Houston, Flint, New Orleans — Libertarian Heaven?

by

by wj

The Count said in the previous thread:

Watch local Texas municipalities try to implement more rational land use and building code policies and then see how vermin libertarian republican right wing crypto christian fascists in the Governor’s Manse and in the State House deprive their local rights and thwart all improvement.

And then, moments after I read that, I came across this from the Economist:

Pre-trial hearings loom for the former emergency manager and the director of public works of Flint, Michigan. Both have been charged with involuntary manslaughter over their roles in a public-health scandal. The nearly bankrupt Midwestern city had switched to a cheaper water source, the Flint river. Officials repeatedly dismissed complaints by residents (many of whom are poor and black) about the brownish, smelly water that came from their taps. Flint did not treat the river water with an anti-corrosion chemical; when pumped through ageing pipes it exposed the lead tubes beneath, allowing the metal to leach into drinking water. Babies in particular suffer from exposure to lead, which can lead to learning disorders, hearing loss, aggressive behaviour, anaemia, kidney damage and lowered IQ. As many as 9,000 children may have been affected.

Meanwhile, in New Orleans, 3 of the 5 generators which power their pumps are down. And over 10% of those pumps are currently down for maintenance, here in the height of hurricane season. In a city which is almost entirely below the level of the Mississippi Riven that flows thru town, not to mention below sea level.

Ever notice how dedicated libertarians always seem to be people who a) can afford to live in places which don’t have these problems, and b) generally do? While insisting that their philosophy be applied to the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not.

584 thoughts on “Houston, Flint, New Orleans — Libertarian Heaven?”

  1. “Ever notice how dedicated libertarians always seem to be people who a) can afford to live in places which don’t have these problems, and b) generally do? While insisting that their philosophy be applied to the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not.”
    Many years ago, which is why I distrust “libertarians” even when some of their stuff aligns with some of mine (not that much anymore).

  2. “Ever notice how dedicated libertarians always seem to be people who a) can afford to live in places which don’t have these problems, and b) generally do? While insisting that their philosophy be applied to the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not.”
    Many years ago, which is why I distrust “libertarians” even when some of their stuff aligns with some of mine (not that much anymore).

  3. I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.

  4. I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.

  5. I wish you would have quoted my fake Beatle song titles instead, because now McTX is going to surface, remove his snorkel, and tell me I’m full of it or at least mis-characterizing the state of things.
    But the Governor recently went after local rule in many ways.
    It’s true that Governor George W. Bush signed legislation to strengthen home-building codes, but he did so only after he and his family and cronies bought stock in construction material stocks.
    But these latest Texas Governors are the real item. They don’t even want to get rich off of making the world safer for the rest of us. They’ve got their eyes set on small government, libertarian heaven.
    I remember when Tacitus the Younger counseled in stentorian tones that New Orleans, post-Katrina, should be abandoned and permanently evacuated, well, I can’t remember why, except his taxes were too high, meaning north of zero.
    I thin he wanted to send all of the former New Orleans denizens to Iraq to live in permanent garrisons where they would be safe from all manner of attack.
    I blame those French trapper capitalists and pelt-purveyors who decided to exploit any port in a storm, libertarians all of them.
    So whither Houston, I ask him. There are New Orleans ex-patriots still living there after Katrina.
    “Babies in particular suffer from exposure to lead, which can lead to learning disorders, hearing loss, aggressive behaviour, anaemia, kidney damage and lowered IQ. As many as 9,000 children may have been affected.”
    George Carlin:
    “Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months … After that, they don’t want to know about you, they don’t want to hear about you … If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re pre-school, you’re fucked. ..
    I’m personally against abortions of convenience though I want to maintain its legality because the rich are equally entitled to the poor and the rest of us to sleep under bridges and will do so even when sleeping under bridges might be made illegal, even as the poor will be rounded up and convicted of sleeping under bridges.
    But I’m fully against the aborting of those aged one minute to 200 years, which is the one deadly time period in which anti-abortion conservatives don’t seem to want to curtail deadliness.

  6. I wish you would have quoted my fake Beatle song titles instead, because now McTX is going to surface, remove his snorkel, and tell me I’m full of it or at least mis-characterizing the state of things.
    But the Governor recently went after local rule in many ways.
    It’s true that Governor George W. Bush signed legislation to strengthen home-building codes, but he did so only after he and his family and cronies bought stock in construction material stocks.
    But these latest Texas Governors are the real item. They don’t even want to get rich off of making the world safer for the rest of us. They’ve got their eyes set on small government, libertarian heaven.
    I remember when Tacitus the Younger counseled in stentorian tones that New Orleans, post-Katrina, should be abandoned and permanently evacuated, well, I can’t remember why, except his taxes were too high, meaning north of zero.
    I thin he wanted to send all of the former New Orleans denizens to Iraq to live in permanent garrisons where they would be safe from all manner of attack.
    I blame those French trapper capitalists and pelt-purveyors who decided to exploit any port in a storm, libertarians all of them.
    So whither Houston, I ask him. There are New Orleans ex-patriots still living there after Katrina.
    “Babies in particular suffer from exposure to lead, which can lead to learning disorders, hearing loss, aggressive behaviour, anaemia, kidney damage and lowered IQ. As many as 9,000 children may have been affected.”
    George Carlin:
    “Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months … After that, they don’t want to know about you, they don’t want to hear about you … If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re pre-school, you’re fucked. ..
    I’m personally against abortions of convenience though I want to maintain its legality because the rich are equally entitled to the poor and the rest of us to sleep under bridges and will do so even when sleeping under bridges might be made illegal, even as the poor will be rounded up and convicted of sleeping under bridges.
    But I’m fully against the aborting of those aged one minute to 200 years, which is the one deadly time period in which anti-abortion conservatives don’t seem to want to curtail deadliness.

  7. While insisting that their philosophy be applied to the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not.
    I think libertarians are more at that libertarianism should be allowed. Not insisting that it be applied. There’s that whole nonaggression principle thingy.
    I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.
    If only I can contribute to one-way tickets to Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea for progressives.

  8. While insisting that their philosophy be applied to the rest of the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not.
    I think libertarians are more at that libertarianism should be allowed. Not insisting that it be applied. There’s that whole nonaggression principle thingy.
    I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.
    If only I can contribute to one-way tickets to Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea for progressives.

  9. What is progressive about Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea?
    Maybe we could open public libraries, impose building codes, empty the prisons, legalize maryjane and cut the higher marginal tax rates to 42% like the commie bastards we are.
    I’ve heard both Somalia and North Korea are in the market for purchasing used U.S. Civil War statues as a way of honoring American conservatives.

  10. What is progressive about Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea?
    Maybe we could open public libraries, impose building codes, empty the prisons, legalize maryjane and cut the higher marginal tax rates to 42% like the commie bastards we are.
    I’ve heard both Somalia and North Korea are in the market for purchasing used U.S. Civil War statues as a way of honoring American conservatives.

  21. I remember when Tacitus the Younger counseled in stentorian tones that New Orleans, post-Katrina, should be abandoned and permanently evacuated
    Hahaha, I remember that one! It wasn’t just Tacitus, it was in the official talking points.
    They can have NOLA if they also give up Vegas, Phoenix, LA, and every other city that doesn’t have enough or its own water to keep its population alive.
    We all pay for that.
    Miami’s on the way out, too. Just saying.
    I don’t have any personal issue with libertarians, I just don’t see how that point of view makes sense for collections of people numbering more than about a dozen.
    Explain it to me. Maybe I’m missing something.
    In any case, best of luck to anyone in southern TX. Hope you found your way to dry land.

  22. I remember when Tacitus the Younger counseled in stentorian tones that New Orleans, post-Katrina, should be abandoned and permanently evacuated
    Hahaha, I remember that one! It wasn’t just Tacitus, it was in the official talking points.
    They can have NOLA if they also give up Vegas, Phoenix, LA, and every other city that doesn’t have enough or its own water to keep its population alive.
    We all pay for that.
    Miami’s on the way out, too. Just saying.
    I don’t have any personal issue with libertarians, I just don’t see how that point of view makes sense for collections of people numbering more than about a dozen.
    Explain it to me. Maybe I’m missing something.
    In any case, best of luck to anyone in southern TX. Hope you found your way to dry land.

  25. I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.
    A man after my own heart! And I’ve suggested it more than one. (But somehow they never seem willing to do so….)

  26. I, generous soul that I am, would be glad to contribute to one-way tickets for libertarians to move to the libertarian paradise of SOMALIA.
    A man after my own heart! And I’ve suggested it more than one. (But somehow they never seem willing to do so….)

  27. I think libertarians are more at that libertarianism should be allowed. Not insisting that it be applied.
    If only, if only. Yet when, for example, they are in charge of a state government, they promptly start making laws which bar cities and towns from making laws on certain subjects. So, quite a ways past mere;y “being allowed.”

  28. I think libertarians are more at that libertarianism should be allowed. Not insisting that it be applied.
    If only, if only. Yet when, for example, they are in charge of a state government, they promptly start making laws which bar cities and towns from making laws on certain subjects. So, quite a ways past mere;y “being allowed.”

  29. Though I love me some fake news when it works for me, I was wrong more or less regarding recent Texas Governors and building codes:
    https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/texas
    Transsexuals however must still live in houses of straw for the wolf to huff and puff and blow down.
    And it is true that the Brazos flooding at record matters not because texas republicans walk on water.

  30. Though I love me some fake news when it works for me, I was wrong more or less regarding recent Texas Governors and building codes:
    https://www.energycodes.gov/adoption/states/texas
    Transsexuals however must still live in houses of straw for the wolf to huff and puff and blow down.
    And it is true that the Brazos flooding at record matters not because texas republicans walk on water.

  31. No FEMA head for the storm
    Actually, Count, FEMA head is one of the relatively few positions for which Trump did nominate someone. (Who has been confirmed.) And not only that, he actually nominated someone who is qualified and competent. Go figure.

  32. No FEMA head for the storm
    Actually, Count, FEMA head is one of the relatively few positions for which Trump did nominate someone. (Who has been confirmed.) And not only that, he actually nominated someone who is qualified and competent. Go figure.

  37. It’s not a good sign that HIS name is Harvey, too.
    Isn’t it? Play along
    Of course it’s a good sign. “Know your enemy” and all that. 😉

  38. It’s not a good sign that HIS name is Harvey, too.
    Isn’t it? Play along
    Of course it’s a good sign. “Know your enemy” and all that. 😉

  39. If only, if only.
    You got that right…far right. The Koch bros (et al) are dyed in the wool libertarians. They are not content to simply sigh and “wish” for us to “allow” libertarian public policies. They desire to force them down our throats using the power of the state.

  40. If only, if only.
    You got that right…far right. The Koch bros (et al) are dyed in the wool libertarians. They are not content to simply sigh and “wish” for us to “allow” libertarian public policies. They desire to force them down our throats using the power of the state.

  41. Yet when, for example, they are in charge of a state government, …
    I’m unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any state governments. Or much of anything else.

  42. Yet when, for example, they are in charge of a state government, …
    I’m unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any state governments. Or much of anything else.

  43. Well, if you want to contend that holding any government position, for example, becoming Speaker of the House or Governor of Kansas, disqualifies one as a “real” libertarian….

  44. Well, if you want to contend that holding any government position, for example, becoming Speaker of the House or Governor of Kansas, disqualifies one as a “real” libertarian….

  45. They desire to force them down our throats using the power of the state.
    That’s odd since libertarianism is all about being against state power and never initiating force.

  46. They desire to force them down our throats using the power of the state.
    That’s odd since libertarianism is all about being against state power and never initiating force.

  47. I’m unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any state governments
    hahahahaha!
    Similarly there are no “true communists” in N. Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
    Tat, meet tit.

  48. I’m unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any state governments
    hahahahaha!
    Similarly there are no “true communists” in N. Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela.
    Tat, meet tit.

  51. …Or much of anything else.
    Except for some really large and powerful business entities (and I’m pretty sure a lot of smaller ones).
    Of course corporations have no power….
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….

  52. …Or much of anything else.
    Except for some really large and powerful business entities (and I’m pretty sure a lot of smaller ones).
    Of course corporations have no power….
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA….

  53. I’m tired of the libertarians due to their “If only things were different!” chant, when I, others that show some intelligence, and probably their own stupid selves, know that things are not going to be different, regardless of what they think, nor will it be different.
    But then, that’s what makes them so hypocritical in my eyes.

    I’m unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any government

    FTFY

  54. I’m tired of the libertarians due to their “If only things were different!” chant, when I, others that show some intelligence, and probably their own stupid selves, know that things are not going to be different, regardless of what they think, nor will it be different.
    But then, that’s what makes them so hypocritical in my eyes.

    I’m unaware of any libertarians being in charge of any government

    FTFY

  59. All of those weapons of war in libertarian and conservative hands and they remain unfired in the face of this fucking authoritarian shit from the government they hate:
    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57232/what-is-trumps-ideology/
    What are you people waiting for?
    I think I know.
    In other news, third party libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who rump-nonstomachers ran to instead of doing something, anything to stop rump, had a microphone stuck in his face today regarding the hurricane and had this to say.
    “Even if I knew what a houston is, I couldn’t find it on a map with both hands. What’s a map?”
    Then he rolled a joint with the latest Benghazi gold and squinted into the libertarian distance.

  60. All of those weapons of war in libertarian and conservative hands and they remain unfired in the face of this fucking authoritarian shit from the government they hate:
    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57232/what-is-trumps-ideology/
    What are you people waiting for?
    I think I know.
    In other news, third party libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who rump-nonstomachers ran to instead of doing something, anything to stop rump, had a microphone stuck in his face today regarding the hurricane and had this to say.
    “Even if I knew what a houston is, I couldn’t find it on a map with both hands. What’s a map?”
    Then he rolled a joint with the latest Benghazi gold and squinted into the libertarian distance.

  63. And not only that, he actually nominated someone who is qualified and competent.
    Hopefully, this means that just because things are done bigger in Texas, FEMA won’t throw away more than the $2 billion it wasted in the aftermath of Katrina.

  64. And not only that, he actually nominated someone who is qualified and competent.
    Hopefully, this means that just because things are done bigger in Texas, FEMA won’t throw away more than the $2 billion it wasted in the aftermath of Katrina.

  65. “Then he rolled a joint with the latest Benghazi gold and squinted into the libertarian distance.”
    We all do what we gotta do to get by.

  66. “Then he rolled a joint with the latest Benghazi gold and squinted into the libertarian distance.”
    We all do what we gotta do to get by.

  73. indeed, indeed.
    we should make it legal for the military to operate within the US. they could then use their budget to do some nation building at home – to prevent civil unrest or to ameliorate disasters that threaten the country.

  74. indeed, indeed.
    we should make it legal for the military to operate within the US. they could then use their budget to do some nation building at home – to prevent civil unrest or to ameliorate disasters that threaten the country.

  77. The Agentic State is what rump’s rumpists are irrevocably lost in. I’ve talked to some of them. They are bewitched by the shithead. They repeat Make America Great Again like an incantation.
    I suspect should the military be able to operate under rump inside our borders, their entranced agentic state, with its ever-expanding budget would lead to horrific abuse of rumps enemies within, not unlike what is happening in Yemen or in Arpaio’s murder camps.
    I know a kid, whom I’ve spoken of before here, enamored of weaponry, happily now kept in a gun safe as a result of my objections, who just signed on a year before graduating from high school to the Navy Seal Program, who believes Hillary should be shot and who adores rump and is fashioning himself into a bullet-headed killer. He just underwent a preliminary summer bootcamp in which his superiors applied pressure to his neck causing him to lose consciousness and to train him to know immediately where his weapon is upon awakening.
    If rump told him to kill me, he would. He’s an otherwise good kid. If rump told him to kill an opposition journalist, he would. If rump told him to kill a wetback crossing a Texas landscape he would. If rump told him to kill Mueller, he would.
    He protects my free speech and other rights, I’m told, but you should see the vehemence in his glare toward me when I occasionally take the trouble to use my right of free speech to criticize rump’s perverted values in front of him.
    Killing me would be him just doing the job he was assigned to do.
    I told him to keep his head down when I saw him this past month. He doesn’t plan to. I pity his mother. I pity his girlfriend.
    He’s playing warrior. He has no fucking idea what it is to kill. Which is why they are numbing him up for the job.
    I pity the United States.
    The agentic state:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS91jqc0D1Q

  78. The Agentic State is what rump’s rumpists are irrevocably lost in. I’ve talked to some of them. They are bewitched by the shithead. They repeat Make America Great Again like an incantation.
    I suspect should the military be able to operate under rump inside our borders, their entranced agentic state, with its ever-expanding budget would lead to horrific abuse of rumps enemies within, not unlike what is happening in Yemen or in Arpaio’s murder camps.
    I know a kid, whom I’ve spoken of before here, enamored of weaponry, happily now kept in a gun safe as a result of my objections, who just signed on a year before graduating from high school to the Navy Seal Program, who believes Hillary should be shot and who adores rump and is fashioning himself into a bullet-headed killer. He just underwent a preliminary summer bootcamp in which his superiors applied pressure to his neck causing him to lose consciousness and to train him to know immediately where his weapon is upon awakening.
    If rump told him to kill me, he would. He’s an otherwise good kid. If rump told him to kill an opposition journalist, he would. If rump told him to kill a wetback crossing a Texas landscape he would. If rump told him to kill Mueller, he would.
    He protects my free speech and other rights, I’m told, but you should see the vehemence in his glare toward me when I occasionally take the trouble to use my right of free speech to criticize rump’s perverted values in front of him.
    Killing me would be him just doing the job he was assigned to do.
    I told him to keep his head down when I saw him this past month. He doesn’t plan to. I pity his mother. I pity his girlfriend.
    He’s playing warrior. He has no fucking idea what it is to kill. Which is why they are numbing him up for the job.
    I pity the United States.
    The agentic state:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS91jqc0D1Q

  79. The police forces of the country’s fascist tendencies were just bought by Sessions and rump with a shipment of grenade launchers.
    Crime is near a 50-year low across the board.
    I’ve seen this before up close in third-world dictatorships.
    Do you hear the fire alarm?

  80. The police forces of the country’s fascist tendencies were just bought by Sessions and rump with a shipment of grenade launchers.
    Crime is near a 50-year low across the board.
    I’ve seen this before up close in third-world dictatorships.
    Do you hear the fire alarm?

  81. In a sense this is already in process. But not, I fear, for the purposes you suggest.
    There is a difference — local control — between the police acquiring modest military-grade equipment and allowing the US Army to operate domestically, subject to control only by the White House.
    My county sheriff’s office borrowed a tracked armored personnel carrier from the Army back in the early 1990s [1]. The vehicle is deployed every year or three in the event of a heavily-armed nutcase in a house. It is trucked to within a couple of blocks, then trundles up the street to the house at low speed, pulls onto the front lawn, and a negotiator does their job of talking the nutcase out. On a couple of occasions where the nutcase had shot someone, the vehicle is positioned to shield the EMTs who retrieve those victims, takes them to shelter first, then returns so the negotiator can do their job.
    We have recall in my state. I firmly believe that any sheriff who tried the whole high-speed SWAT deployment practices which were popular on YouTube a few years ago would be recalled quite quickly.
    My county sheriff’s office has also acquired a lot of military-grade night-vision gear at very low costs in the federal sales. Almost half the county is mountainous terrain, and the ability to put search teams out for an extra hour after sunset, or before sunrise, could easily be the difference between a hiker with a broken leg living or dying.
    [1] Literally borrowed. It still belongs to the Army, who could demand its return at any time.

