrote it yourself, and with glee and an exclamation point at the end:

            “Ok, two words: systems thinking!” ~ Fred Magyar

            That’s ‘everything’.
            Did you write it just cuz you think it sounds like ‘you are down with stuff’ (compared with us) and it sounds cool or hip (and therefore you do by its usage), like ‘Ok two words’, ‘No shit, Sherlock’, ‘CRISPR Cas9’ or ‘Uber’ and like yet another systemic buzzplug, or do you actually believe, understand or at least stand behind what you write (and can handle their critiques)?

            Do you get elite systemic control ‘over everything’, or terms like Pareto 80/20, Occupy’s 99%/1%, or equability? Of course you do.

            Take what you dish out, babe. It’s good for you. Choochoo yumyum.

            1. Nah, you need to up your game a couple of notches! You need to talk about systems thinking, materials science and industrial processes. As an example, here is a young European lady who is truly the epitome of all evil!

              https://www.thinkdif.co/big-top-tent-sessions/ucl-6

              Industrial symbiosis is a system approach to the optimisation of industrial system where waste of an industry is transformed into the raw material for another industry. This approach has shown potential to reduce virgin raw material requirements of industry, reduce waste while inducing social and economic benefits for the parties involved and the society as a whole. This though requires knowledge systems to track resources in the economy and channels to favour inter-industry collaboration. This session will introduce the concept of IS and will discuss its potential in the transforming linear industrial system into circular ones.

              Now if you think going from linear to circular is bad then how about spinning a circle 360 degrees along one of its diameters and including a Delta T component? Suddenly your world is no longer flat and you’re are traveling through the time space continuum… 🙂
              .

            2. Fred, my world was never flat and has always traveled through the space time continuum.

            3. Uh, Fish… I don’t know how to tell you this, but you’re in a time machine.

            4. It’s a natural world Doug, not a machine.

              If I am in it as you say, then I was put in it by a long succession of evolving biological creatures who are long since dead, so no one is to blame. Well, the gods I suppose.
              Time to dance around the fire and drink the potions of enlightenment, while standing high on a mountain howling at the universe. Join me if you like. Time wanders were it will on nights like that.
              Piss on the gods and their ways.

              The original time machine was invented back at the turn of the 19th century and is now lost in time, according to local myth. I say it was stolen by the Morlocks and they now live among us. Known by their strange hair do’s and small hands and mouths.

            5. Um, GF, I wasn’t exactly referring to YOU or YOUR world… 🙂

            6. A circular (i.e., ‘economy’) is not spherical.

              “cir·cu·lar
              ˈsərkyələr/
              adjective
              adjective: circular; adjective: cir.; adjective: circ.

              1. having the form of a circle.
              ‘the building features a circular atrium’
              synonyms: round, disk-shaped, ring-shaped, annular
              ‘a circular window’
              (of a movement or journey) starting and finishing at the same place and often following roughly the circumference of an imaginary circle.
              ‘a circular walk’

              2. Logic
              (of an argument) already containing an assumption of what is to be proved, and therefore fallacious.” ~ Google dictionary

              Both definitions nicely apply.

              The third dimension would be something like freedom (such as from illegitimate coercion) and (social/ethical/etc.) ‘inclusion’ or ‘inclusivity’ and/or that kind of thing.

              I might be game if you want to add other dimensions. Might be fun.

            7. Thanks for sharing.
              I might watch it but, naturally, maintain that building electric cars won’t really do anything to the underlying sociopolitical structure and may make things in general, worse, and/or prolong the agony, as I’ve already mentioned.
              It may do so, in part, by skewing, like pulling the top node to the right on a ‘nurb curve/path’, the bell curve of collapse/decline so that the collapse/decline part of the curve/path comes steeper as it happens…

              The notion, or ‘ideological meme’, of ‘baby steps toward transition’ in the forms of mere technological adjustments, to the exclusion of fundamental sociostructural changes, doesn’t necessarily stand to reason and could prove ‘counterintuitive’ in the effects ultimately experienced.

              IOW, electric cars and the like (which aren’t basic necessities like food and water), to be charitable, appear as ‘Band-Aid solutions’.

              Also, as in ostensible, perhaps glaring, evidence, you’re ideologically-imprisoned, GoneFishing. You seem to believe in coercive taxation, and rationalize it.
              Thus what you propose or promote is likely going to be bent, like a light through glass, by your particular lens. And perhaps we both know what Thomas Kuhn might have said about that. That it is the lens which determines what we can see?