  82. In a sense this is already in process. But not, I fear, for the purposes you suggest.
    There is a difference — local control — between the police acquiring modest military-grade equipment and allowing the US Army to operate domestically, subject to control only by the White House.
    My county sheriff’s office borrowed a tracked armored personnel carrier from the Army back in the early 1990s [1]. The vehicle is deployed every year or three in the event of a heavily-armed nutcase in a house. It is trucked to within a couple of blocks, then trundles up the street to the house at low speed, pulls onto the front lawn, and a negotiator does their job of talking the nutcase out. On a couple of occasions where the nutcase had shot someone, the vehicle is positioned to shield the EMTs who retrieve those victims, takes them to shelter first, then returns so the negotiator can do their job.
    We have recall in my state. I firmly believe that any sheriff who tried the whole high-speed SWAT deployment practices which were popular on YouTube a few years ago would be recalled quite quickly.
    My county sheriff’s office has also acquired a lot of military-grade night-vision gear at very low costs in the federal sales. Almost half the county is mountainous terrain, and the ability to put search teams out for an extra hour after sunset, or before sunrise, could easily be the difference between a hiker with a broken leg living or dying.
    [1] Literally borrowed. It still belongs to the Army, who could demand its return at any time.

  83. There is a difference — local control —
    I did qualify my point. But I don’t find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.
    A Massachusetts story.
    This shit doesn’t just happen “on YouTube a few years ago.”

  84. There is a difference — local control —
    I did qualify my point. But I don’t find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.
    A Massachusetts story.
    This shit doesn’t just happen “on YouTube a few years ago.”

  85. Apparently, I’ve exhausted my Boston Globe free articles, so sorry I couldn’t see the article you posted, JanieM. But when you said this:
    But I don’t find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.
    I agree that nothing is comforting with Trump in charge. In my state (VA), nothing is comforting when we remember how many guns (and who knows what else) are in private hands. I don’t like a militarized police force, especially one that isn’t accountable to the law, or one that abuses racial minorities, etc. But I also don’t like the idea of right-wing militias outgunning police.
    My answer is to disarm civilians, and lightly arm police. That’s not going to happen in the world I live in. So I have no answer, and am in despair.

  86. Apparently, I’ve exhausted my Boston Globe free articles, so sorry I couldn’t see the article you posted, JanieM. But when you said this:
    But I don’t find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.
    I agree that nothing is comforting with Trump in charge. In my state (VA), nothing is comforting when we remember how many guns (and who knows what else) are in private hands. I don’t like a militarized police force, especially one that isn’t accountable to the law, or one that abuses racial minorities, etc. But I also don’t like the idea of right-wing militias outgunning police.
    My answer is to disarm civilians, and lightly arm police. That’s not going to happen in the world I live in. So I have no answer, and am in despair.

  89. I’m familiar with the geographical and political landscape Michael Caine speaks of.
    We’ve avoided, except for some school board elections and Tom Tancredo, the crazies.
    Other parts of the state are beautiful .. but …

  90. I’m familiar with the geographical and political landscape Michael Caine speaks of.
    We’ve avoided, except for some school board elections and Tom Tancredo, the crazies.
    Other parts of the state are beautiful .. but …

  93. For forty years most of America was told that you just can’t equate weather to climate change. Cold winter? Just natural weather patterns. So who knew people would believe them.
    I hate stupid climate scientists, and I am a climate change believer.

  94. For forty years most of America was told that you just can’t equate weather to climate change. Cold winter? Just natural weather patterns. So who knew people would believe them.
    I hate stupid climate scientists, and I am a climate change believer.

  99. Most of America didn’t read that article.
    then “most of america” should STFU and leave policy to people who actually have some expertise and information.
    i don’t mean to be rude, but c’mon man.
    do we have to be ruled by ignorance?
    libertarians
    I want to raise pigs in my yard. My yard, my rules.
    My neighbor doesn’t want to live next to a pig-sty.
    Thus, libertarianism comes to a screeching halt.

  100. Most of America didn’t read that article.
    then “most of america” should STFU and leave policy to people who actually have some expertise and information.
    i don’t mean to be rude, but c’mon man.
    do we have to be ruled by ignorance?
    libertarians
    I want to raise pigs in my yard. My yard, my rules.
    My neighbor doesn’t want to live next to a pig-sty.
    Thus, libertarianism comes to a screeching halt.

  101. Most of America hasn’t read anything besides the inside label on their underpants.
    “Jesus promises us peace that passes understanding. That’s peace when it doesn’t make sense.”
    Joel Osteen, the prosperity gospel …. HIS.
    He’s in Houston but he has less prosperous people lifting him to higher ground.

  102. Most of America hasn’t read anything besides the inside label on their underpants.
    “Jesus promises us peace that passes understanding. That’s peace when it doesn’t make sense.”
    Joel Osteen, the prosperity gospel …. HIS.
    He’s in Houston but he has less prosperous people lifting him to higher ground.

  103. But I don’t find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.
    Having them make somewhat heavier weapons available at lower cost to my local law enforcement is far down on my list of things to worry about with this administration.

  104. But I don’t find yours totally comforting in the present climate, and with the present administration in charge.
    Having them make somewhat heavier weapons available at lower cost to my local law enforcement is far down on my list of things to worry about with this administration.

  105. I linked to this article up the page a bit, but if you ignore everything else I’ve offered, that’s fine.
    But read this one. It’s lengthy.
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/carl-icahns-failed-raid-on-washington
    Excerpt:
    “One recurring feature of the rump Presidency has been the acute collective sensation, shared by a substantial portion of the electorate, of helpless witness. Dismayed Americans wait, like spectators at a game that has turned suddenly dangerous, for a referee to step in cry foul. But one reason rumpism is so transfixing to watch is that is about the upending of norms, the defiance of taboos, the destabilization of institutions. School’s out forever. What this means in practice is a serious deficit of accountability. Whom can you call when the authorities are the one breaking the rules?”
    A few months ago, I thought you could call 500 highly-trained assassins. We’re going to need reinforcements.
    Icahn has failed in his cheating fucking Evil for now. He’ll be back, because he is still breathing.
    It is republican breathing that needs to be stopped.

  106. I linked to this article up the page a bit, but if you ignore everything else I’ve offered, that’s fine.
    But read this one. It’s lengthy.
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/carl-icahns-failed-raid-on-washington
    Excerpt:
    “One recurring feature of the rump Presidency has been the acute collective sensation, shared by a substantial portion of the electorate, of helpless witness. Dismayed Americans wait, like spectators at a game that has turned suddenly dangerous, for a referee to step in cry foul. But one reason rumpism is so transfixing to watch is that is about the upending of norms, the defiance of taboos, the destabilization of institutions. School’s out forever. What this means in practice is a serious deficit of accountability. Whom can you call when the authorities are the one breaking the rules?”
    A few months ago, I thought you could call 500 highly-trained assassins. We’re going to need reinforcements.
    Icahn has failed in his cheating fucking Evil for now. He’ll be back, because he is still breathing.
    It is republican breathing that needs to be stopped.

  109. Three days left in August and I’ve reached my comment limit for nonsubscribers, so I’ll shut up for a few days and let others breath.

  110. Three days left in August and I’ve reached my comment limit for nonsubscribers, so I’ll shut up for a few days and let others breath.

  111. “then “most of america” should STFU and leave policy to people who actually have some expertise and information.
    i don’t mean to be rude, but c’mon man.
    do we have to be ruled by ignorance?”
    No, but you can’t answer every objection, some quite reasonable questions, with “we’re the smart people, shut up and do what we say” which has become the stock answer. STFU and do what we say just doesn’t work.
    Nor do rolling doomsday threats. The article we’re talking about here belies almost every prediction of cataclysmic outcomes by 2050.
    That “every scientist supports”. Settled science. Except the people referenced in that article didn’t agree. On degree, pace or likelihood of various outcomes.
    I simply can’t imagine why 60 year old people who’ve been listening to it for 40 years aren’t willing to just be told what to do.

  112. “then “most of america” should STFU and leave policy to people who actually have some expertise and information.
    i don’t mean to be rude, but c’mon man.
    do we have to be ruled by ignorance?”
    No, but you can’t answer every objection, some quite reasonable questions, with “we’re the smart people, shut up and do what we say” which has become the stock answer. STFU and do what we say just doesn’t work.
    Nor do rolling doomsday threats. The article we’re talking about here belies almost every prediction of cataclysmic outcomes by 2050.
    That “every scientist supports”. Settled science. Except the people referenced in that article didn’t agree. On degree, pace or likelihood of various outcomes.
    I simply can’t imagine why 60 year old people who’ve been listening to it for 40 years aren’t willing to just be told what to do.

  113. “we’re the smart people, shut up and do what we say”
    as compared to “I didn’t read the article, no pointy headed brainiac is gonna tell me what to do”.
    if i have to pick i’m going with the folks who know what they’re talking about.

  114. “we’re the smart people, shut up and do what we say”
    as compared to “I didn’t read the article, no pointy headed brainiac is gonna tell me what to do”.
    if i have to pick i’m going with the folks who know what they’re talking about.

  115. Im going to go with the best common sense answer I can decipher from a bunch of people telling me the world was coming to an end last year, or maybe 5 years, but certainly by the end of the century, maybe.
    Of course, I don’t have that policy choice. I can have fnck it lets burn it down or fnck it lets destroy the whole world economy, when it collapses I can get food with a crossbow. Or the Paris Accords that hand wave the second while ensuring the first.
    Common sense died with comity.

  116. Im going to go with the best common sense answer I can decipher from a bunch of people telling me the world was coming to an end last year, or maybe 5 years, but certainly by the end of the century, maybe.
    Of course, I don’t have that policy choice. I can have fnck it lets burn it down or fnck it lets destroy the whole world economy, when it collapses I can get food with a crossbow. Or the Paris Accords that hand wave the second while ensuring the first.
    Common sense died with comity.

  117. From the Count’s 9:43 quote: “School’s out forever”.
    Isn’t it an odd world in which I can easily imagine that Alice Cooper would be a much better president than the current . . . denizen . . . of the White House?

  118. From the Count’s 9:43 quote: “School’s out forever”.
    Isn’t it an odd world in which I can easily imagine that Alice Cooper would be a much better president than the current . . . denizen . . . of the White House?

  119. No, but you can’t answer every objection, some quite reasonable questions, with “we’re the smart people, shut up and do what we say” which has become the stock answer. STFU and do what we say just doesn’t work.*
    Mmmm…I love the smell of straw men burning in the morning. Why not try something different? How bout one or two of these “reasonable questions”.
    Lets see how they stand up.

  120. No, but you can’t answer every objection, some quite reasonable questions, with “we’re the smart people, shut up and do what we say” which has become the stock answer. STFU and do what we say just doesn’t work.*
    Mmmm…I love the smell of straw men burning in the morning. Why not try something different? How bout one or two of these “reasonable questions”.
    Lets see how they stand up.

  121. Thus, libertarianism comes to a screeching halt.
    The libertarian answer to this is tort (not the dessert). If the market can’t work it out, everybody sues everybody. Thus the libertarian nirvana is heaven for litigators, and pretty much guarantees full employment. Absent compromise, one side might win, and we have the tragic sight of the terminally small ‘night watchman’ state using its sovereign monopoly of force to make one side give ground.
    But if everybody is suing everybody, just how small can this state be, hmmm?

  122. Thus, libertarianism comes to a screeching halt.
    The libertarian answer to this is tort (not the dessert). If the market can’t work it out, everybody sues everybody. Thus the libertarian nirvana is heaven for litigators, and pretty much guarantees full employment. Absent compromise, one side might win, and we have the tragic sight of the terminally small ‘night watchman’ state using its sovereign monopoly of force to make one side give ground.
    But if everybody is suing everybody, just how small can this state be, hmmm?

  125. Bobby, I must be missing something, too. As I understand it, libertarians think government, and the laws government makes, are the problem. So how can their nirvana be everybody suing everybody else? You can’t have lawsuits (not to mention lawyers), after all, without laws.
    Perhaps a bunch of those self-styled libertarians aren’t such purists in their ideology as they would have their pawns believe. In short, libertarians of convenience. But I repeat myself.

  126. Bobby, I must be missing something, too. As I understand it, libertarians think government, and the laws government makes, are the problem. So how can their nirvana be everybody suing everybody else? You can’t have lawsuits (not to mention lawyers), after all, without laws.
    Perhaps a bunch of those self-styled libertarians aren’t such purists in their ideology as they would have their pawns believe. In short, libertarians of convenience. But I repeat myself.

  127. Common sense died with comity.
    there are many points at which effective policy making depends on expertise. specialist knowledge. often in topics which are, frankly, beyond the scope of common sense.
    what does common sense suggest we do, in those cases?
    the topic of climate change, specifically, has been thoroughly FUBAR’d by the degree to which it bumps up against the topic of money. as you allude to.
    that, and the fundamental and overhelming inertia of human nature.
    too bad brett’s gone, we could dust off the topic of how to keep his chickens warm without incandescent bulbs.
    will no-one speak for the chickens?
    The libertarian answer to this is tort
    now there is a small government solution!

  128. Common sense died with comity.
    there are many points at which effective policy making depends on expertise. specialist knowledge. often in topics which are, frankly, beyond the scope of common sense.
    what does common sense suggest we do, in those cases?
    the topic of climate change, specifically, has been thoroughly FUBAR’d by the degree to which it bumps up against the topic of money. as you allude to.
    that, and the fundamental and overhelming inertia of human nature.
    too bad brett’s gone, we could dust off the topic of how to keep his chickens warm without incandescent bulbs.
    will no-one speak for the chickens?
    The libertarian answer to this is tort
    now there is a small government solution!

  131. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate? What factors do the scientists change in the models when that happens? Which ones have they changed the most? What are the most likely outcomes (probability) and how sure are you (confidence level) of each? Does that include the timeline or is that still a guess?
    And then, can you separate out the causes well enough to know if, barring a return to life before the bronze age, if man can really impact the nature of climate change at All?
    If we killed all the cows and buffalo on the planet would that have a significant impact? Why would any government not plant a billion trees if all this were settled science? Or does the ravaging of the rain forest not matter anymore? We don’t hear much about that.
    Why do India and China get a pass in the Paris Accords? Other than hype what did they accomplish?

  132. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate? What factors do the scientists change in the models when that happens? Which ones have they changed the most? What are the most likely outcomes (probability) and how sure are you (confidence level) of each? Does that include the timeline or is that still a guess?
    And then, can you separate out the causes well enough to know if, barring a return to life before the bronze age, if man can really impact the nature of climate change at All?
    If we killed all the cows and buffalo on the planet would that have a significant impact? Why would any government not plant a billion trees if all this were settled science? Or does the ravaging of the rain forest not matter anymore? We don’t hear much about that.
    Why do India and China get a pass in the Paris Accords? Other than hype what did they accomplish?

  133. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
    citation required.

  134. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
    citation required.

  137. what cleek said.
    plus:
    i don’t know if killing all the cows would help. i think lots of folks, including govenments, are already planting lots of trees. i still do hear about the rainforest, but i travel in treehugger circles.
    can’t tell you why the paris accords were drafted the way thay were. maybe they are a total dog and pony show. sometimes that’s how things work.
    someone could probably explain the ins and outs of whether and why what the models predict has or has not happened. i’m sure i could get the gist of it, but really i’d be lucky to understand a third of it.
    my understanding is that there is an unusually broad consensus among real live climate scientists that (a) it’s warming up and (b) we are most likely contributing to it. it’s my understanding that folks who have a large stake in it – CIA, DOD, the insurance industry en masse – are on board.
    I find that compelling.
    things of this level of complexity and scale are rarely simple, binary true or false questions. at the policy level, it’s a risk analysis question, not a science quiz.
    how likely to occur times scale and cost of harm. i’m sure you’ve done a million of these.
    just do the math.
    i don’t need to know the ins and outs of plasma physics, or tree ring patterns from the early holocene, or any of the other happy BS that all of the armchair scientists in blogworld like to argue about.
    as if they know bupkes.
    folks who are responsible for doing a clear-eyed risk analysis, and who would no doubt prefer that be a matter of no concern, are taking it very very seriously.
    that’s my clue. that right there is the common sense analysis.
    average joes should read the freaking articles. or at least, defer to folks who can read them and actually make sense of them.

  138. what cleek said.
    plus:
    i don’t know if killing all the cows would help. i think lots of folks, including govenments, are already planting lots of trees. i still do hear about the rainforest, but i travel in treehugger circles.
    can’t tell you why the paris accords were drafted the way thay were. maybe they are a total dog and pony show. sometimes that’s how things work.
    someone could probably explain the ins and outs of whether and why what the models predict has or has not happened. i’m sure i could get the gist of it, but really i’d be lucky to understand a third of it.
    my understanding is that there is an unusually broad consensus among real live climate scientists that (a) it’s warming up and (b) we are most likely contributing to it. it’s my understanding that folks who have a large stake in it – CIA, DOD, the insurance industry en masse – are on board.
    I find that compelling.
    things of this level of complexity and scale are rarely simple, binary true or false questions. at the policy level, it’s a risk analysis question, not a science quiz.
    how likely to occur times scale and cost of harm. i’m sure you’ve done a million of these.
    just do the math.
    i don’t need to know the ins and outs of plasma physics, or tree ring patterns from the early holocene, or any of the other happy BS that all of the armchair scientists in blogworld like to argue about.
    as if they know bupkes.
    folks who are responsible for doing a clear-eyed risk analysis, and who would no doubt prefer that be a matter of no concern, are taking it very very seriously.
    that’s my clue. that right there is the common sense analysis.
    average joes should read the freaking articles. or at least, defer to folks who can read them and actually make sense of them.

  139. I’ve never gotten so much as an angry email from a chicken, let alone have one hack into my bank account. They must be okay.

  140. I’ve never gotten so much as an angry email from a chicken, let alone have one hack into my bank account. They must be okay.

  141. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
    In so far as that’s true, if you want accurate temperature predictions you need to talk to a weather forecaster not a climate scientist.
    Furthermore, as the planet gets warmer, temperature distributions change. Predicting just how that will happen is next to impossible.
    The major discussion point over the last 15 years has been the so-called global-warming pause. Denialists noted with enthusiasm that temperatures had not for several years exceeded the 1998 peak (or not by much, depending on which dataset you look at). Climate scientists pointed to the exceptionally strong El Niño in 1997-8, put a lot of effort into measuring and understanding ocean temperatures, and concluded that global warming was continuing and would eventually show up in land temperatures.
    Come the 2015-6 El Niño, we saw scarily high temperatures.
    Climate science right, denialists wrong.

  142. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
    In so far as that’s true, if you want accurate temperature predictions you need to talk to a weather forecaster not a climate scientist.
    Furthermore, as the planet gets warmer, temperature distributions change. Predicting just how that will happen is next to impossible.
    The major discussion point over the last 15 years has been the so-called global-warming pause. Denialists noted with enthusiasm that temperatures had not for several years exceeded the 1998 peak (or not by much, depending on which dataset you look at). Climate scientists pointed to the exceptionally strong El Niño in 1997-8, put a lot of effort into measuring and understanding ocean temperatures, and concluded that global warming was continuing and would eventually show up in land temperatures.
    Come the 2015-6 El Niño, we saw scarily high temperatures.
    Climate science right, denialists wrong.

  143. So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.
    Predicting just how that will happen is next to impossible.
    Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.

  144. So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.
    Predicting just how that will happen is next to impossible.
    Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.

  145. So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.
    What two data points? Can you clarify this?
    Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.
    Not from what I’ve seen. One can be fully on board with the consensus while recognizing that making predictions below a certain level of detail, be it over shorter intervals of time or smaller geographical areas, is nearly impossible. That really has little to do with the sort of skepticism (i.e. not scientific) you’re referring to.

  146. So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.
    What two data points? Can you clarify this?
    Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.
    Not from what I’ve seen. One can be fully on board with the consensus while recognizing that making predictions below a certain level of detail, be it over shorter intervals of time or smaller geographical areas, is nearly impossible. That really has little to do with the sort of skepticism (i.e. not scientific) you’re referring to.

  147. So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.
    you said they were all wrong.
    it’s up to you to support that assertion.
    so?

  148. So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.
    you said they were all wrong.
    it’s up to you to support that assertion.
    so?

  149. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
    Really? How about this for a starter. Also check the links out.
    Why do India and China get a pass in the Paris Accords?
    The heart of this problem is that the West has polluted its way to prosperity and has much higher per capita carbon emissions than the developing world. So who takes the hit? Tough choice. See this article.
    Thank you.

  150. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
    Really? How about this for a starter. Also check the links out.
    Why do India and China get a pass in the Paris Accords?
    The heart of this problem is that the West has polluted its way to prosperity and has much higher per capita carbon emissions than the developing world. So who takes the hit? Tough choice. See this article.
    Thank you.

  151. A simple guide to climate science:
    Humans burn a lot of fossil fuels. (Undeniably true)
    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. (Undeniably true)
    The earth gets heat from the sun’s radiation, peaking in the visible light spectrum which passes easily through the earth’s atmosphere (the shortest visible wavelength, blue light gets scattered somewhat, so the sky is blue and the sun is orange). The earth loses heat by longer wavelength infra-red radiation (longer because the earth is cooler than the sun). Some of this is absorbed by relatively complex gas molecules in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide. So increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere tends to make the planet warmer. (Undeniably true)
    There are various feedback effects, particularly involving clouds and water vapour. These are very difficult to model. So it is very hard to be sure about the extent to which increasing carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer. The IPCC continues to publish wide estimates of “climate sensitivity”. Some interesting discussion here.
    Predicting how the warming will distribute around the planet is very very hard.

  152. A simple guide to climate science:
    Humans burn a lot of fossil fuels. (Undeniably true)
    Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases. (Undeniably true)
    The earth gets heat from the sun’s radiation, peaking in the visible light spectrum which passes easily through the earth’s atmosphere (the shortest visible wavelength, blue light gets scattered somewhat, so the sky is blue and the sun is orange). The earth loses heat by longer wavelength infra-red radiation (longer because the earth is cooler than the sun). Some of this is absorbed by relatively complex gas molecules in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide. So increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere tends to make the planet warmer. (Undeniably true)
    There are various feedback effects, particularly involving clouds and water vapour. These are very difficult to model. So it is very hard to be sure about the extent to which increasing carbon dioxide makes the planet warmer. The IPCC continues to publish wide estimates of “climate sensitivity”. Some interesting discussion here.
    Predicting how the warming will distribute around the planet is very very hard.

  155. Or does the ravaging of the rain forest not matter anymore? We don’t hear much about that.
    you can hear as much about it as you like, there are still plenty of articles from credible sources on the topic.
    but, about a decade ago, it was thought that the relevant governments had taken control of the situation. but the things have recently reverted.

    A decade after the “Save the Rainforest” movement forced changes that dramatically slowed deforestation across the Amazon basin, activity is roaring back in some of the biggest expanses of forests in the world. That resurgence, driven by the world’s growing appetite for soy and other agricultural crops, is raising the specter of a backward slide in efforts to preserve biodiversity and fight climate change.
    In the Brazilian Amazon, the world’s largest rain forest, deforestation rose in 2015 for the first time in nearly a decade, to nearly two million acres from August 2015 to July 2016. That is a jump from about 1.5 million acres a year earlier and just over 1.2 million acres the year before that, according to estimates by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research.
    Here across the border in Bolivia, where there are fewer restrictions on land clearance, deforestation appears to be accelerating as well.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environment/deforestation-brazil-bolivia-south-america.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

  156. Or does the ravaging of the rain forest not matter anymore? We don’t hear much about that.
    you can hear as much about it as you like, there are still plenty of articles from credible sources on the topic.
    but, about a decade ago, it was thought that the relevant governments had taken control of the situation. but the things have recently reverted.

    A decade after the “Save the Rainforest” movement forced changes that dramatically slowed deforestation across the Amazon basin, activity is roaring back in some of the biggest expanses of forests in the world. That resurgence, driven by the world’s growing appetite for soy and other agricultural crops, is raising the specter of a backward slide in efforts to preserve biodiversity and fight climate change.
    In the Brazilian Amazon, the world’s largest rain forest, deforestation rose in 2015 for the first time in nearly a decade, to nearly two million acres from August 2015 to July 2016. That is a jump from about 1.5 million acres a year earlier and just over 1.2 million acres the year before that, according to estimates by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research.
    Here across the border in Bolivia, where there are fewer restrictions on land clearance, deforestation appears to be accelerating as well.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environment/deforestation-brazil-bolivia-south-america.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

  157. Marty channeling Will Ferrell’s Harry Caray, substituting destruction of the rain forests for mad cow disease.
    Harry Caray: Hey! How about this mad cow disease?
    Ken Waller: What about it?
    Harry Caray: Well, it was here for a while and then it went away. Your thoughts.
    Ken Waller: Yes, yes it was in the news for a while and then it disappeared from the news.
    Harry Caray: Good point. Gee I hope I never get it. Hey! What about this: if you had to choose between being the top scientist in your field or getting mad cow disease, what would it be?
    Ken Waller: Well of course I would choose to be the top scientist in my field.
    Harry Caray: Oh good. I was worried you’d choose mad cow.
    Ken Waller: Why would you think that?
    Harry Caray: I guess I’m just a worrier, that’s why my friends call me whiskers.
    Ken Waller: I thought you said your friends call you whiskers cause you were curious as a cat.

  158. Marty channeling Will Ferrell’s Harry Caray, substituting destruction of the rain forests for mad cow disease.
    Harry Caray: Hey! How about this mad cow disease?
    Ken Waller: What about it?
    Harry Caray: Well, it was here for a while and then it went away. Your thoughts.
    Ken Waller: Yes, yes it was in the news for a while and then it disappeared from the news.
    Harry Caray: Good point. Gee I hope I never get it. Hey! What about this: if you had to choose between being the top scientist in your field or getting mad cow disease, what would it be?
    Ken Waller: Well of course I would choose to be the top scientist in my field.
    Harry Caray: Oh good. I was worried you’d choose mad cow.
    Ken Waller: Why would you think that?
    Harry Caray: I guess I’m just a worrier, that’s why my friends call me whiskers.
    Ken Waller: I thought you said your friends call you whiskers cause you were curious as a cat.

  159. Pro Bono’s statement is where most reasonable people stand. As was my cite.
    But since we’re dealing with nutcase God-whispering, crypto-Christian, gummint-hating know-nothings, lets put things in terms they might understand:
    Global warming is the Pascal’s Wager of the time.
    If one side, the believers/predictors in the ravages of human-induced global climate change, is mostly wrong, generally speaking, no one burns in Hell. The door prizes are a cleaner environment, a whole lot of stronger levees and coastal infrastructure, etc. We don’t have to move the Naval Base in Norfolk, whether the oceans rise or not. Republicans may continue to govern Florida without being rounded up and slaughtered by God.
    If the non-believing, denying side is wrong, and they don’t even have to be totally wrong, the doubters, those who yell “Hoax!” and we know who the fuck you are, those who prevent and destroy all efforts for further research, monitoring, and amelioration, will send all of us, the world, the gibbering Babel of the world, to Hell. But there will be higher ground in that Hell and the doubters will be killed in that Hell … killed … before they reach that higher ground, as they surely will try using their fucking guns. The gibbering, soaked rabble of the world will find you and fucking kill you. (this presupposes that hasn’t already happened after we find out the full russian election-stealing treason that is going to be revealed).
    The only place in God’s realm that will be left incased in ice is upside-down Lucifer … ME … and the deniers, if they are wrong, not not just wrong, but purposefully, deliberately malignly wrong, out of some shallow pride in their political incorrectness, like rump, like Inhofe, will be brought before His Vengeance, and I will burn them for eternity, and their children, and I will nibble off the burnt bits and eat them over eternity like so many overcooked Cheetos.
    Am I getting through to ya, Mr Beale?
    Now, leave me alone.

  160. Pro Bono’s statement is where most reasonable people stand. As was my cite.
    But since we’re dealing with nutcase God-whispering, crypto-Christian, gummint-hating know-nothings, lets put things in terms they might understand:
    Global warming is the Pascal’s Wager of the time.
    If one side, the believers/predictors in the ravages of human-induced global climate change, is mostly wrong, generally speaking, no one burns in Hell. The door prizes are a cleaner environment, a whole lot of stronger levees and coastal infrastructure, etc. We don’t have to move the Naval Base in Norfolk, whether the oceans rise or not. Republicans may continue to govern Florida without being rounded up and slaughtered by God.
    If the non-believing, denying side is wrong, and they don’t even have to be totally wrong, the doubters, those who yell “Hoax!” and we know who the fuck you are, those who prevent and destroy all efforts for further research, monitoring, and amelioration, will send all of us, the world, the gibbering Babel of the world, to Hell. But there will be higher ground in that Hell and the doubters will be killed in that Hell … killed … before they reach that higher ground, as they surely will try using their fucking guns. The gibbering, soaked rabble of the world will find you and fucking kill you. (this presupposes that hasn’t already happened after we find out the full russian election-stealing treason that is going to be revealed).
    The only place in God’s realm that will be left incased in ice is upside-down Lucifer … ME … and the deniers, if they are wrong, not not just wrong, but purposefully, deliberately malignly wrong, out of some shallow pride in their political incorrectness, like rump, like Inhofe, will be brought before His Vengeance, and I will burn them for eternity, and their children, and I will nibble off the burnt bits and eat them over eternity like so many overcooked Cheetos.
    Am I getting through to ya, Mr Beale?
    Now, leave me alone.

  163. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
    Kind of depends on what you mean by “accurate”. If you mean hitting the temperature numbers, then what Pro Bono said (9:15).
    But the models do say: average temperatures worldwide getting higher. And, wonder of wonders, that’s what we are seeing. They also say that the effect in particular places will vary, with some getting warmer and some actually getting cooler as wind patterns etc. change. And once again, that’s what we are seeing.

  164. Why,in thirty years of scientific modelling, has not a single prediction in terms of temperature or outcome been accurate?
    Kind of depends on what you mean by “accurate”. If you mean hitting the temperature numbers, then what Pro Bono said (9:15).
    But the models do say: average temperatures worldwide getting higher. And, wonder of wonders, that’s what we are seeing. They also say that the effect in particular places will vary, with some getting warmer and some actually getting cooler as wind patterns etc. change. And once again, that’s what we are seeing.

  165. Common sense? There is a recent, unusually sharp rise in global average temperature that just happens to coincide with the Industrial Revolution. Make of that what you will.

  166. Common sense? There is a recent, unusually sharp rise in global average temperature that just happens to coincide with the Industrial Revolution. Make of that what you will.

  171. Minarchism
    Key sentence: “However, some advocates of minarchism also support State-provided fire departments, prisons, legislatures and an executive.[citation needed]”
    When the Minarchists, then, get done with their internal Civil War, and decide precisely what it is they stand for, drop me a line via the Post Office, if you haven’t abolished it.

  172. Minarchism
    Key sentence: “However, some advocates of minarchism also support State-provided fire departments, prisons, legislatures and an executive.[citation needed]”
    When the Minarchists, then, get done with their internal Civil War, and decide precisely what it is they stand for, drop me a line via the Post Office, if you haven’t abolished it.

  173. today, in the Republican Party’s ongoing assault on knowledge:

    A Republican lawmaker has put forth an amendment that would stop funding for the special counsel’s Russia investigation 180 days after it becomes law.
    The amendment from Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) would also prevent special counsel Robert Mueller from probing “matters occurring before June 2015,” which is the month Trump announced his presidential bid.

    deplorable
    (ht bj)

  174. today, in the Republican Party’s ongoing assault on knowledge:

    A Republican lawmaker has put forth an amendment that would stop funding for the special counsel’s Russia investigation 180 days after it becomes law.
    The amendment from Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) would also prevent special counsel Robert Mueller from probing “matters occurring before June 2015,” which is the month Trump announced his presidential bid.

    deplorable
    (ht bj)

  175. Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.
    Consider the statement this was a response to, and see if your response is remotely on point.
    let alone have one hack into my bank account
    AS FAR AS YOU KNOW……
    they don’t call it hunt and peck for nothing.

  176. Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.
    Consider the statement this was a response to, and see if your response is remotely on point.
    let alone have one hack into my bank account
    AS FAR AS YOU KNOW……
    they don’t call it hunt and peck for nothing.

  177. To be less cryptic:
    Imagine that leaks in residential gas lines were increasingly a problem. Utility experts say that increases the likelihood that somebody’s house will blow up.
    They just don’t know which one.
    Skeptics say: there is no problem here.

  178. To be less cryptic:
    Imagine that leaks in residential gas lines were increasingly a problem. Utility experts say that increases the likelihood that somebody’s house will blow up.
    They just don’t know which one.
    Skeptics say: there is no problem here.

  179. I’m going with the yahoo link on this one to avoid the annoying auto-play crap on the Newsweek site.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/houston-drowning-freedom-regulations-193813435.html
    The article concludes as follows:

    Houston was built without regard for the carrying capacity of its roads, just as it was built without regulating the amount of impervious cover that would be shedding water into streets, storm sewers, rivers and Buffalo Bayou.
    Texans do value their freedom.

    I don’t wish this crap on people, but it seems some of them do bring it on themselves, not to mention onto others.

  180. I’m going with the yahoo link on this one to avoid the annoying auto-play crap on the Newsweek site.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/houston-drowning-freedom-regulations-193813435.html
    The article concludes as follows:

    Houston was built without regard for the carrying capacity of its roads, just as it was built without regulating the amount of impervious cover that would be shedding water into streets, storm sewers, rivers and Buffalo Bayou.
    Texans do value their freedom.

    I don’t wish this crap on people, but it seems some of them do bring it on themselves, not to mention onto others.

  183. To be less cryptic:
    Leak happens in residential area on A street.
    Experts say that means that there could be a leak on any or every street in neighborhood. They just don’t know when each will happen.
    So lets replace every pipe.
    Skeptics say: Lets fix A street.

  184. To be less cryptic:
    Leak happens in residential area on A street.
    Experts say that means that there could be a leak on any or every street in neighborhood. They just don’t know when each will happen.
    So lets replace every pipe.
    Skeptics say: Lets fix A street.

  187. The thing about analogies is that they have to be at least somewhat analogous. Otherwise, they’re just irrelevant.

  188. The thing about analogies is that they have to be at least somewhat analogous. Otherwise, they’re just irrelevant.

  189. The thing about analogies is that they have to be at least somewhat analogous.
    Good point.
    To simplify:
    People who “haven’t read the article” are not, IMVHO, authoritative sources for information about whether climate change is a thing or not.
    I’d prefer that policy be made by people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about.
    As an aside, MA actually does have an issue with residential gas pipe leakage. Because our residential gas distribution system is old. Over 150 years old in some places. The town I live in apparently is among the more leaky.
    In 2014 MA passed a law requiring utilities to repair the most dangerous leaks. In 2016 they passed a law requiring utilities to repair the leaks that emit the most gas.
    Something short of replacing the entire infrastructure, because money and logistics. Although they could apparently recoup the cost in about a year just be not pissing away the gas.
    But something more than just “fix street A”.
    Just another reason I like living in the People’s Republic.
    If you want to live in the Skeptical Republic of Band-Aids, fine with me. Don’t make me come along with you.

  190. The thing about analogies is that they have to be at least somewhat analogous.
    Good point.
    To simplify:
    People who “haven’t read the article” are not, IMVHO, authoritative sources for information about whether climate change is a thing or not.
    I’d prefer that policy be made by people who actually know what the hell they’re talking about.
    As an aside, MA actually does have an issue with residential gas pipe leakage. Because our residential gas distribution system is old. Over 150 years old in some places. The town I live in apparently is among the more leaky.
    In 2014 MA passed a law requiring utilities to repair the most dangerous leaks. In 2016 they passed a law requiring utilities to repair the leaks that emit the most gas.
    Something short of replacing the entire infrastructure, because money and logistics. Although they could apparently recoup the cost in about a year just be not pissing away the gas.
    But something more than just “fix street A”.
    Just another reason I like living in the People’s Republic.
    If you want to live in the Skeptical Republic of Band-Aids, fine with me. Don’t make me come along with you.

  191. RE: Libertarians and property rights …
    Full disclosure: I’m a libertarian sympathizer in that I start each public policy question with the rebuttable presumption that less government is better than more. I’m most sympathetic of libertarianism in terms of fighting the police state, fighting kleptocracy and promoting a non-interventionist foreign policy.
    In terms of lawsuits, libertarians will tell you that if we start taking care of our own property rights, we’d become accustomed to dealing with our neighbors and most disputes would be handled with contracts. At its core, libertarians that I speak to in the real world are very much in favor of removing government so we can actually get to know one another. It’s almost quaint and nothing like the douchebaggery you find online, i.e., reason.com. If you are interested, I recommend this episode of Planet Money:
    http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/28/534735727/episode-286-libertarian-summer-camp
    This one-at-a-time contract life mostly seems to work at the summer camp profiled in the podcast, but I don’t think it can scale efficiently. I just don’t have time (or more like I don’t want to make the time) to get to know every farmer and butcher that supplies the food I eat, so I’m perfectly happy relying on government inspectors and labels. I have no desire to haggle about the price of gold for every purchase I make, so I’ll suffer the existence of the Fed.
    To be fair, many libertarians that I know acknowledge the inefficiency but believe the tradeoff is worth it. I’m pretty sure that we’ll never reach a critical mass on that tradeoff in my lifetime, so I’ve largely relegated libertarianism to the same trash heap with the other utopian governmental models. The difference is that I still regularly read libertarian thinkers to challenge myself on issues re: the size of government and I don’t do that with trash heap denizens, e.g., Marxists.

  192. RE: Libertarians and property rights …
    Full disclosure: I’m a libertarian sympathizer in that I start each public policy question with the rebuttable presumption that less government is better than more. I’m most sympathetic of libertarianism in terms of fighting the police state, fighting kleptocracy and promoting a non-interventionist foreign policy.
    In terms of lawsuits, libertarians will tell you that if we start taking care of our own property rights, we’d become accustomed to dealing with our neighbors and most disputes would be handled with contracts. At its core, libertarians that I speak to in the real world are very much in favor of removing government so we can actually get to know one another. It’s almost quaint and nothing like the douchebaggery you find online, i.e., reason.com. If you are interested, I recommend this episode of Planet Money:
    http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/06/28/534735727/episode-286-libertarian-summer-camp
    This one-at-a-time contract life mostly seems to work at the summer camp profiled in the podcast, but I don’t think it can scale efficiently. I just don’t have time (or more like I don’t want to make the time) to get to know every farmer and butcher that supplies the food I eat, so I’m perfectly happy relying on government inspectors and labels. I have no desire to haggle about the price of gold for every purchase I make, so I’ll suffer the existence of the Fed.
    To be fair, many libertarians that I know acknowledge the inefficiency but believe the tradeoff is worth it. I’m pretty sure that we’ll never reach a critical mass on that tradeoff in my lifetime, so I’ve largely relegated libertarianism to the same trash heap with the other utopian governmental models. The difference is that I still regularly read libertarian thinkers to challenge myself on issues re: the size of government and I don’t do that with trash heap denizens, e.g., Marxists.