              ” Band-Aid Solution

              Using a quick fix to deal with a problem temporarily, only to have it re-emerge later. It is a fundamental cornerstone of modern society.

              An example of a Band-Aid Solution:

              I bought my girlfriend a gift, because she was upset that I told her she was fat. She’s still fat.” ~ Urban Dictionary

            8. Hi Caelan,

              It is possible that social changes may occur due to technological change, whether they will be positive or negative is difficult to determine. Our understanding of the dynamics of social, political and cultural change are not very good. Whether social evolution moves towards a simple hunter gatherer type of social organization remains to be seen. Certainly reduced global population would seem to be necessary to move in that direction, which might be accomplished by more widespread availability on a global basis of free voluntary education, birth control, and equal rights for women.

            9. Caelan, pulling your strings is so simple that I wonder at your basic naiveté.
              Even your inability to separate my identity from a video produced by someone else is sheer mental childishness.
              I was not demonstrating the takeover of EV’s or them as a solution, but of the horrifying mechanical robotic takeover of society without the attending freeing of the human spirit.
              Modern civilization is a twisted horror show, a version of “Something Wicked This Way Comes”, where technology replaces people and the people are left outside society to starve or struggle to get back in, losing their humanity or their lives along the way.

              Think bigger and stop thinking you know me or anyone else here. There are a number of people here who are far more complex than they blatantly reveal .

              Caelan, you are seeing the show, yet missing the meaning. You need to up your game and stop relying on misanthropic quotations and ideas.
              Also you need to think through the actual consequences of your plan of action if you have one, not just present the end result and rant against the universe like an overgrown child screaming that we have not arrived yet.

              No ice cream for you Caelan.
              Be quiet and remain seated while the adults do the driving.

            10. That’s along the lines of part of what I’ve been suggesting all along about ‘civilization’, if you can call it that at this point, and as mentioned, I have not seen the video yet, assuming I can find the time.

              Nevertheless, you did seem serious previously about/for government coercion, taxes and roadways, which you haven’t addressed in your comment here.
              Curious, that.

              Government, which you apparently subscribe to, is already easily misanthropic in its modus operandi, and your criticism in that regard for the Urban Dictionary quote doesn’t wash, and is petty to boot. But I’m used to that coming from you.

              …What kind of ice cream do you have, BTW, and is it worth having?
              Oh, and what kind of adults are doing the driving, and why/where/what are we driving?

              Maybe they would do well to get out and walk.

            11. We’ve been down this path before, hon (and I’ve with someone else hereon before you arrived. You can research it if you wish.). So it’s yours.

            12. GF, bet you never suspected that π r^2 ≠ 4/3π r^3 .
              Though I think that might not bode well for my frozen spherical pizzas concept. Imagine the poor supermarket stock persons having to grapple with close packing of sphere problems in the frozen foods section.

    1. LOL! That should silence a lot of those anti math types who are always questioning what math is good for…

      1. From the article:

        “Brewing the perfect cup of coffee is always going to be a subjective endeavour.”

    2. Piotr Cieslik (Pece) – Chapter 2

      “Theory is man’s feeble attempt to define life
      Nothing can substitute experience
      I know nothing but feel everything
      The universe already told me”

      The video makes the tune and vice versa. It’s a recommended view.

      In the video, everything’s containerized, detached; the canned food, the gloves, the spaceship, the detachment from Earth-Home, the food shortage alert on the monitor, the plastic fork, the can as just thrown to the floor, and the blatant failings of science and engineering, as seen in ‘Galloping Gertie’, climate change-based disasters, industrial waste/pollution and military technology (bombs, etc.) in the ruination of people and communities.

      “…The map is a simulacrum that, as a model, loses all reference to reality… reality exists only as rotting shreds that are attached to the map, and this is the state of our age according to Baudrillard; that the model, itself, has primacy for us; the real has become irrelevant…” ~ Frances Flannery-Dailey

  19. Paleo records show 5C climate temperature sensitivity for doubling of CO2

    “Taking these different influences into account, it is possible to determine how much the temperature decreased when carbon dioxide was reduced, and use this scaling (termed climate sensitivity) to determine how much temperature might increase as carbon dioxide increases. An estimate from the tropical ocean, far from the influence of ice sheets, indicates that the tropical ocean may warm 5°C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. The paleo data provide a valuable independent check on the sensitivity of climate models, and the 5°C value is consistent with many of the current coupled climate models. ”

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

    1. Note 1: Estimates of climate sensitivity are not the same thing as model predictions of future temperatures. Rather, sensitivity is a way to try to describe how the Earth system is CAPABLE of reacting if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were to double.