  197. Yours appeared to be reasonably analogous, russell, at least in IMO.
    Thanks, no worries.
    The other thing about analogies is that they frequently derail discussion into arguments about the analogy rather than the original point.
    So, probably better to just make the original point.
    I appreciate the comment.

  198. Yours appeared to be reasonably analogous, russell, at least in IMO.
    Thanks, no worries.
    The other thing about analogies is that they frequently derail discussion into arguments about the analogy rather than the original point.
    So, probably better to just make the original point.
    I appreciate the comment.

  199. So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.
    One data point is the long-term trend. Which absolutely supports the contention that global temperatures continue to rise. And yes, the theory that burning fossil fuels makes global temperatures go up is settled science.
    The other data point is short-term variation. Which we now know for sure is irrelevant to the long-term trend.
    Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.
    That’s like blaming epidemiologists for not being able to predict which smokers will get lung cancer.
    Skeptics say: Lets fix A street
    I have no idea what that analogy is supposed to suggest. But, supposing for a moment that climate sensitivity turns out to be right at the low end of the IPCC range, what have we lost if we slow down our rate of burning fossil fuels? We’ve made the cheap fuel, which took 100 million years or more to lay down, last for another 200 years instead of 100 years. Perhaps at the cost of slightly lower short-term growth, but gaining future growth during the second hundred years. What’s wrong with that?
    (I can never tell what “refute” means in American English)

  200. So two data points, one refutes most of the models one supports some of them. 50%, settled science.
    One data point is the long-term trend. Which absolutely supports the contention that global temperatures continue to rise. And yes, the theory that burning fossil fuels makes global temperatures go up is settled science.
    The other data point is short-term variation. Which we now know for sure is irrelevant to the long-term trend.
    Pretty much what most of the skeptics have observed.
    That’s like blaming epidemiologists for not being able to predict which smokers will get lung cancer.
    Skeptics say: Lets fix A street
    I have no idea what that analogy is supposed to suggest. But, supposing for a moment that climate sensitivity turns out to be right at the low end of the IPCC range, what have we lost if we slow down our rate of burning fossil fuels? We’ve made the cheap fuel, which took 100 million years or more to lay down, last for another 200 years instead of 100 years. Perhaps at the cost of slightly lower short-term growth, but gaining future growth during the second hundred years. What’s wrong with that?
    (I can never tell what “refute” means in American English)

  201. I don’t think it can scale efficiently.
    In a nutshell, this is 100% of my issue with the libertarian position.
    I don’t really have a moral or ethical issue with it, it sort of hangs together philosophically, it’s appealing on a basic let’s-all-just-be-our-bad-selves level.
    I just don’t see it working.
    It’s been 10,000 years since humans decided to organize themselves in settled communities. To my knowledge, there have never been any enduring libertarian polities.
    Maybe there’s a reason for that.

  202. I don’t think it can scale efficiently.
    In a nutshell, this is 100% of my issue with the libertarian position.
    I don’t really have a moral or ethical issue with it, it sort of hangs together philosophically, it’s appealing on a basic let’s-all-just-be-our-bad-selves level.
    I just don’t see it working.
    It’s been 10,000 years since humans decided to organize themselves in settled communities. To my knowledge, there have never been any enduring libertarian polities.
    Maybe there’s a reason for that.

  205. ” what have we lost if we slow down our rate of burning fossil fuels? ”
    There is nothing to be lost in finding alternative fuel sources. In fact, most people don’t have an issue with finding better more efficient and cheaper fuel.
    In my experience, most people just accept that the earth is getting warmer. And yes, it is settled science that there is a theory that burning fossil fuel contributes to that increase, and most people don’t really question that.
    It is not settled how much it contributes or how much that increase would slow if we stopped burning fossil fuel altogether.
    Which one was the short term variation again?
    It is the urgency to stop burning fossil fuels based on cataclysmic predictions that people are skeptical about.
    And, my point originally, the focus on the upper end of the IPCC range as a reason for dramatic changes NOW, makes people even more skeptical as those things don’t happen.
    And then even more skeptical as highly touted accords don’t reduce emissions at all for decades.
    When I say I hate climate scientists it is purely because they have been henny penny for the last forty years, which makes lots of rational people skeptics.

  206. ” what have we lost if we slow down our rate of burning fossil fuels? ”
    There is nothing to be lost in finding alternative fuel sources. In fact, most people don’t have an issue with finding better more efficient and cheaper fuel.
    In my experience, most people just accept that the earth is getting warmer. And yes, it is settled science that there is a theory that burning fossil fuel contributes to that increase, and most people don’t really question that.
    It is not settled how much it contributes or how much that increase would slow if we stopped burning fossil fuel altogether.
    Which one was the short term variation again?
    It is the urgency to stop burning fossil fuels based on cataclysmic predictions that people are skeptical about.
    And, my point originally, the focus on the upper end of the IPCC range as a reason for dramatic changes NOW, makes people even more skeptical as those things don’t happen.
    And then even more skeptical as highly touted accords don’t reduce emissions at all for decades.
    When I say I hate climate scientists it is purely because they have been henny penny for the last forty years, which makes lots of rational people skeptics.

  207. …, what have we lost if we slow down our rate of burning fossil fuels?
    Whose heads does it fall on? Do people in first world countries live more modest lifestyles with those at the bottom suffering from energy poverty? Or do we tell people in the third world and developing countries that they’ll have to continue living in their mud huts and washing their clothes by hand for another 50 years?

  208. …, what have we lost if we slow down our rate of burning fossil fuels?
    Whose heads does it fall on? Do people in first world countries live more modest lifestyles with those at the bottom suffering from energy poverty? Or do we tell people in the third world and developing countries that they’ll have to continue living in their mud huts and washing their clothes by hand for another 50 years?

  209. it’s appealing on a basic let’s-all-just-be-our-bad-selves level.
    Posted by: russell | August 29, 2017 at 12:18 PM
    I’ll push back on this a bit. Libertarians are not all necessarily coming from a “greed is good” place. The idea being that if we are forced to deal with each other one-on-one, we’ll actually be better to each other. The thinking is that the abstraction of relying on the government to take care of our disputes and negotiations contributes to callousness.

  210. it’s appealing on a basic let’s-all-just-be-our-bad-selves level.
    Posted by: russell | August 29, 2017 at 12:18 PM
    I’ll push back on this a bit. Libertarians are not all necessarily coming from a “greed is good” place. The idea being that if we are forced to deal with each other one-on-one, we’ll actually be better to each other. The thinking is that the abstraction of relying on the government to take care of our disputes and negotiations contributes to callousness.

  211. It is the urgency to stop burning fossil fuels based on cataclysmic predictions that people are skeptical about.
    I’d wager that the great bulk of the “cataclysmic predictions” are coming from lay people, not scientists.
    The implications for continued global warming are really quite dire. If you want to argue about when the ‘direness’ sets in, well fine.
    But don’t deny it will happen if present trends continue into the future.
    If you are a “rational person” who accepts the science, but denies we should do much about it, well then it is tough to have a meaningful exchange other than to get to the bottom of why you believe that, your brickbats about “cataclysmic predictions” notwithstanding.

  212. It is the urgency to stop burning fossil fuels based on cataclysmic predictions that people are skeptical about.
    I’d wager that the great bulk of the “cataclysmic predictions” are coming from lay people, not scientists.
    The implications for continued global warming are really quite dire. If you want to argue about when the ‘direness’ sets in, well fine.
    But don’t deny it will happen if present trends continue into the future.
    If you are a “rational person” who accepts the science, but denies we should do much about it, well then it is tough to have a meaningful exchange other than to get to the bottom of why you believe that, your brickbats about “cataclysmic predictions” notwithstanding.

  213. specialization of labor has been kind of a big deal.
    You mean like specialized workers in figuring out what the law actually means? I.e. lawyers….

  214. specialization of labor has been kind of a big deal.
    You mean like specialized workers in figuring out what the law actually means? I.e. lawyers….

  215. It is not settled how much it contributes or how much that increase would slow if we stopped burning fossil fuel altogether.
    This claim is, for the most part, simply not true, and you have provided nothing in the way of evidence to back it up.
    The history of our understanding in this area of scientific inquiry is far, far, from how you characterize it:
    https://history.aip.org/climate/impacts.htm

  216. It is not settled how much it contributes or how much that increase would slow if we stopped burning fossil fuel altogether.
    This claim is, for the most part, simply not true, and you have provided nothing in the way of evidence to back it up.
    The history of our understanding in this area of scientific inquiry is far, far, from how you characterize it:
    https://history.aip.org/climate/impacts.htm

  217. The idea being that if we are forced to deal with each other one-on-one, we’ll actually be better to each other.
    as russell says, that’s fine in a small group. but it doesn’t scale. it doesn’t take very many people before the community becomes far too big for us to know everyone we need to know.
    plus, much of the history of mankind is “loosely governed group of people gets overrun by well-organized neighboring group.”

  218. The idea being that if we are forced to deal with each other one-on-one, we’ll actually be better to each other.
    as russell says, that’s fine in a small group. but it doesn’t scale. it doesn’t take very many people before the community becomes far too big for us to know everyone we need to know.
    plus, much of the history of mankind is “loosely governed group of people gets overrun by well-organized neighboring group.”

  219. You mean like specialized workers in figuring out what the law actually means? I.e. lawyers….
    Posted by: wj | August 29, 2017 at 12:56 PM
    Um, yeah, sure … my tricorder is detecting high levels of snark, but can’t pinpoint where the emissions are directed.

  220. You mean like specialized workers in figuring out what the law actually means? I.e. lawyers….
    Posted by: wj | August 29, 2017 at 12:56 PM
    Um, yeah, sure … my tricorder is detecting high levels of snark, but can’t pinpoint where the emissions are directed.

  223. Libertarians are not all necessarily coming from a “greed is good” place.
    I don’t see how you got that out of the sentence you quoted from russell. It sounded more of a “do your thing” deal – almost hippie-ish to me.

  224. Libertarians are not all necessarily coming from a “greed is good” place.
    I don’t see how you got that out of the sentence you quoted from russell. It sounded more of a “do your thing” deal – almost hippie-ish to me.

  225. The idea being that if we are forced to deal with each other one-on-one, we’ll actually be better to each other.
    “forced”? Goodness gracious me. 🙂
    You know what consumes the vast majority of our judicial system’s time and resources? That’s right, contract disputes.
    Obviously, widening the applicability of contracts will lessen this? Put me down for ‘doubtful’.
    Further, the libertarian solution totally elides actual existing power relationships in our society, relationships that are pretty much determined and/or proscribed by “public policy”, i.e., the terrible, terrible government.

  226. The idea being that if we are forced to deal with each other one-on-one, we’ll actually be better to each other.
    “forced”? Goodness gracious me. 🙂
    You know what consumes the vast majority of our judicial system’s time and resources? That’s right, contract disputes.
    Obviously, widening the applicability of contracts will lessen this? Put me down for ‘doubtful’.
    Further, the libertarian solution totally elides actual existing power relationships in our society, relationships that are pretty much determined and/or proscribed by “public policy”, i.e., the terrible, terrible government.

  227. I don’t see how you got that out of the sentence you quoted from russell. It sounded more of a “do your thing” deal – almost hippie-ish to me.
    Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 29, 2017 at 01:04 PM
    From “it’s appealing on a basic let’s-all-just-be-our-bad-selves level” I assumed “bad-selves” was referring to greed.
    But perhaps I misunderstood russell or was projecting based on criticisms I see directed at libertarians in general.
    I agree that the they can be hippie-ish.

  228. I don’t see how you got that out of the sentence you quoted from russell. It sounded more of a “do your thing” deal – almost hippie-ish to me.
    Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 29, 2017 at 01:04 PM
    From “it’s appealing on a basic let’s-all-just-be-our-bad-selves level” I assumed “bad-selves” was referring to greed.
    But perhaps I misunderstood russell or was projecting based on criticisms I see directed at libertarians in general.
    I agree that the they can be hippie-ish.

  229. Libertarians are not all necessarily coming from a “greed is good” place.
    Perhaps, but confined to a very tiny part of the actually existing “libertarian” community.
    If you didn’t, read the Bruening link I provided above, and give us a response.

  230. Libertarians are not all necessarily coming from a “greed is good” place.
    Perhaps, but confined to a very tiny part of the actually existing “libertarian” community.
    If you didn’t, read the Bruening link I provided above, and give us a response.

  231. You know what consumes the vast majority of our judicial system’s time and resources? That’s right, contract disputes.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 29, 2017 at 01:07 PM
    That does fit my observations as a commercial litigator at all, but Florida could be atypical. The *vast* majority of trials Florida state courts are criminal, family and PI. Commercial disputes are not high on the list at all. Unless the judges are lying to me, 98% of commercial disputes settle (as they should).
    Also, keep in mind that I don’t subscribe to this level of libertarianism.

  232. You know what consumes the vast majority of our judicial system’s time and resources? That’s right, contract disputes.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 29, 2017 at 01:07 PM
    That does fit my observations as a commercial litigator at all, but Florida could be atypical. The *vast* majority of trials Florida state courts are criminal, family and PI. Commercial disputes are not high on the list at all. Unless the judges are lying to me, 98% of commercial disputes settle (as they should).
    Also, keep in mind that I don’t subscribe to this level of libertarianism.

  235. Libertarians are not all necessarily coming from a “greed is good” place.
    I do get that. When I said “bad self” I meant it in the James Brown sense.
    I agree that the they can be hippie-ish.
    Hence the appeal! 🙂
    FWIW, I said the same thing.
    Indeed you did!
    much of the history of mankind is “loosely governed group of people gets overrun by well-organized neighboring group.”
    Been reading “Memories of the Mediterranean” by Braudel. See also Romans and Etruscans.
    Or, Romans and pretty much anyone they could get to.
    When I say I hate climate scientists it is purely because they have been henny penny for the last forty years, which makes lots of rational people skeptics.
    Somehow we’ve traveled from “common sense tells us there’s no there there” to “Al Gore is fat”.

  236. Libertarians are not all necessarily coming from a “greed is good” place.
    I do get that. When I said “bad self” I meant it in the James Brown sense.
    I agree that the they can be hippie-ish.
    Hence the appeal! 🙂
    FWIW, I said the same thing.
    Indeed you did!
    much of the history of mankind is “loosely governed group of people gets overrun by well-organized neighboring group.”
    Been reading “Memories of the Mediterranean” by Braudel. See also Romans and Etruscans.
    Or, Romans and pretty much anyone they could get to.
    When I say I hate climate scientists it is purely because they have been henny penny for the last forty years, which makes lots of rational people skeptics.
    Somehow we’ve traveled from “common sense tells us there’s no there there” to “Al Gore is fat”.

  237. RE: this link: http://www.demos.org/blog/10/8/14/why-property-theft-and-why-it-matters
    I think the crux of the article that bobbyp would like this lawyer/economist to address is: If we started from common-ownership, then how do we get to individual property rights without it being theft?
    First of all, of course it all can be traced back to theft at some point. Whether you call it manifest destiny, or doctrine of discovery, or the more accurate and enduring property law concept of adverse possession, there is an element of theft.
    The question is: What do you do about it? Almost all of these concepts are based on the assumption that the thieves will put the property to better use than the victims. The tough part is often times the assumption turned out to be accurate.
    I’ve had these arguments with my extreme green party friends. I tell them we can’t go back to communal ownership where we all live in sustainable biospheres. The carrying capacity of the planet is much lower than the current population if we do that. Without a massive depopulating of the planet, we’re stuck giving priority to efficient use of resources and private property/capitalism the most efficient system we have for that.
    Keep in mind that I didn’t say it was the “best” system in general, just the most efficient. Whenever I can find a reason to ditch free market economics, I do, e.g., single payer health care.

  238. RE: this link: http://www.demos.org/blog/10/8/14/why-property-theft-and-why-it-matters
    I think the crux of the article that bobbyp would like this lawyer/economist to address is: If we started from common-ownership, then how do we get to individual property rights without it being theft?
    First of all, of course it all can be traced back to theft at some point. Whether you call it manifest destiny, or doctrine of discovery, or the more accurate and enduring property law concept of adverse possession, there is an element of theft.
    The question is: What do you do about it? Almost all of these concepts are based on the assumption that the thieves will put the property to better use than the victims. The tough part is often times the assumption turned out to be accurate.
    I’ve had these arguments with my extreme green party friends. I tell them we can’t go back to communal ownership where we all live in sustainable biospheres. The carrying capacity of the planet is much lower than the current population if we do that. Without a massive depopulating of the planet, we’re stuck giving priority to efficient use of resources and private property/capitalism the most efficient system we have for that.
    Keep in mind that I didn’t say it was the “best” system in general, just the most efficient. Whenever I can find a reason to ditch free market economics, I do, e.g., single payer health care.

  239. I do get that. When I said “bad self” I meant it in the James Brown sense.
    Posted by: russell | August 29, 2017 at 01:37 PM
    Apologies, I was projecting.

  240. I do get that. When I said “bad self” I meant it in the James Brown sense.
    Posted by: russell | August 29, 2017 at 01:37 PM
    Apologies, I was projecting.

  241. Been reading “Memories of the Mediterranean” by Braudel. See also Romans and Etruscans.
    Or, Romans and pretty much anyone they could get to.
    been listening to the “History Of English Podcast”. he does a stretch of about a dozen episodes just on the history from the Indo-European tribes, through the, Greeks, the Romans and up to the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain. it does illustrate how the English language got its roots, but it might as well be called “the Romans kick everybody’s ass for a thousand years.”
    unless you live in a backwater with no resources you’re going to be governed, one way or another. might as well choose your government and defend it instead of letting someone else choose for you.

  242. Been reading “Memories of the Mediterranean” by Braudel. See also Romans and Etruscans.
    Or, Romans and pretty much anyone they could get to.
    been listening to the “History Of English Podcast”. he does a stretch of about a dozen episodes just on the history from the Indo-European tribes, through the, Greeks, the Romans and up to the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain. it does illustrate how the English language got its roots, but it might as well be called “the Romans kick everybody’s ass for a thousand years.”
    unless you live in a backwater with no resources you’re going to be governed, one way or another. might as well choose your government and defend it instead of letting someone else choose for you.

  243. “When I say I hate climate scientists it is purely because they have been henny penny for the last forty years, which makes lots of rational people skeptics.”
    The CO2/Global warming connection was actually made close to a century ago, from simple theoretical calculations.
    But I’m sure that when the “Giant Asteroid On Track To Destroy Humanity” is spotted, with a calculated ETA 40 years in the future, the GOP will sense a useful wedge issue/tribal marker™ and declare it all Fake News.
    Damn those Planetary Scientists, ginning up fear to rake in the grant moolah, you know. Sure, they got eclipse tracks and timing right to incredible precision, but JoeBob Festis as Commern Sense that doesn’t listen to any henny penny alarmists.
    Up in Valhalla/Heaven, deities pause to look down and remark ‘Fukkers were too stupid to live’

  244. “When I say I hate climate scientists it is purely because they have been henny penny for the last forty years, which makes lots of rational people skeptics.”
    The CO2/Global warming connection was actually made close to a century ago, from simple theoretical calculations.
    But I’m sure that when the “Giant Asteroid On Track To Destroy Humanity” is spotted, with a calculated ETA 40 years in the future, the GOP will sense a useful wedge issue/tribal marker™ and declare it all Fake News.
    Damn those Planetary Scientists, ginning up fear to rake in the grant moolah, you know. Sure, they got eclipse tracks and timing right to incredible precision, but JoeBob Festis as Commern Sense that doesn’t listen to any henny penny alarmists.
    Up in Valhalla/Heaven, deities pause to look down and remark ‘Fukkers were too stupid to live’

  245. “Somehow we’ve traveled from “common sense tells us there’s no there there” ”
    I would love for you to show me this.

  246. “Somehow we’ve traveled from “common sense tells us there’s no there there” ”
    I would love for you to show me this.

  247. the libertarian solution totally elides actual existing power relationships in our society
    In particular, the power that comes from being able to afford some of those expert lawyers who can make a superior case in the course of a suit over a contract. (Yes, there are other forms of power in our society. But that is the one which would most directly clash with the libertarian vision.)

  248. the libertarian solution totally elides actual existing power relationships in our society
    In particular, the power that comes from being able to afford some of those expert lawyers who can make a superior case in the course of a suit over a contract. (Yes, there are other forms of power in our society. But that is the one which would most directly clash with the libertarian vision.)

  249. I don’t think they have flood insurance in Somalia.
    What did the poor Somalis do to deserve our libertarians?

  250. I don’t think they have flood insurance in Somalia.
    What did the poor Somalis do to deserve our libertarians?

  251. “Somehow we’ve traveled from “common sense tells us there’s no there there” ”
    I would love for you to show me this.

    Im going to go with the best common sense answer I can decipher from a bunch of people telling me the world was coming to an end last year, or maybe 5 years, but certainly by the end of the century, maybe.

    and

    Skeptics say: Lets fix A street.

    Perhaps I’m misreading you, but your argument throughout seems to be:
    Scientists are going all henny penny, and that’s why nobody wants to do anything to mitigate the human causes of climate change.
    I may be misreading you again, but unless I’m mistaken, “nobody” here includes you.
    You’d love for all the right things to happen, of course. You just don’t think anyone should do anything to make them happen as a matter of public policy.
    Maybe you’re just bored today and are in the mood to wind up the liberals for entertainment.
    It’d be nice if you’d actually own a point of view now and then.

  252. “Somehow we’ve traveled from “common sense tells us there’s no there there” ”
    I would love for you to show me this.

    Im going to go with the best common sense answer I can decipher from a bunch of people telling me the world was coming to an end last year, or maybe 5 years, but certainly by the end of the century, maybe.

    and

    Skeptics say: Lets fix A street.

    Perhaps I’m misreading you, but your argument throughout seems to be:
    Scientists are going all henny penny, and that’s why nobody wants to do anything to mitigate the human causes of climate change.
    I may be misreading you again, but unless I’m mistaken, “nobody” here includes you.
    You’d love for all the right things to happen, of course. You just don’t think anyone should do anything to make them happen as a matter of public policy.
    Maybe you’re just bored today and are in the mood to wind up the liberals for entertainment.
    It’d be nice if you’d actually own a point of view now and then.

  253. It certainly doesn’t say there is no there there. My point of view is that climate scientists, in order to gain attention and grants, started saying the world was coming to and end any day.
    That didn’t happen so we renamed global warming to climate change because the brand was sullied, but they didn’t stop the hype.
    Out of all the discernable facts common sense says there is a long term warming trend, multiple causes and little ability to determine the impact of removing one of them.
    I am going to be for policy that makes incremental change in fossil fuel usage where it is economically replaceable and support research into how that can happen more.
    I could get more people to come around to my policy position if the climate scientists would stop demanding that the, IMO false, apocalyptic choices are all we have. my original point.
    None of that says there is no there there. It says lets fix A street, then when you get more data we can see if there are other things that are economically reasonable responses to the actual threat.
    I may be misreading you again, but unless I’m mistaken, “nobody” here includes you.
    I addressed this in my very first comment on the topic, “I am a climate change believer” which probably wasn’t explicit enough I guess.

  254. It certainly doesn’t say there is no there there. My point of view is that climate scientists, in order to gain attention and grants, started saying the world was coming to and end any day.
    That didn’t happen so we renamed global warming to climate change because the brand was sullied, but they didn’t stop the hype.
    Out of all the discernable facts common sense says there is a long term warming trend, multiple causes and little ability to determine the impact of removing one of them.
    I am going to be for policy that makes incremental change in fossil fuel usage where it is economically replaceable and support research into how that can happen more.
    I could get more people to come around to my policy position if the climate scientists would stop demanding that the, IMO false, apocalyptic choices are all we have. my original point.
    None of that says there is no there there. It says lets fix A street, then when you get more data we can see if there are other things that are economically reasonable responses to the actual threat.
    I may be misreading you again, but unless I’m mistaken, “nobody” here includes you.
    I addressed this in my very first comment on the topic, “I am a climate change believer” which probably wasn’t explicit enough I guess.

  255. I addressed this in my very first comment on the topic, “I am a climate change believer” which probably wasn’t explicit enough I guess.
    But you wrote that the models were all wrong and there was no consensus.
    ???

  256. I addressed this in my very first comment on the topic, “I am a climate change believer” which probably wasn’t explicit enough I guess.
    But you wrote that the models were all wrong and there was no consensus.
    ???

  257. Yes yes I did. The models have been consistently wrong, there is less consensus than regularly advertised, particularly on the timing, of the impact that burning fossil fuel has on the overall problem. The span of outcomes is pretty wide with the worst having low probability and little confidence. And yet, common sense says that there is something there that we should address with common sense solutions.
    I wrote a model for software maintainability back in the day that predicted MTBMA and it turned out to be pretty far off in several ways. Common sense told me the code would still probably need to be fixed occasionally.

  258. Yes yes I did. The models have been consistently wrong, there is less consensus than regularly advertised, particularly on the timing, of the impact that burning fossil fuel has on the overall problem. The span of outcomes is pretty wide with the worst having low probability and little confidence. And yet, common sense says that there is something there that we should address with common sense solutions.
    I wrote a model for software maintainability back in the day that predicted MTBMA and it turned out to be pretty far off in several ways. Common sense told me the code would still probably need to be fixed occasionally.

  259. My point of view is that climate scientists, in order to gain attention and grants, started saying the world was coming to and end any day.
    I would say that this is a less than accurate representation of the events under discussion.
    Obviously, we disagree on that point.
    Out of all the discernable facts common sense says there is a long term warming trend, multiple causes and little ability to determine the impact of removing one of them.
    What are the other causes?

  260. My point of view is that climate scientists, in order to gain attention and grants, started saying the world was coming to and end any day.
    I would say that this is a less than accurate representation of the events under discussion.
    Obviously, we disagree on that point.
    Out of all the discernable facts common sense says there is a long term warming trend, multiple causes and little ability to determine the impact of removing one of them.
    What are the other causes?

  261. The models have been consistently wrong,
    How? Not exactly right on the money in every detail (to the extent that the models go into specific detail)?
    there is less consensus than regularly advertised, particularly on the timing, of the impact that burning fossil fuel has on the overall problem.
    I don’t think there’s much advertised on consensus on those more specific points, rather on the general nature of the problem.
    The span of outcomes is pretty wide with the worst having low probability and little confidence.
    The same goes for the most optimistic outcomes, with the middle ones having the highest confidence. That’s the consensus as far as I can tell. The span of outcomes is somewhat wide, because scientists are, themselves, skeptics. They don’t generally claim to know what they don’t know and present uncertainty as is appropriate.
    I wrote a model for software maintainability back in the day that predicted MTBMA and it turned out to be pretty far off in several ways. Common sense told me the code would still probably need to be fixed occasionally.
    Neat.

  262. The models have been consistently wrong,
    How? Not exactly right on the money in every detail (to the extent that the models go into specific detail)?
    there is less consensus than regularly advertised, particularly on the timing, of the impact that burning fossil fuel has on the overall problem.
    I don’t think there’s much advertised on consensus on those more specific points, rather on the general nature of the problem.
    The span of outcomes is pretty wide with the worst having low probability and little confidence.
    The same goes for the most optimistic outcomes, with the middle ones having the highest confidence. That’s the consensus as far as I can tell. The span of outcomes is somewhat wide, because scientists are, themselves, skeptics. They don’t generally claim to know what they don’t know and present uncertainty as is appropriate.
    I wrote a model for software maintainability back in the day that predicted MTBMA and it turned out to be pretty far off in several ways. Common sense told me the code would still probably need to be fixed occasionally.
    Neat.

  263. My point of view is that climate scientists, in order to gain attention and grants, started saying the world was coming to and end any day.
    Sez’ you. Perhaps you could back this up with some, you know, actual evidence.
    The models have been consistently wrong
    citation required.
    The span of outcomes is pretty wide with the worst having low probability and little confidence.
    citation required.

  264. My point of view is that climate scientists, in order to gain attention and grants, started saying the world was coming to and end any day.
    Sez’ you. Perhaps you could back this up with some, you know, actual evidence.
    The models have been consistently wrong
    citation required.
    The span of outcomes is pretty wide with the worst having low probability and little confidence.
    citation required.

  265. What did the poor Somalis do to deserve our libertarians?
    Worse, they have been woefully inept in getting our libertarians to move over there, and it has to be something more than ineffective public relations.
    I blame their culture.

  266. What did the poor Somalis do to deserve our libertarians?
    Worse, they have been woefully inept in getting our libertarians to move over there, and it has to be something more than ineffective public relations.
    I blame their culture.

  267. For a long stretch of my career, I worked for a company in the weather space. We did not do modeling ourselves, but weather models were the source and destination of most of the information we trafficked in. Some of my co-workers ran academic weather models at home for fun and entertainment.
    Models are just that, a model. They do not predict future events with pin-point accuracy. They are subject to constant refinement and improvement.
    The stuff I worked around was weather prediction modeling. Meteorology. Climatology is that much more imprecise because of the scale of information, both in terms of time-span and volume.
    Will X Y or Z happen tomorrow, ten years from now, or 100 years from now? From your and my perspective, a meaningful distinction. From the model’s perspective, and in fact in the context of the time scale of the events we’re talking about, a rounding error. Noise.
    It’s useful when thinking about things to consider the nature of the things you’re thinking about.
    Things are likely going to happen ten, twenty, and fifty years from now based on what is in the atmosphere now. We’re not going to change that, it’s baked in. We’re along for the ride. The point of all of this hair-on-fire crap is to prevent that situation from getting any worse than what it’s already, irreversibly, on track to be.
    It could, actually, be fairly dramatic, depending on where you live and what your circumstances are. Whether “dramatic” equates to “disaster” depends. “Dramatic” does, however, mean a large change.
    Temperatures have been as hot as they are now, even slightly hotter, during our human sojourn on earth. Right about the beginning of the Holocene. How many people on earth then? A hundred thousand? A million?
    Now there are 7+ billion of us. Almost 10 billion by 2050.
    The stakes are higher.
    The way this needs to be approached at a public policy level is as an exercise in risk management. If the likelihood of occurrence * degree of harm is not so great, maybe mess around at the margins and see what happens. If the likelihood * degree of harm is large, more assertive, pro-active measures are probably indicated.
    Do the math and see where it lands.

  268. For a long stretch of my career, I worked for a company in the weather space. We did not do modeling ourselves, but weather models were the source and destination of most of the information we trafficked in. Some of my co-workers ran academic weather models at home for fun and entertainment.
    Models are just that, a model. They do not predict future events with pin-point accuracy. They are subject to constant refinement and improvement.
    The stuff I worked around was weather prediction modeling. Meteorology. Climatology is that much more imprecise because of the scale of information, both in terms of time-span and volume.
    Will X Y or Z happen tomorrow, ten years from now, or 100 years from now? From your and my perspective, a meaningful distinction. From the model’s perspective, and in fact in the context of the time scale of the events we’re talking about, a rounding error. Noise.
    It’s useful when thinking about things to consider the nature of the things you’re thinking about.
    Things are likely going to happen ten, twenty, and fifty years from now based on what is in the atmosphere now. We’re not going to change that, it’s baked in. We’re along for the ride. The point of all of this hair-on-fire crap is to prevent that situation from getting any worse than what it’s already, irreversibly, on track to be.
    It could, actually, be fairly dramatic, depending on where you live and what your circumstances are. Whether “dramatic” equates to “disaster” depends. “Dramatic” does, however, mean a large change.
    Temperatures have been as hot as they are now, even slightly hotter, during our human sojourn on earth. Right about the beginning of the Holocene. How many people on earth then? A hundred thousand? A million?
    Now there are 7+ billion of us. Almost 10 billion by 2050.
    The stakes are higher.
    The way this needs to be approached at a public policy level is as an exercise in risk management. If the likelihood of occurrence * degree of harm is not so great, maybe mess around at the margins and see what happens. If the likelihood * degree of harm is large, more assertive, pro-active measures are probably indicated.
    Do the math and see where it lands.

  269. Shorter me:
    If you watch the weather report on the news and do anything whatsoever in response, you’re responding to a model that is probably going to be, more or less, wrong.
    Not completely wrong, but not completely right either. Just sufficiently in the right direction that it’s worth going out and rolling up the windows of your car.

  270. Shorter me:
    If you watch the weather report on the news and do anything whatsoever in response, you’re responding to a model that is probably going to be, more or less, wrong.
    Not completely wrong, but not completely right either. Just sufficiently in the right direction that it’s worth going out and rolling up the windows of your car.

  271. Is a citation really needed for the proposition that the models have been inconsistent?
    Just looking at sea level changes, a little googling shows the following from the IPCC:
    The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100.
    The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100.
    The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100.
    The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draft…then changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version.
    The fifth report (2013) projected a sea level rise by 2100 of 45-110 cm.
    I’m not dogging the scientists, this is hard stuff, but overstating the results is not going to help persuade the skeptics.

  272. Is a citation really needed for the proposition that the models have been inconsistent?
    Just looking at sea level changes, a little googling shows the following from the IPCC:
    The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100.
    The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100.
    The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100.
    The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draft…then changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version.
    The fifth report (2013) projected a sea level rise by 2100 of 45-110 cm.
    I’m not dogging the scientists, this is hard stuff, but overstating the results is not going to help persuade the skeptics.

  273. The way this needs to be approached at a public policy level is as an exercise in risk management. If the likelihood of occurrence * degree of harm is not so great, maybe mess around at the margins and see what happens. If the likelihood * degree of harm is large, more assertive, pro-active measures are probably indicated.
    Do the math and see where it lands.
    Posted by: russell | August 29, 2017 at 05:20 PM
    I completely agree with you from a risk management perspective. The problem comes in when advocates for mitigating against climate change oversell the science. Even someone like me who is not a skeptic rolls my eyes at the strident language used on occasion.

  274. The way this needs to be approached at a public policy level is as an exercise in risk management. If the likelihood of occurrence * degree of harm is not so great, maybe mess around at the margins and see what happens. If the likelihood * degree of harm is large, more assertive, pro-active measures are probably indicated.
    Do the math and see where it lands.
    Posted by: russell | August 29, 2017 at 05:20 PM
    I completely agree with you from a risk management perspective. The problem comes in when advocates for mitigating against climate change oversell the science. Even someone like me who is not a skeptic rolls my eyes at the strident language used on occasion.

  275. 45 cm is a foot and a half.
    110 cm is three and a half feet.
    stupid scientists, can’t they figure this stuff out?
    not trying to stick it to you, pollo, just saying.
    2100 is probably baked in. keep pumping that stuff out there and 2200 is when the fun begins.
    we’ll adjust.

  276. 45 cm is a foot and a half.
    110 cm is three and a half feet.
    stupid scientists, can’t they figure this stuff out?
    not trying to stick it to you, pollo, just saying.
    2100 is probably baked in. keep pumping that stuff out there and 2200 is when the fun begins.
    we’ll adjust.

  277. But look at the 1990 high range of 367 cm.
    Compare to Gore’s 600 cm.
    Again, I’m not dogging the scientists, but I don’t think one should be tossed in with the “climate deniers” just for acknowledging that the science is not “settled”.

  278. But look at the 1990 high range of 367 cm.
    Compare to Gore’s 600 cm.
    Again, I’m not dogging the scientists, but I don’t think one should be tossed in with the “climate deniers” just for acknowledging that the science is not “settled”.

  279. The models have been consistently wrong…
    I would say, rather, that the models are incomplete. With the most likely outcome that they’re pointing in the proper direction, but timing and magnitude have significant error bars. Because of where I live, I pay a lot of attention to the North American Monsoon. How much water is available in parts of the Southwest depend very much on the strength and timing of the monsoon. We don’t get it right as weather from year to year, or even from week to week, or where the thunderstorms will track from day to day.
    My son’s girlfriend is a climatologist specializing in the monsoon, working on integrating smaller fine-grained regional models forced by global models. She says we are still a long ways from being able to predict how the monsoon will change.

  280. The models have been consistently wrong…
    I would say, rather, that the models are incomplete. With the most likely outcome that they’re pointing in the proper direction, but timing and magnitude have significant error bars. Because of where I live, I pay a lot of attention to the North American Monsoon. How much water is available in parts of the Southwest depend very much on the strength and timing of the monsoon. We don’t get it right as weather from year to year, or even from week to week, or where the thunderstorms will track from day to day.
    My son’s girlfriend is a climatologist specializing in the monsoon, working on integrating smaller fine-grained regional models forced by global models. She says we are still a long ways from being able to predict how the monsoon will change.

  281. The science is settled that human behavior is contributing to global warming, and that carbon emissions is a huge factor. Whether or not “the world will come to an end”, well – a lot of people in Harvey’s way have their worlds coming to an end, as well as those suffering flooding and crazy weather in Asia (India, Bangladesh and Nepal).
    We know that carbon emissions also cause ugly air pollution and associated problems. It seems sensible to turn to other technologies.
    “The reality of human-caused climate change is increasingly clear for anyone to see. Last year was the hottest year on record, and the 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. 2017 is on track to be the second-warmest year on record; and this even in the absence of an El Niño warming event like 2016’s. According to NASA, the first six months of this year were 0.94°C above the 1950–1980 average. Meanwhile, CO2 levels are are 25 percent higher than they were in 1957, and still rising.”
    Whether sea levels have been predicted accurately – I’m sure scientists keep working on making better predictions – scientists are constantly learning.
    But it’s pretty obvious that cutting carbon emissions would be good for the planet, and the economic negatives mainly fall on fossil fuel corporations.
    I just wonder why people who say they aren’t “climate skeptics” are such concern trolls. Why not pick something besides ocean levels and help the rest of us fight for more sustainable energy options?