      Note 2: Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels. Atmospheric CO2 levels are expected to become double pre-industrial levels by 2050.

      Special note for Mr Trump: Given the wide range of possible warming and the wide scope of potential impacts to natural resources, food and water supplies, and infrastructure, the question we have to ask ourselves may not be, How certain are we of future change but, How much risk of disruption are we willing to tolerate.

      1. My apologies those here (most & especially GF), who already know this stuff.

      2. Forgetting fossil fuel for a moment,

        “During the decade from 2006 to 2015, emissions from deforestation and other land-use change added another 1.0±0.5 GtC (3.3±1.8 GtCO₂) on average, on top of the above emissions from fossil fuel and cement. In 2015, according to the Global Carbon Project, deforestation and other changes in land use added another 1.3 GtC (or 4.8 billion tonnes of CO₂), on top of the 36.3 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted from fossil fuels and industry.

        This rise in emissions from deforestation and other changes in land use constitutes a significant increase (by 42%) over the average emissions of the previous decade, and this jump was largely caused by an increase in wildfires over the past few years.”

        http://arctic-news.blogspot.ca/

        1. Still half of the world’s forests to go. With the forests goes the biome. Millions of species we will never even get to meet.
          But nothing to worry about, I hear the temperature will not go very high no matter what happens.

          http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/13-year-record-of-drying-amazon-caused-vegetation-declines

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3288144/The-Amazon-drained-forest-Incredible-pictures-devastating-effect-drought-ravishing-Brazil-area-s-worst-dry-spell-100-years.html

          1. “Still half of the world’s forests to go.”

            Don’t forget peat:

            PEAT FIRES—A LEGACY OF CARBON UP IN SMOKE.

            “If peatlands become more vulnerable to fire worldwide, this will exacerbate climate change in an unending loop…. Smouldering peat fires already are the largest fires on Earth in terms of their carbon footprint… ”

            http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peat-firesa-legacy-carbon.html#jCp

            1. That is only 756 GT CO2 potential if all the peat burns. Since it takes thousands of years to replenish and only 35% of peat bogs do replenish, that is a big slug.

              The Indonesian peat fires are producing as much CO2 as the fossil fuel burning done in the US. Peat fires, because of their low temperatures produce 10 times more methane than forest fires. Taken together, the impact of peat fires on global warming may be more than 200 times greater than fires on other lands.

              Decades of burning now, natural and slash and burn. While the EU continues to burn the North American and Indonesian forests to provide biofuels to give the appearance of producing less CO2, they are actually producing more. Backdoor environmental policy makes the stats lie.

            2. Not only that:

              STUDY FINDS LIMITED SIGN OF SOIL ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE WARMING

              “While scientists and policy experts debate the impacts of global warming, Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined. This huge carbon flux from soil, due to the natural respiration of soil microbes and plant roots, raises one of the central questions in climate change science. As the global climate warms, will soil respiration rates increase, adding even more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and accelerating climate change…That means the Arctic latitudes, where soil temperatures rarely, if ever, reach 25° C , will continue to be most responsive to climate warming. Because there is so much carbon stored in frozen soils of the Arctic, this has really serious repercussions for future climate change…To understand how global carbon in soils will respond to climate change, the authors stress, more data are needed from under- and non-represented regions, especially the Arctic and the tropics…”

              https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161114162228.htm

            3. Seems like all the forces of nature are bent on making things warmer. Only the clouds can slow it down and they have not done that in the past, so I wouldn’t have high hopes there.

        2. Seems like a 30% increase in 2015 over the 2006-2015 average. 1.3 Pg vs 1.0 Pg.

          From 1959-2015 the average land use change emissions were 1.3 Pg C. For data see

          http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/

          From the Land use change emissions tab of the spreadsheet from the link above for the 2016 report (v1.0), the chart below shows data from 1997 to 2015 (which includes forest fire emissions) and the average of 6 different carbon models used to estimate land use change emissions.

    2. Hi Gone Fishing,

      Based on proxy data around the globe Shakun et al 2012 estimates about a 3.2 C change in temperature from the LGM to the 1961-1990 average temperature (which based on Marcott et al 2013) was about 0.4 C cooler than the HCO. This does indeed result in an Earth System sensitivity of roughly 5 C. The difference for today is that Northern hemisphere ice sheets are 10 times smaller today than during the LGM.

      Hansen’s 2011 paper suggests the mid Pliocene warm period (3 to 3.3 My BP) was about 2 C above average Holocene Global temperature (10,000 BP to 1750 CE), AR5 estimates atmospheric CO2 was about 400 ppm and ice sheet sizes were smaller than today (sea level was 15 to 20 meters higher).