  282. The science is settled that human behavior is contributing to global warming, and that carbon emissions is a huge factor. Whether or not “the world will come to an end”, well – a lot of people in Harvey’s way have their worlds coming to an end, as well as those suffering flooding and crazy weather in Asia (India, Bangladesh and Nepal).
    We know that carbon emissions also cause ugly air pollution and associated problems. It seems sensible to turn to other technologies.
    “The reality of human-caused climate change is increasingly clear for anyone to see. Last year was the hottest year on record, and the 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998. 2017 is on track to be the second-warmest year on record; and this even in the absence of an El Niño warming event like 2016’s. According to NASA, the first six months of this year were 0.94°C above the 1950–1980 average. Meanwhile, CO2 levels are are 25 percent higher than they were in 1957, and still rising.”
    Whether sea levels have been predicted accurately – I’m sure scientists keep working on making better predictions – scientists are constantly learning.
    But it’s pretty obvious that cutting carbon emissions would be good for the planet, and the economic negatives mainly fall on fossil fuel corporations.
    I just wonder why people who say they aren’t “climate skeptics” are such concern trolls. Why not pick something besides ocean levels and help the rest of us fight for more sustainable energy options?

  285. Again, I’m not dogging the scientists, but I don’t think one should be tossed in with the “climate deniers” just for acknowledging that the science is not “settled”.
    Oh the science is settled; it’s the predictions that one makes based on the science that bounces around.
    You can make models of a how a (American) football is going to bounce and roll after a punt using plain ol’ commonsensical known-for-centuries totally ‘settled’ Newtonian mechanics. Calculating predictions? Wild variations; every time.
    That’s just the Universe we live in. It’s not set up for our convenience, and is perfectly capable of exterminating all life on Earth in a blast of gamma rays.

  286. Again, I’m not dogging the scientists, but I don’t think one should be tossed in with the “climate deniers” just for acknowledging that the science is not “settled”.
    Oh the science is settled; it’s the predictions that one makes based on the science that bounces around.
    You can make models of a how a (American) football is going to bounce and roll after a punt using plain ol’ commonsensical known-for-centuries totally ‘settled’ Newtonian mechanics. Calculating predictions? Wild variations; every time.
    That’s just the Universe we live in. It’s not set up for our convenience, and is perfectly capable of exterminating all life on Earth in a blast of gamma rays.

  287. Perhaps we could encourage climate change deniers to take up smoking tobacco (for those that aren’t already), since scientists/experts can’t be trusted. Just need to get a logo for all the Common Sense Ashtrays I’m planning to sell (won’t advertise that they’re “green” ashtrays, that would probably put a big dent in sales).

  288. Perhaps we could encourage climate change deniers to take up smoking tobacco (for those that aren’t already), since scientists/experts can’t be trusted. Just need to get a logo for all the Common Sense Ashtrays I’m planning to sell (won’t advertise that they’re “green” ashtrays, that would probably put a big dent in sales).

  289. But look at the 1990 high range of 367 cm.
    Compare to Gore’s 600 cm.
    After comparing, note that Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist.
    Certainly there are lots of folks, not just Gore, who are not climate scientists and who are making hair-on-fire predictions. Just as there are other folks, also not climate scientists, who are out there arguing that the entire thing is a hoax.
    But among actual experts, who have a clue what they are talking about, there is minimal disagreement on the basic direction things are going. Or on the principal causes and the necessary sorts of things that need to be done to reduce how far it goes. Some disagreement on the details, of course — everybody in the field has his own preferred model, with slightly different assumptions, etc. Science is like that. But the big picture? Pretty solid.

  290. But look at the 1990 high range of 367 cm.
    Compare to Gore’s 600 cm.
    After comparing, note that Gore is a politician, not a climate scientist.
    Certainly there are lots of folks, not just Gore, who are not climate scientists and who are making hair-on-fire predictions. Just as there are other folks, also not climate scientists, who are out there arguing that the entire thing is a hoax.
    But among actual experts, who have a clue what they are talking about, there is minimal disagreement on the basic direction things are going. Or on the principal causes and the necessary sorts of things that need to be done to reduce how far it goes. Some disagreement on the details, of course — everybody in the field has his own preferred model, with slightly different assumptions, etc. Science is like that. But the big picture? Pretty solid.

  291. Again, I’m not dogging the scientists, but I don’t think one should be tossed in with the “climate deniers” just for acknowledging that the science is not “settled”.
    We’re discussing the scientific consensus over time and you bring up Al. Nice.
    This is silly. The predictions are being refined over time as new data becomes available and new methods are tested and adopted.
    But yes, blame scientists for not being 100% accurate in a field that has really only gotten its legs in the last 30-40 years.
    For Christ’s sake, really?

  292. Again, I’m not dogging the scientists, but I don’t think one should be tossed in with the “climate deniers” just for acknowledging that the science is not “settled”.
    We’re discussing the scientific consensus over time and you bring up Al. Nice.
    This is silly. The predictions are being refined over time as new data becomes available and new methods are tested and adopted.
    But yes, blame scientists for not being 100% accurate in a field that has really only gotten its legs in the last 30-40 years.
    For Christ’s sake, really?

  293. The problem comes in when advocates for mitigating against climate change oversell the science
    No. That is not where the “problem comes in”. The problem at heart is a concerted denial of the science itself(not just the predictions)by powerful vested interests.
    By your logic, the wildly inaccurate claims of the proponents of the SE Asia “falling dominos” theory created the opposition to the Viet Nam war.

  294. The problem comes in when advocates for mitigating against climate change oversell the science
    No. That is not where the “problem comes in”. The problem at heart is a concerted denial of the science itself(not just the predictions)by powerful vested interests.
    By your logic, the wildly inaccurate claims of the proponents of the SE Asia “falling dominos” theory created the opposition to the Viet Nam war.

  295. …but overstating the results is not going to help persuade the skeptics.
    I look at those numbers, and I see:
    a) A small sample
    b) A bit of a narrowing of the range, and a rather consistent lower bound.
    Skeptics to not take umbrage at the predictions. They try to undermine the validity of (a.) the underlying cause (sun spots!!!!) or (b.) the methodology.
    They are fucking liars.
    But emails.
    jaysus fucking Christ.

  296. …but overstating the results is not going to help persuade the skeptics.
    I look at those numbers, and I see:
    a) A small sample
    b) A bit of a narrowing of the range, and a rather consistent lower bound.
    Skeptics to not take umbrage at the predictions. They try to undermine the validity of (a.) the underlying cause (sun spots!!!!) or (b.) the methodology.
    They are fucking liars.
    But emails.
    jaysus fucking Christ.

  297. Whose heads does it fall on? Do people in first world countries live more modest lifestyles with those at the bottom suffering from energy poverty?…
    Since you ask: people in the top 1% of global incomes should take the small short-term cost.
    But the question is misleading. We’ll always have the option to burn the fossil fuels later, and someone will benefit from it. Whereas if we burn all the oil as quickly as possible, there’s going to be a nasty crunch when supplies get scarce. Who do you want to suffer from that?

  298. Whose heads does it fall on? Do people in first world countries live more modest lifestyles with those at the bottom suffering from energy poverty?…
    Since you ask: people in the top 1% of global incomes should take the small short-term cost.
    But the question is misleading. We’ll always have the option to burn the fossil fuels later, and someone will benefit from it. Whereas if we burn all the oil as quickly as possible, there’s going to be a nasty crunch when supplies get scarce. Who do you want to suffer from that?

  299. Who do you want to suffer from that?
    To hear some here, let the market decide. it may not be fair, but it will be ‘efficient’ (a strangely undefined term), and maximizing utility is always for the greater good, ask anybody…Jeremey Bentham would be pleased.

  300. Who do you want to suffer from that?
    To hear some here, let the market decide. it may not be fair, but it will be ‘efficient’ (a strangely undefined term), and maximizing utility is always for the greater good, ask anybody…Jeremey Bentham would be pleased.

  301. But look at the 1990 high range of 367 cm.
    Compare to Gore’s 600 cm.
    Al Gore is not a climate scientist. As a linguist, I do get frustrated with non-linguists taking research and drawing conclusions that aren’t supported by the data. But you know what? It’s a lot better that they have an interest that if they just say ‘why the hell would you be interested in that?’.
    Gore got quite a bit of residual damage from the jihad against Clinton. So much so that the folks who become apoplectic about them fanned out and sought to discredit not simply Gore, but any scientist that Gore drew on. (remember the hockey-stick model and the emails ‘proving’ that all this climate change was a hoax?) The skeptic’s leap from ‘they are wrong’ to ‘they must be lying because they want to protect their grants’ was so quick that it suggests they are full of shit and have no idea how science operates.

  302. But look at the 1990 high range of 367 cm.
    Compare to Gore’s 600 cm.
    Al Gore is not a climate scientist. As a linguist, I do get frustrated with non-linguists taking research and drawing conclusions that aren’t supported by the data. But you know what? It’s a lot better that they have an interest that if they just say ‘why the hell would you be interested in that?’.
    Gore got quite a bit of residual damage from the jihad against Clinton. So much so that the folks who become apoplectic about them fanned out and sought to discredit not simply Gore, but any scientist that Gore drew on. (remember the hockey-stick model and the emails ‘proving’ that all this climate change was a hoax?) The skeptic’s leap from ‘they are wrong’ to ‘they must be lying because they want to protect their grants’ was so quick that it suggests they are full of shit and have no idea how science operates.

  303. Oh the science is settled; it’s the predictions that one makes based on the science that bounces around.
    Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 29, 2017 at 07:10 PM
    I’m not really interested in arguing where to draw the line between “science” and “applied science”.
    But among actual experts, who have a clue what they are talking about, there is minimal disagreement on the basic direction things are going. Or on the principal causes and the necessary sorts of things that need to be done to reduce how far it goes. Some disagreement on the details, of course — everybody in the field has his own preferred model, with slightly different assumptions, etc. Science is like that. But the big picture? Pretty solid.
    Posted by: wj | August 29, 2017 at 07:18 PM
    I limited my original comment to one Nobel prize winning group of scientists (IPCC) who have had a large range of predictions. Setting aside that Gore uses “scientists” for his pronouncements, I’m sorry that I got things off track by mentioning him.
    My kingdom for an “edit” button.
    This is silly. The predictions are being refined over time as new data becomes available and new methods are tested and adopted.
    But yes, blame scientists for not being 100% accurate in a field that has really only gotten its legs in the last 30-40 years.
    For Christ’s sake, really?
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 29, 2017 at 07:20 PM
    This is all I’m saying … the “science” is evolving so don’t compare the sea level rise predictions with the schedule for the next eclipse (as some of have done). If you are making public policy decisions, it’s reasonable to factor in the accuracy of the predictive model.
    Skeptics to not take umbrage at the predictions. They try to undermine the validity of (a.) the underlying cause (sun spots!!!!) or (b.) the methodology.
    They are fucking liars.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 29, 2017 at 07:38 PM
    Of course some of the deniers are operating in bad faith. Why give them easy talking points by overstating the accuracy of the predictive models.

  304. Oh the science is settled; it’s the predictions that one makes based on the science that bounces around.
    Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 29, 2017 at 07:10 PM
    I’m not really interested in arguing where to draw the line between “science” and “applied science”.
    But among actual experts, who have a clue what they are talking about, there is minimal disagreement on the basic direction things are going. Or on the principal causes and the necessary sorts of things that need to be done to reduce how far it goes. Some disagreement on the details, of course — everybody in the field has his own preferred model, with slightly different assumptions, etc. Science is like that. But the big picture? Pretty solid.
    Posted by: wj | August 29, 2017 at 07:18 PM
    I limited my original comment to one Nobel prize winning group of scientists (IPCC) who have had a large range of predictions. Setting aside that Gore uses “scientists” for his pronouncements, I’m sorry that I got things off track by mentioning him.
    My kingdom for an “edit” button.
    This is silly. The predictions are being refined over time as new data becomes available and new methods are tested and adopted.
    But yes, blame scientists for not being 100% accurate in a field that has really only gotten its legs in the last 30-40 years.
    For Christ’s sake, really?
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 29, 2017 at 07:20 PM
    This is all I’m saying … the “science” is evolving so don’t compare the sea level rise predictions with the schedule for the next eclipse (as some of have done). If you are making public policy decisions, it’s reasonable to factor in the accuracy of the predictive model.
    Skeptics to not take umbrage at the predictions. They try to undermine the validity of (a.) the underlying cause (sun spots!!!!) or (b.) the methodology.
    They are fucking liars.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 29, 2017 at 07:38 PM
    Of course some of the deniers are operating in bad faith. Why give them easy talking points by overstating the accuracy of the predictive models.

  305. If you are making public policy decisions, it’s reasonable to factor in the accuracy of the predictive model.
    As I recall, you were also criticizing the predictive model of Charlottesville agencies, but you didn’t have the time or inclination to offer what you would have relied on instead. Care to do that now?

  306. If you are making public policy decisions, it’s reasonable to factor in the accuracy of the predictive model.
    As I recall, you were also criticizing the predictive model of Charlottesville agencies, but you didn’t have the time or inclination to offer what you would have relied on instead. Care to do that now?

  307. To hear some here, let the market decide. it may not be fair, but it will be ‘efficient’ (a strangely undefined term), and maximizing utility is always for the greater good, ask anybody…Jeremey Bentham would be pleased.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 29, 2017 at 07:50 PM
    If you are referring to me, that’s pretty shitty. You asked me to read a link and comment. I did so (at some length) and your only response so far is to take pot shots while responding to another post.
    An inaccurate pot shot at that.
    I never advocated for a libertarian position. I even admitted that private property rights were based on the original sin of theft.
    I did state that private property based capitalism is an efficient allocator of resources, but then ended with:
    “Keep in mind that I didn’t say it was the “best” system in general, just the most efficient. Whenever I can find a reason to ditch free market economics, I do, e.g., single payer health care.”
    You can make fun of me all you want, but don’t approach me with the pretense of having an honest conversation just to set up dig. That’s tacky.

  308. To hear some here, let the market decide. it may not be fair, but it will be ‘efficient’ (a strangely undefined term), and maximizing utility is always for the greater good, ask anybody…Jeremey Bentham would be pleased.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 29, 2017 at 07:50 PM
    If you are referring to me, that’s pretty shitty. You asked me to read a link and comment. I did so (at some length) and your only response so far is to take pot shots while responding to another post.
    An inaccurate pot shot at that.
    I never advocated for a libertarian position. I even admitted that private property rights were based on the original sin of theft.
    I did state that private property based capitalism is an efficient allocator of resources, but then ended with:
    “Keep in mind that I didn’t say it was the “best” system in general, just the most efficient. Whenever I can find a reason to ditch free market economics, I do, e.g., single payer health care.”
    You can make fun of me all you want, but don’t approach me with the pretense of having an honest conversation just to set up dig. That’s tacky.

  309. As I recall, you were also criticizing the predictive model of Charlottesville agencies, but you didn’t have the time or inclination to offer what you would have relied on instead. Care to do that now?
    Posted by: sapient | August 29, 2017 at 08:38 PM
    That’s a really bad comparison. C’ville got the prediction right and bungled how to handle it.
    I explained in two separate posts what evidence I’d use.
    Based on the last town hall, I’m not the only one who questions how C’ville handled the situation.

  310. As I recall, you were also criticizing the predictive model of Charlottesville agencies, but you didn’t have the time or inclination to offer what you would have relied on instead. Care to do that now?
    Posted by: sapient | August 29, 2017 at 08:38 PM
    That’s a really bad comparison. C’ville got the prediction right and bungled how to handle it.
    I explained in two separate posts what evidence I’d use.
    Based on the last town hall, I’m not the only one who questions how C’ville handled the situation.

  311. This is all I’m saying … the “science” is evolving so don’t compare the sea level rise predictions with the schedule for the next eclipse…
    As a part-time systems and policy analyst, here’s the problem. If the pessimists — Hansen et. al. — are right, the positive feedback loops have kicked in and our grandchildren and beyond are well and totally screwed no matter what we do. Eat, drink, and be merry, because civilization and possibly the human race are toast regardless.
    Since I’m not interested in that answer, I deny it, and ask different questions: how much information, medical, etc technology can be saved? For how many people? Because I’m parochial and selfish, I don’t ask whether I can save the human race everywhere. I don’t even ask if I can save North America or the United States. I ask whether the Western Interconnect electric grid where my grandkids and I live can be saved. I ask if it can be saved if it’s weighed down by the Eastern Interconnect, or 500M refuges from elsewhere. Other people may insist that more be saved, but proposing how to do it is their lookout.
    Note that “saved” doesn’t mean BAU. Lots of things have to change. It’s all about picking and choosing.

  312. This is all I’m saying … the “science” is evolving so don’t compare the sea level rise predictions with the schedule for the next eclipse…
    As a part-time systems and policy analyst, here’s the problem. If the pessimists — Hansen et. al. — are right, the positive feedback loops have kicked in and our grandchildren and beyond are well and totally screwed no matter what we do. Eat, drink, and be merry, because civilization and possibly the human race are toast regardless.
    Since I’m not interested in that answer, I deny it, and ask different questions: how much information, medical, etc technology can be saved? For how many people? Because I’m parochial and selfish, I don’t ask whether I can save the human race everywhere. I don’t even ask if I can save North America or the United States. I ask whether the Western Interconnect electric grid where my grandkids and I live can be saved. I ask if it can be saved if it’s weighed down by the Eastern Interconnect, or 500M refuges from elsewhere. Other people may insist that more be saved, but proposing how to do it is their lookout.
    Note that “saved” doesn’t mean BAU. Lots of things have to change. It’s all about picking and choosing.

  313. Follow up to sapient …
    Just read this:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/the-aftershocks-and-fingerpointing-continue-to-roil-charlottesville-weeks-after-white-supremacist-rally/2017/08/29/47a87222-8cce-11e7-84c0-02cc069f2c37_story.html
    ‘In the leaked memo to Jones, council members asked the city manager to explain why he wasn’t more aggressive in pursuing an alternate location for the Unite the Right rally, why he took a vacation in the weeks immediately leading up to the rally, why more restrictions weren’t placed on rallygoers to make the event safer and why there was “apparent unwillingness of officers to directly intervene during overt assaults captured in many videos.”’
    Again, I’m not trying to put down your hometown, but it’s not unreasonable to say C’ville messed up.

  314. Follow up to sapient …
    Just read this:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/the-aftershocks-and-fingerpointing-continue-to-roil-charlottesville-weeks-after-white-supremacist-rally/2017/08/29/47a87222-8cce-11e7-84c0-02cc069f2c37_story.html
    ‘In the leaked memo to Jones, council members asked the city manager to explain why he wasn’t more aggressive in pursuing an alternate location for the Unite the Right rally, why he took a vacation in the weeks immediately leading up to the rally, why more restrictions weren’t placed on rallygoers to make the event safer and why there was “apparent unwillingness of officers to directly intervene during overt assaults captured in many videos.”’
    Again, I’m not trying to put down your hometown, but it’s not unreasonable to say C’ville messed up.

  315. Based on the last town hall, I’m not the only one who questions how C’ville handled the situation.
    The blame game is widely enjoyed. The responsibility game is much harder.
    From what I can glean from your comments here, you would have saved the day as counsel for Charlottesville City by bringing to the judge’s attention Stormfront blogposts (“content” under 1st amendment) and examining Kessler on what he encouraged his folks to do (wouldn’t the results of that have been “merely speculative”?). Do protest organizers have a duty to encourage their people to abandon their 2nd amendment rights?
    There’s one direction to point one’s anger about what happened in C’ville: white supremacists, and those who encourage them. (I visited my Bosnian friends today. They have a business downtown, a few blocks from the murder. They are worried as hell. Blame C’ville? Blame fasicsts.)

  316. Based on the last town hall, I’m not the only one who questions how C’ville handled the situation.
    The blame game is widely enjoyed. The responsibility game is much harder.
    From what I can glean from your comments here, you would have saved the day as counsel for Charlottesville City by bringing to the judge’s attention Stormfront blogposts (“content” under 1st amendment) and examining Kessler on what he encouraged his folks to do (wouldn’t the results of that have been “merely speculative”?). Do protest organizers have a duty to encourage their people to abandon their 2nd amendment rights?
    There’s one direction to point one’s anger about what happened in C’ville: white supremacists, and those who encourage them. (I visited my Bosnian friends today. They have a business downtown, a few blocks from the murder. They are worried as hell. Blame C’ville? Blame fasicsts.)

  317. Blame C’ville? Blame fasicsts.)
    Posted by: sapient | August 29, 2017 at 09:01 PM
    Where did I *ever* draw an equivalence between C’ville city officials and the racists?

  318. Blame C’ville? Blame fasicsts.)
    Posted by: sapient | August 29, 2017 at 09:01 PM
    Where did I *ever* draw an equivalence between C’ville city officials and the racists?

  319. Where did I *ever* draw an equivalence between C’ville city officials and the racists?
    You blamed C’ville for screwing up. Fascist armies are a relatively new phenomenon. ACLU (which both of us support) supported the fascist army. ACLU screwed up.
    By the way, the fascist army had perfectly competent (very well regarded0 legal representation in the form of John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute. He mostly represents conservative 1st amendment causes. My ACLU donation was wasted on representing Kessler and these fascists. But you support that expenditure, no? Or did I misunderstand?

  320. Where did I *ever* draw an equivalence between C’ville city officials and the racists?
    You blamed C’ville for screwing up. Fascist armies are a relatively new phenomenon. ACLU (which both of us support) supported the fascist army. ACLU screwed up.
    By the way, the fascist army had perfectly competent (very well regarded0 legal representation in the form of John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute. He mostly represents conservative 1st amendment causes. My ACLU donation was wasted on representing Kessler and these fascists. But you support that expenditure, no? Or did I misunderstand?

  321. I’m not sure how “new” a phenomenon this is, but I would have more sympathy for the public officials in C’ville if their story was “As God as my witness, I thought Fascists could march peacefully”.
    But that isn’t what happened. They correctly saw the threat and proceeded to mess up the response.
    As for the ACLU, they frequently show up in cases where their side is already represented. That’s probably more common than the ACLU being the only counsel of record. And “yes”, I think that was a proper expenditure of ACLU funds.
    I’m also aware that the ACLU is changing their policy after this to be more careful when representing groups that pose a danger of violence when demonstrating. I can understand that decision even if I wish it was not the case.

  322. I’m not sure how “new” a phenomenon this is, but I would have more sympathy for the public officials in C’ville if their story was “As God as my witness, I thought Fascists could march peacefully”.
    But that isn’t what happened. They correctly saw the threat and proceeded to mess up the response.
    As for the ACLU, they frequently show up in cases where their side is already represented. That’s probably more common than the ACLU being the only counsel of record. And “yes”, I think that was a proper expenditure of ACLU funds.
    I’m also aware that the ACLU is changing their policy after this to be more careful when representing groups that pose a danger of violence when demonstrating. I can understand that decision even if I wish it was not the case.

  323. They correctly saw the threat and proceeded to mess up the response.
    They made a case in court that they couldn’t respond adequately, but the ACLU screwed them over.
    I don’t disavow the ACLU. I’ve had many disagreements with their policies over the years, and my contributions wax and wane.
    As for the ACLU, they frequently show up in cases where their side is already represented. That’s probably more common than the ACLU being the only counsel of record. And “yes”, I think that was a proper expenditure of ACLU funds.
    Why? Rutherford Institute is good lawyering. Why would ACLU say “Facists Need Extra!”. I didn’t write to them, so the reason they’re sheepish now is not my doing. I think they just get it.

  324. They correctly saw the threat and proceeded to mess up the response.
    They made a case in court that they couldn’t respond adequately, but the ACLU screwed them over.
    I don’t disavow the ACLU. I’ve had many disagreements with their policies over the years, and my contributions wax and wane.
    As for the ACLU, they frequently show up in cases where their side is already represented. That’s probably more common than the ACLU being the only counsel of record. And “yes”, I think that was a proper expenditure of ACLU funds.
    Why? Rutherford Institute is good lawyering. Why would ACLU say “Facists Need Extra!”. I didn’t write to them, so the reason they’re sheepish now is not my doing. I think they just get it.

  325. So, regarding the ACLU:
    Back in the’80’s, I was representing a [gay maybe] woman in a custody case. The law at that time was that gay parents were presumptively unfit. I contacted the ACLU to ask for support. They thought that my client was being well represented. (Yay! I was a very young lawyer, and thought OMG, what a compliment!)
    But y’know, they could have helped me (and especially the client) out on that. I was a nobody. John Whitehead? He’s pretty well established.
    I support ACLU, but sometimes I am perplexed.

  326. So, regarding the ACLU:
    Back in the’80’s, I was representing a [gay maybe] woman in a custody case. The law at that time was that gay parents were presumptively unfit. I contacted the ACLU to ask for support. They thought that my client was being well represented. (Yay! I was a very young lawyer, and thought OMG, what a compliment!)
    But y’know, they could have helped me (and especially the client) out on that. I was a nobody. John Whitehead? He’s pretty well established.
    I support ACLU, but sometimes I am perplexed.

  327. The ACLU didn’t “screw over” the city attorneys to my knowledge. We have an adversarial system of justice. The ACLU had a client to zealously represent and the C’ville showed up unprepared (based on reports and the judge’s order).
    As for why the ACLU would show up when Rutherford was already there, I don’t know what happened this exact case but it could be any number of reasons, for example:
    ACLU could have already been involved before Rutherford was on the scene;
    ACLU feels they are better attorneys than Rutherford;
    ACLU is concerned that Rutherford will stress legal concepts that are different or even adverse to the concepts that ACLU wants to advocate. Keep in mind that ACLU apparently thought they’d at least partially lose at the injunction hearing. In that situation, “how” you lose can be very important in an appeal or in future cases. ACLU would want to be part of that process, i.e., they don’t want Rutherford to make bad law that will impact ACLU down the road.

  328. The ACLU didn’t “screw over” the city attorneys to my knowledge. We have an adversarial system of justice. The ACLU had a client to zealously represent and the C’ville showed up unprepared (based on reports and the judge’s order).
    As for why the ACLU would show up when Rutherford was already there, I don’t know what happened this exact case but it could be any number of reasons, for example:
    ACLU could have already been involved before Rutherford was on the scene;
    ACLU feels they are better attorneys than Rutherford;
    ACLU is concerned that Rutherford will stress legal concepts that are different or even adverse to the concepts that ACLU wants to advocate. Keep in mind that ACLU apparently thought they’d at least partially lose at the injunction hearing. In that situation, “how” you lose can be very important in an appeal or in future cases. ACLU would want to be part of that process, i.e., they don’t want Rutherford to make bad law that will impact ACLU down the road.

  329. The ACLU had a client to zealously represent and the C’ville showed up unprepared (based on reports and the judge’s order).
    Judges are never known to make bad decisions. < / snark>
    C’ville had affidavits, which the judge ruled to be “speculative”. Your proffer of Stormfront b.s. seems to go to “content of speech”, which the judge would have ignored.
    I guess you got nothin’.
    ACLU was grandstanding with “we represent Nazis too!” ploy. I’m going to contribute to SPLC and my local legal advocates from now on.

  330. The ACLU had a client to zealously represent and the C’ville showed up unprepared (based on reports and the judge’s order).
    Judges are never known to make bad decisions. < / snark>
    C’ville had affidavits, which the judge ruled to be “speculative”. Your proffer of Stormfront b.s. seems to go to “content of speech”, which the judge would have ignored.
    I guess you got nothin’.
    ACLU was grandstanding with “we represent Nazis too!” ploy. I’m going to contribute to SPLC and my local legal advocates from now on.

  331. I support ACLU, but sometimes I am perplexed.
    It happens. Trial Lawyers for Public Justice came in on one of my cases back in the day at the state Supreme Court level and we got a really nice win for consumers that resulted in good press for them. Last year I tried to get them involved in a matter regarding a nasty foreclosure practice down here and they blew me off.
    Sometimes it’s based on the personal crusade of an individual attorney for the advocacy group and sometimes it’s based on how the case will play with donors (or a specific large donor).
    I’ve accepted that it is a crap shoot.

  332. I support ACLU, but sometimes I am perplexed.
    It happens. Trial Lawyers for Public Justice came in on one of my cases back in the day at the state Supreme Court level and we got a really nice win for consumers that resulted in good press for them. Last year I tried to get them involved in a matter regarding a nasty foreclosure practice down here and they blew me off.
    Sometimes it’s based on the personal crusade of an individual attorney for the advocacy group and sometimes it’s based on how the case will play with donors (or a specific large donor).
    I’ve accepted that it is a crap shoot.

  333. Also, Pollo, a local judge who supports ACLU stated goals would look at ACLU advocacy as authoritative. Judges aren’t machines, and would definitely be influenced by the prestige of that organization.
    Your argument is from a position of privilege.

  334. Also, Pollo, a local judge who supports ACLU stated goals would look at ACLU advocacy as authoritative. Judges aren’t machines, and would definitely be influenced by the prestige of that organization.
    Your argument is from a position of privilege.

  335. The issue isn’t that judges make bad decisions, it’s that judges cover their ass in their decisions.
    I’m much more persuaded by the fact that the ACLU was shocked at how poorly the C’ville attorneys were prepared. That policy change they made is a big deal.
    The proffer of stormfront webpages would not go to the content of protected speech, but to the threat to public safety therein. Threats are not protected under the 1st Amendment.
    I’m not here to convince you to donate to the ACLU. The SPLC and many other groups are just as deserving.

  336. The issue isn’t that judges make bad decisions, it’s that judges cover their ass in their decisions.
    I’m much more persuaded by the fact that the ACLU was shocked at how poorly the C’ville attorneys were prepared. That policy change they made is a big deal.
    The proffer of stormfront webpages would not go to the content of protected speech, but to the threat to public safety therein. Threats are not protected under the 1st Amendment.
    I’m not here to convince you to donate to the ACLU. The SPLC and many other groups are just as deserving.

  337. I’ve accepted that it is a crap shoot.
    Sure, and that’s the reason I still have sent money to ACLU.
    But, really? Sure ACLU was a “zealous advocate” for Kessler. Of course. All lawyers will be zealous advocates [within the bounds of the law].
    Lending that gravitas to the Nazi army, when they had a zealous and well known, well regarded advocate? Tremendous waste of resources. Screw up.

  338. I’ve accepted that it is a crap shoot.
    Sure, and that’s the reason I still have sent money to ACLU.
    But, really? Sure ACLU was a “zealous advocate” for Kessler. Of course. All lawyers will be zealous advocates [within the bounds of the law].
    Lending that gravitas to the Nazi army, when they had a zealous and well known, well regarded advocate? Tremendous waste of resources. Screw up.

  339. Like I said, the ACLU had an interest to make sure Rutherford didn’t make bad law.
    I really don’t mean to dog C’ville in general. It’s an awesome town.
    I need to get some sleep, but I appreciate talk.

  340. Like I said, the ACLU had an interest to make sure Rutherford didn’t make bad law.
    I really don’t mean to dog C’ville in general. It’s an awesome town.
    I need to get some sleep, but I appreciate talk.

  343. not mentioned in this thread:
    all the climatologists of any reputation who claim it’s all BS.
    all the climatologists of any reputation who say sea level rise will be zero in 2100.
    all the folks who claim it’s BS that get paid by folks with an interest in extracting fossil fuels, bringing them to market, and burning them.
    sea levels have varied widely – very widely –
    over the last 20,000 years, but have been stable for about the last 5000.
    a foot and a half to three feet of sea level rise is probably noise to most folks reading this. to hundreds of millions of people, it’s a calamity.
    europe absorbed 5 million syrian refugees over the last few years, and it’s got them flirting with fascism. 160+ million people live in bangladesh, most of them in the coastal plain, which ranges from about 10 meters above sea level to sea level.
    who’s gonna take them in?
    apparently, about 1 in 10 people in the world live close to a coast at 30 feet or less above sea level.
    it’s a thing.
    in 2100 pretty much everyone reading this will be gone, so it’s all academic for us. in the immortal words of good old george W, we’ll be dead. it’d be nice to not f*** it up for our grandkids.

  344. not mentioned in this thread:
    all the climatologists of any reputation who claim it’s all BS.
    all the climatologists of any reputation who say sea level rise will be zero in 2100.
    all the folks who claim it’s BS that get paid by folks with an interest in extracting fossil fuels, bringing them to market, and burning them.
    sea levels have varied widely – very widely –
    over the last 20,000 years, but have been stable for about the last 5000.
    a foot and a half to three feet of sea level rise is probably noise to most folks reading this. to hundreds of millions of people, it’s a calamity.
    europe absorbed 5 million syrian refugees over the last few years, and it’s got them flirting with fascism. 160+ million people live in bangladesh, most of them in the coastal plain, which ranges from about 10 meters above sea level to sea level.
    who’s gonna take them in?
    apparently, about 1 in 10 people in the world live close to a coast at 30 feet or less above sea level.
    it’s a thing.
    in 2100 pretty much everyone reading this will be gone, so it’s all academic for us. in the immortal words of good old george W, we’ll be dead. it’d be nice to not f*** it up for our grandkids.

  345. If you are making public policy decisions, it’s reasonable to factor in the accuracy of the predictive model
    risk analysis matrix. management 101.
    multiply the likelihood of occurence times an estimate of what the harm will cost.
    you’re only looking at half the picture.

  346. If you are making public policy decisions, it’s reasonable to factor in the accuracy of the predictive model
    risk analysis matrix. management 101.
    multiply the likelihood of occurence times an estimate of what the harm will cost.
    you’re only looking at half the picture.

  347. LOL … if you make the estimate of harm “infinity”, then what’s the point of pretending to engage in risk analysis?
    You’re failing intellectual honesty 101 😉
    Seriously though, I think you’ve illustrated the branding problem of the proponents of an aggressive response to AGW: honest skeptics can detect that many proponents don’t really care about the models and predictions because the proponents have decided the “risk of harm” is so great that it doesn’t matter.
    Here’s the thing: I don’t necessarily disagree with you …
    *BUT*
    that’s a terrible way to go about changing hearts and minds.
    You wouldn’t know it from the reaction I get around here, but I’m in the business of convincing people to agree with me. I can tell you that if you don’t believe in your argument, you need to either be a great actor or you need to find another argument.
    When proponents of an aggressive response put down skeptics for being “anti-science” while not really caring about the science beyond the initial theory, then they’ve already lost the argument with the persuadables.
    If the real argument is “The predictive science is evolving, but the risk of harm is so great that it doesn’t matter”, then go with that and stop pretending that improving the models will make a difference to the policy position.
    That’s probably not a great argument in terms of persuasion, but it’s better than facially obvious intellectual dishonesty.

  348. LOL … if you make the estimate of harm “infinity”, then what’s the point of pretending to engage in risk analysis?
    You’re failing intellectual honesty 101 😉
    Seriously though, I think you’ve illustrated the branding problem of the proponents of an aggressive response to AGW: honest skeptics can detect that many proponents don’t really care about the models and predictions because the proponents have decided the “risk of harm” is so great that it doesn’t matter.
    Here’s the thing: I don’t necessarily disagree with you …
    *BUT*
    that’s a terrible way to go about changing hearts and minds.
    You wouldn’t know it from the reaction I get around here, but I’m in the business of convincing people to agree with me. I can tell you that if you don’t believe in your argument, you need to either be a great actor or you need to find another argument.
    When proponents of an aggressive response put down skeptics for being “anti-science” while not really caring about the science beyond the initial theory, then they’ve already lost the argument with the persuadables.
    If the real argument is “The predictive science is evolving, but the risk of harm is so great that it doesn’t matter”, then go with that and stop pretending that improving the models will make a difference to the policy position.
    That’s probably not a great argument in terms of persuasion, but it’s better than facially obvious intellectual dishonesty.

  349. My perception is that “honest sceptics” are a tiny fraction of the people who need persuading. The POTUS says “Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax”, and many other recent Republican candidates are with him on that.
    Opinion polls suggest that only 70% of Americans think warming is even happening, and only a little over half of Americans think burning fossil fuels is responsible for it.
    In the face of this sort of stupidity and ignorance, humming and hawing about the uncertainty in what is known is little more than self-indulgence.

  350. My perception is that “honest sceptics” are a tiny fraction of the people who need persuading. The POTUS says “Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax”, and many other recent Republican candidates are with him on that.
    Opinion polls suggest that only 70% of Americans think warming is even happening, and only a little over half of Americans think burning fossil fuels is responsible for it.
    In the face of this sort of stupidity and ignorance, humming and hawing about the uncertainty in what is known is little more than self-indulgence.

  353. You’re failing intellectual honesty 101
    no, i’m not.
    i’m saying the public debate about this should address it as a risk analysis, rather than tying to figure out which arcane climatological model is the really really right one.
    as if anyone outside that discipline has a freaking clue.
    none of the models are “right”. they aren’t meant to be “right”, they’re meant to be an approximation. they’re models.
    but when they all point in the same direction, there’s probably something to it.
    the risk is not infinity. the risk is merely very very large.
    what i will also say is that the whole “yeah, i agree with what you’re saying, but the way you’re saying it is why nobody is listening to you” argument is getting old. people are saying this stuff in about 1000 different ways, ranging from stupid dystopian movies to fat old al gore on the tv to actual, real live scientists doing the math and calculating the probabilities.
    people are lazy, not as a matter of moral failing but as a matter of inertia. stuff that is going to happen 100 or 200 years from now, or even 50 years from now, has no urgency. it doesn’t register. unfortunately, to prevent harmful things 100 years from now we have to act now.
    the other impediment, of course, is the money. a significant fraction of the book value of some very very large companies is oil and gas that is still in the ground. if we leave it there, somebody has to take a very large haircut.
    somebody’s taking a haircut either way, it’s a question of who, and when.

  354. You’re failing intellectual honesty 101
    no, i’m not.
    i’m saying the public debate about this should address it as a risk analysis, rather than tying to figure out which arcane climatological model is the really really right one.
    as if anyone outside that discipline has a freaking clue.
    none of the models are “right”. they aren’t meant to be “right”, they’re meant to be an approximation. they’re models.
    but when they all point in the same direction, there’s probably something to it.
    the risk is not infinity. the risk is merely very very large.
    what i will also say is that the whole “yeah, i agree with what you’re saying, but the way you’re saying it is why nobody is listening to you” argument is getting old. people are saying this stuff in about 1000 different ways, ranging from stupid dystopian movies to fat old al gore on the tv to actual, real live scientists doing the math and calculating the probabilities.
    people are lazy, not as a matter of moral failing but as a matter of inertia. stuff that is going to happen 100 or 200 years from now, or even 50 years from now, has no urgency. it doesn’t register. unfortunately, to prevent harmful things 100 years from now we have to act now.
    the other impediment, of course, is the money. a significant fraction of the book value of some very very large companies is oil and gas that is still in the ground. if we leave it there, somebody has to take a very large haircut.
    somebody’s taking a haircut either way, it’s a question of who, and when.