      ESS for this smaller ice sheet world (less snow and sea ice as well no doubt) relative to the LGM is about 3.9 C=2/ln(400/280)*ln(2).

      Hansen paper at

      http://www.parentsagainstclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

      From page 14 of the paper linked above:

      We conclude that Pliocene temperatures probably were no more than 1-2°C warmer on global average than peak Holocene temperature.

      Other papers by Hansen from 2016 focus on the catastrophic consequences of 5000 Pg of carbon emissions.

      http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2001/20120294

      I agree 5000 Pg of carbon emissions would be a problem.

      My knowledge of the fossil fuel resource likely to be extracted (even assuming no attempt to reduce carbon emissions) is on the order of 1600 Pg of carbon emissions.

      Technological progress would need to only occur in the fossil fuel extraction industry, but not in any of the alternative energy industries such as solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, and ocean energy, in order for the 5000 Pg carbon emission scenario to be reasonable.

      Even 1500 Pg of carbon emissions (RCP4.5) would be a problem, but to me the focus on the RCP8.5 (5000 Pg of C emissions) seems as unreasonable as a very optimistic scenario such as a rapid transition to nuclear fusion in 50 years time which is very unlikely to occur.

      1. Dennis, discuss it with NOAA and the people at the National Climatic Data Center. Their names are publicly available and I am sure they will appreciate your input. Please get back to us with their response.

          1. Yes, you did go further this time, I too read the published papers. But instead of further, maybe smarter would help more.

            Milankovitch cycle is increasing radiation to the northern hemisphere currently, maximizing out at about 25 watts/m2. Arctic Ocean Ice Cover has fallen by 2/3 in just a few decades. Ice sheet albedo has decreased also as has snow cover albedo and snow cover in general.
            All of these factors are greater than the RF from industrial CO2.

            1. He forgot to read the article again, the ice sheets and other changes were accounted for in the estimate of climate sensitivity.
              Now if the tropical region had a 5C sensitivity, how great was the temperature change in the Arctic region?
              Anyway, it doesn’t make a lot of difference to the ice sheets, the solar energy absorbed by melt ponds is being taken deep into the ice sheets, slowly warming them internally as well as at the surface. Earthquakes due to loss of mass from the ice sheet and ground release will further destabilize the ice sheets, opening large cracks, allowing more entry of warmed water and air. Rain falls on the southern half of Greenland quite often now sometimes intense rainfall.
              This makes the destabilization and melt rate increase but we do not have the science yet to know how much faster this will occur, one more unknown. The faster the ice sheets recede, the faster the sea level rise and the lower the albedo in the region, thus causing another feedback.
              Humid air cools less quickly as it rises so it can rain at higher altitudes now.
              Less than 1/20th loss of Greenland ice sheet results in a one meter rise in ocean levels. Which in itself will only affect about 150 million people directly but also a lot of infrastructure and make for more severe storm surges.

  20. Something’s happening here…

    2016 sea ice area and extent data

    Update of the global sea ice graphs. Global sea ice area and extent are still in uncharted territory.
    As the graphs seem to me (comments welcome) getting presentable, I gave them a place on the web, updated daily:

  21. If anybody has read it, I would like to hear their opinion of a book titled The Creature from Jekyll Island, I forget the author’s name, but it has been very popular book for a long time.

    All the reviews I have read uniformly judge it to be trash, but then all the authors of these reviews are establisment types with skin in the game, which is precisely WHY I picked up this book. Insiders and people whose careers and paychecks depend on going along to get along are not apt to tell the truth about such institutions as the Fed, even if they know the truth.

    The book is certainly well documented, but I have not read enough of it yet to know if the author’s opinions are worth serious consideration, or not.

    One thing is for sure, this being that powerful establishment institutions and powerful establishment individuals are not at all hesitant to tell fibs that would make Reynard the Fox blush with envy.

    I am willing to believe that the Fed might or may the best of all the unsatisfactory solutions available when it comes to a banking system, but I am not ready to go much farther than that.

    The author’s basic conclusion is that the Fed is the creature of the banks that own it, and that it’s primary purpose is to further the interest of those banks, and the banking industry in general, rather than the interests of the country as a whole.

    The book is dated, but it looks to me as if he has a strong case, but I have not read a lot of it yet.

    I will also be looking for other books about the Fed written by outsiders, and would appreciate any recommendations. Thanks in advance!!

Comments are closed.