  355. and not for nothing, but if “back to before the bronze age” isn’t a pile of alarmist hooey, nothing is.
    physicians, heal yourselves. or at least stay out of the way.

  356. and not for nothing, but if “back to before the bronze age” isn’t a pile of alarmist hooey, nothing is.
    physicians, heal yourselves. or at least stay out of the way.

  357. On the militarization of local police forces:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/military-surplus-trump-let-our-police-armor-up-like-soldiers/
    Arpaio let Steve Seagal, the actor with the facial emotive sensitivity of an overcooked rump roast, lead a savage assault on a cockfighter. They killed a puppy and 100 roosters, all decent people but now pollo de meurte. The roosters should have been armed and fired back.
    The last time I saw Seagal’s name in the news he was in Crimea, showing Putin how to kill a guy with his pinky finger.
    Elect me President, and both Arpaio and Seagal will be out of our hair.

  358. On the militarization of local police forces:
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/military-surplus-trump-let-our-police-armor-up-like-soldiers/
    Arpaio let Steve Seagal, the actor with the facial emotive sensitivity of an overcooked rump roast, lead a savage assault on a cockfighter. They killed a puppy and 100 roosters, all decent people but now pollo de meurte. The roosters should have been armed and fired back.
    The last time I saw Seagal’s name in the news he was in Crimea, showing Putin how to kill a guy with his pinky finger.
    Elect me President, and both Arpaio and Seagal will be out of our hair.

  363. Word to the wise, and this goes for the rest of the world as well: Do NOT purchase a used or new automobile for the next year or so that has been anywhere near the American mainland.
    They are probably underwater in Southeast Texas as we speak.
    And, yeah, I know it’s a little more difficult to peddle those wares than it use to be. But don’t underestimate American ingenuity.
    Of course, the thieving, lying ripoff-artist free marketeers running the deregulated gummints of the country, otherwise known as our fellow American citizens, will be enabling the captains of the auto/insurance industry to dry those suckers out and put you and the kids in one for a test drive within weeks.
    What do you think those gorgeous, rippling, outsized American flags flying above the flooded car dealers’ down South stand for?
    Freedom, baby. Not honesty. Freedom, baby.
    You’ll need the undercoating with that sort of rusting, corrosive freedom.
    On the other hand, thank you and congratulations to the Mattress kingpin in Houston providing shelter to the aggrieved.

  364. Word to the wise, and this goes for the rest of the world as well: Do NOT purchase a used or new automobile for the next year or so that has been anywhere near the American mainland.
    They are probably underwater in Southeast Texas as we speak.
    And, yeah, I know it’s a little more difficult to peddle those wares than it use to be. But don’t underestimate American ingenuity.
    Of course, the thieving, lying ripoff-artist free marketeers running the deregulated gummints of the country, otherwise known as our fellow American citizens, will be enabling the captains of the auto/insurance industry to dry those suckers out and put you and the kids in one for a test drive within weeks.
    What do you think those gorgeous, rippling, outsized American flags flying above the flooded car dealers’ down South stand for?
    Freedom, baby. Not honesty. Freedom, baby.
    You’ll need the undercoating with that sort of rusting, corrosive freedom.
    On the other hand, thank you and congratulations to the Mattress kingpin in Houston providing shelter to the aggrieved.

  369. maybe cleek could make a pie filter that would translate “murder” to “cream pie” and “vermin” to “silly clown people”.
    or, random words, like a mad libs kind of thing.
    “Find a [TICKLISH] chemical-saturated [BOWLING ALLEY] in Southeast Texas. Transport the above [CABBAGES] in cages to that [GAZEBO] with their families and grab each one of them by the back of their [HOLLYHOCKS] and hold them under until the [SHUFFLEBOARD] stops.”

  370. maybe cleek could make a pie filter that would translate “murder” to “cream pie” and “vermin” to “silly clown people”.
    or, random words, like a mad libs kind of thing.
    “Find a [TICKLISH] chemical-saturated [BOWLING ALLEY] in Southeast Texas. Transport the above [CABBAGES] in cages to that [GAZEBO] with their families and grab each one of them by the back of their [HOLLYHOCKS] and hold them under until the [SHUFFLEBOARD] stops.”

  371. “and not for nothing, but if “back to before the bronze age” isn’t a pile of alarmist hooey, nothing is.”
    Gosh sorry, I thought my exaggeration here would be recognized as intentional. I wont put that line in my NYT piece.

  372. “and not for nothing, but if “back to before the bronze age” isn’t a pile of alarmist hooey, nothing is.”
    Gosh sorry, I thought my exaggeration here would be recognized as intentional. I wont put that line in my NYT piece.

  373. russell-
    My PhD work was in financial economics with a concentration in insurance. I considered becoming an actuary before landing in law school. I’m not an expert, but I think I have a “freaking clue” about risk analysis.
    That said, we probably don’t disagree about the risk analysis, but on the messaging.
    I’m sorry if you are tired of being told that your messaging is off, but apparently the advice is not sinking in. Please believe me that calling those who disagree with you stupid and then overstating the predictive value of current models is no way to win persuadables over.
    At this point we are going in circles. I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument. That’s one of the great lessons you learn as an attorney: juries are made up of 6 or 12 people who don’t know shit about the case (by design). Your job is to persuade the ignorant and if you don’t respect them, you’ll be a shitty trial lawyer.
    I may unresponsive for a bit. I have a lead on Steven Seagal’s whereabouts and we have some unfinished business.

  374. russell-
    My PhD work was in financial economics with a concentration in insurance. I considered becoming an actuary before landing in law school. I’m not an expert, but I think I have a “freaking clue” about risk analysis.
    That said, we probably don’t disagree about the risk analysis, but on the messaging.
    I’m sorry if you are tired of being told that your messaging is off, but apparently the advice is not sinking in. Please believe me that calling those who disagree with you stupid and then overstating the predictive value of current models is no way to win persuadables over.
    At this point we are going in circles. I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument. That’s one of the great lessons you learn as an attorney: juries are made up of 6 or 12 people who don’t know shit about the case (by design). Your job is to persuade the ignorant and if you don’t respect them, you’ll be a shitty trial lawyer.
    I may unresponsive for a bit. I have a lead on Steven Seagal’s whereabouts and we have some unfinished business.

  375. I’m sorry if you are tired of being told that your messaging is off…
    It’s not russell’s messaging. He’s not the (or even a) public face of climate science. It’s a message that’s come in from a number of places in a number of ways.
    At this point we are going in circles. I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument.
    I would love to win the argument (or, really, that the experts could win it). I would love even more that the argument was unnecessary and that climate change/AGW was not an issue in need of addressing. But it appears that it is, and it appears that some people actually are lazy and stupid, or have been hoodwinked, or are dishonest and just don’t care, and there is no mode of persuasion that will sway them, short of their lives being at immediate risk.

  376. I’m sorry if you are tired of being told that your messaging is off…
    It’s not russell’s messaging. He’s not the (or even a) public face of climate science. It’s a message that’s come in from a number of places in a number of ways.
    At this point we are going in circles. I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument.
    I would love to win the argument (or, really, that the experts could win it). I would love even more that the argument was unnecessary and that climate change/AGW was not an issue in need of addressing. But it appears that it is, and it appears that some people actually are lazy and stupid, or have been hoodwinked, or are dishonest and just don’t care, and there is no mode of persuasion that will sway them, short of their lives being at immediate risk.

  377. “Find a [TICKLISH] chemical-saturated [BOWLING ALLEY] in Southeast Texas. Transport the above [CABBAGES] in cages to that [GAZEBO] with their families and grab each one of them by the back of their [HOLLYHOCKS] and hold them under until the [SHUFFLEBOARD] stops.”
    I can be Humpty Dumpty from now on.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/missile-gap-north-korea-soviet-threat-japan/
    Scratch those itchy rutabagas.
    (The NSA guy in charge of monitoring my OBWI output just made a note that Countme used the code word “Rutabaga” again.
    Launch the drones.)

  378. “Find a [TICKLISH] chemical-saturated [BOWLING ALLEY] in Southeast Texas. Transport the above [CABBAGES] in cages to that [GAZEBO] with their families and grab each one of them by the back of their [HOLLYHOCKS] and hold them under until the [SHUFFLEBOARD] stops.”
    I can be Humpty Dumpty from now on.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/missile-gap-north-korea-soviet-threat-japan/
    Scratch those itchy rutabagas.
    (The NSA guy in charge of monitoring my OBWI output just made a note that Countme used the code word “Rutabaga” again.
    Launch the drones.)

  379. I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument.
    …..
    I may unresponsive for a bit. I have a lead on Steven Seagal’s whereabouts and we have some unfinished business.
    Oh well, even if you fail on the admission requirements for smugness, at least you have a sense of humour.
    Count, have you heard anything from McKinney about his and family’s safety and comfort? You may have already addressed this, but if so I missed it.

  380. I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument.
    …..
    I may unresponsive for a bit. I have a lead on Steven Seagal’s whereabouts and we have some unfinished business.
    Oh well, even if you fail on the admission requirements for smugness, at least you have a sense of humour.
    Count, have you heard anything from McKinney about his and family’s safety and comfort? You may have already addressed this, but if so I missed it.

  381. I wont put that line in my NYT piece.
    Good plan.
    I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument.
    I’d like people who have opinions about the issue, and want their opinions to carry weight in the public discussion, to read the freaking article.
    I’m sure that strikes some people as elitist or whatever. That says as much about those folks as it says about me.
    The issue is characterized by technical, specialist knowledge. Not a lot of plasma physicists in the room, for most rooms I find myself in. If the folks that have that technical, specialist knowledge say that something’s going on, maybe we should pay attention to that. Instead of bitching because they’re going all “henny penny” on us.
    The technical arcana are above most folks pay grade, so my suggestion about this stuff, always, is to address it as a risk management issue rather than a technical one. Comparing likelihood of harm to cost of harm is something we can all engage in.
    If it bugs people that we have to include specialists in the conversation about the likelihood of harm, I have no answer for you. They are the ones who are in a position to have an informed opinion about it. I’m not, you probably are not, few if any people here on ObWi are. Folks try to weigh in about stuff that is miles above their pay grade, and we end up talking about chickens and light bulbs.
    I don’t pretend to be a climatologist. Not even on a blog. I don’t pretend to be, I actually am, a person who has an interest in mitigating calamitous harm.
    One in ten people on the planet will be affected by sea rise measured in multiple feet. That’s a big dent.
    If you agree with that, maybe quit giving me and people like me grief because we’re “shrill” and do something constructive instead. Not saying you don’t do constructive things, or don’t have a constructive intent, just saying complaining because the scientists have their hair on fire is probably not one of the constructive things.
    If the scientists have their hair on fire, it probably merits our attention.
    In any case, I’m not the one saying the Statue of Liberty is going to be underwater. That’s Hollywood. I’m the one saying millions of people are going to be affected. That’s bad enough, I would think.

  382. I wont put that line in my NYT piece.
    Good plan.
    I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument.
    I’d like people who have opinions about the issue, and want their opinions to carry weight in the public discussion, to read the freaking article.
    I’m sure that strikes some people as elitist or whatever. That says as much about those folks as it says about me.
    The issue is characterized by technical, specialist knowledge. Not a lot of plasma physicists in the room, for most rooms I find myself in. If the folks that have that technical, specialist knowledge say that something’s going on, maybe we should pay attention to that. Instead of bitching because they’re going all “henny penny” on us.
    The technical arcana are above most folks pay grade, so my suggestion about this stuff, always, is to address it as a risk management issue rather than a technical one. Comparing likelihood of harm to cost of harm is something we can all engage in.
    If it bugs people that we have to include specialists in the conversation about the likelihood of harm, I have no answer for you. They are the ones who are in a position to have an informed opinion about it. I’m not, you probably are not, few if any people here on ObWi are. Folks try to weigh in about stuff that is miles above their pay grade, and we end up talking about chickens and light bulbs.
    I don’t pretend to be a climatologist. Not even on a blog. I don’t pretend to be, I actually am, a person who has an interest in mitigating calamitous harm.
    One in ten people on the planet will be affected by sea rise measured in multiple feet. That’s a big dent.
    If you agree with that, maybe quit giving me and people like me grief because we’re “shrill” and do something constructive instead. Not saying you don’t do constructive things, or don’t have a constructive intent, just saying complaining because the scientists have their hair on fire is probably not one of the constructive things.
    If the scientists have their hair on fire, it probably merits our attention.
    In any case, I’m not the one saying the Statue of Liberty is going to be underwater. That’s Hollywood. I’m the one saying millions of people are going to be affected. That’s bad enough, I would think.

  387. millions of people are going to be affected
    at least millions. hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion will be directly affected.
    there will be millions affected in Miami (less than 6′ above sea level).

  388. millions of people are going to be affected
    at least millions. hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion will be directly affected.
    there will be millions affected in Miami (less than 6′ above sea level).

  391. Count, if you would, tell him all our thoughts and prayers are with them.
    Me too, Count, and I’m guessing the same from every other commenter and lurker here.

  392. Count, if you would, tell him all our thoughts and prayers are with them.
    Me too, Count, and I’m guessing the same from every other commenter and lurker here.

  393. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
    You want hair-on-fire certainty about the ultimate mysteries, get a whiff of religious leaders’ follicles bursting into flames over the centuries about Galileo and company.
    Republican big-haired Christian grifters like Pat Robertson have exact times of the day notated for when storms such as we are experiencing right now will wipe out the LGBT swim team.
    I’d like to go in the there and galivant their conch shells, and I mean precisely what those words mean, Alice.
    Praying is what you do (well, before and during any old sporting event in America) when you are up to your necks in swirling storm sewer water because someone was too certain to consult the scientists’ only too human models, and I don’t mean Christie Brinkley, or maybe the EPA web page for zoning suggestions in the event of acts of God.
    Of course, there are times when praying to the Gods seems about last resort right when scientists get their facts in a row at, say, Los Alamos. I think even Oppenheimer looked upward like a guy, or a 16th century angel in a painting, striking out with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, as if to say, what, oh lord, have we done now.
    Did a high priest invent the backstroke or was it an experimental, scientific sort of character who tried and tried again?
    The priests suggested just walking on the water, even though they sink to the bottom immediately, pulled to the bottom by the overfilled offering plates they won’t let go of.
    I worked for a group of research meteorologists in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the federal government until Ronald Reagan’s dim bulb decided to cut their budget, eventually to zero.
    He couldn’t understand why they didn’t come up with something more instantly useful to the American people, like a better way of applying hair dye to his head.
    Some of the same people who believe the entire concept of climate change is a hoax and evolution a heresy and government an imposition on their tender feelings, are now stuck under South Texas underpasses holding on to car fenders and wishing, by God, that instead of evolving from monkeys, they had evolved from amphibians, which they did, but won’t admit it.

  394. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
    You want hair-on-fire certainty about the ultimate mysteries, get a whiff of religious leaders’ follicles bursting into flames over the centuries about Galileo and company.
    Republican big-haired Christian grifters like Pat Robertson have exact times of the day notated for when storms such as we are experiencing right now will wipe out the LGBT swim team.
    I’d like to go in the there and galivant their conch shells, and I mean precisely what those words mean, Alice.
    Praying is what you do (well, before and during any old sporting event in America) when you are up to your necks in swirling storm sewer water because someone was too certain to consult the scientists’ only too human models, and I don’t mean Christie Brinkley, or maybe the EPA web page for zoning suggestions in the event of acts of God.
    Of course, there are times when praying to the Gods seems about last resort right when scientists get their facts in a row at, say, Los Alamos. I think even Oppenheimer looked upward like a guy, or a 16th century angel in a painting, striking out with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth, as if to say, what, oh lord, have we done now.
    Did a high priest invent the backstroke or was it an experimental, scientific sort of character who tried and tried again?
    The priests suggested just walking on the water, even though they sink to the bottom immediately, pulled to the bottom by the overfilled offering plates they won’t let go of.
    I worked for a group of research meteorologists in the late 1970s and early 1980s with the federal government until Ronald Reagan’s dim bulb decided to cut their budget, eventually to zero.
    He couldn’t understand why they didn’t come up with something more instantly useful to the American people, like a better way of applying hair dye to his head.
    Some of the same people who believe the entire concept of climate change is a hoax and evolution a heresy and government an imposition on their tender feelings, are now stuck under South Texas underpasses holding on to car fenders and wishing, by God, that instead of evolving from monkeys, they had evolved from amphibians, which they did, but won’t admit it.

  397. Email sent to McTX expressing the commentariat’s concern.
    I’ll let you know, unless he shows up here first.

  398. Email sent to McTX expressing the commentariat’s concern.
    I’ll let you know, unless he shows up here first.

  399. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/harveys-ravaging-of-houston-is-perfect-reason-to-kill-the-flood-insurance-program-2017-08-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
    OK, but who told Americans to be incentivized to lie (is it lie or lay? tell you what, whichever word choice someone pays me the most to use, is the one I will use, because I’m stupid that way) down in front of steamrollers anyway.
    Don’t our mothers warn us not to fall asleep in flood zones no matter how much money there might be in it?
    Of course, our Dads, seeing the American main chance, always ask, “how much money can I recoup if the kids drown?”
    They studied in MBA programs.
    Seems like the government is going to have to FORCE those who can’t afford the private flood insurance to move to higher ground, by not offering subsidized insurance to them. The rich can congregate in low-lying areas for the good bottom land.
    It’s a fact too that the incidence of heart attacks and cancer keeps rising as the numbers of the insured rise.
    If we weren’t forced to subsidize medical insurance, we’d be incentivized, because of the cost and the unavailability of the jackpots of those insurance payouts to doctors and hospitals, to just not have those heart attacks and tumors.
    It’s very simple, as Newt said one last time before I calypsoed his goiter.

  400. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/harveys-ravaging-of-houston-is-perfect-reason-to-kill-the-flood-insurance-program-2017-08-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
    OK, but who told Americans to be incentivized to lie (is it lie or lay? tell you what, whichever word choice someone pays me the most to use, is the one I will use, because I’m stupid that way) down in front of steamrollers anyway.
    Don’t our mothers warn us not to fall asleep in flood zones no matter how much money there might be in it?
    Of course, our Dads, seeing the American main chance, always ask, “how much money can I recoup if the kids drown?”
    They studied in MBA programs.
    Seems like the government is going to have to FORCE those who can’t afford the private flood insurance to move to higher ground, by not offering subsidized insurance to them. The rich can congregate in low-lying areas for the good bottom land.
    It’s a fact too that the incidence of heart attacks and cancer keeps rising as the numbers of the insured rise.
    If we weren’t forced to subsidize medical insurance, we’d be incentivized, because of the cost and the unavailability of the jackpots of those insurance payouts to doctors and hospitals, to just not have those heart attacks and tumors.
    It’s very simple, as Newt said one last time before I calypsoed his goiter.

  401. McTX responded almost immediately to say he and his are fine. He will report in here when he is up and running, whatever that entails.
    So, good news!
    He said we are very kind. But he wanted to know what cleek meant by “yep”.
    No, he didn’t!

  402. McTX responded almost immediately to say he and his are fine. He will report in here when he is up and running, whatever that entails.
    So, good news!
    He said we are very kind. But he wanted to know what cleek meant by “yep”.
    No, he didn’t!

  403. russell: “Not a lot of plasma physicists in the room, for most rooms I find myself in.”
    No kidding. Magnetohydrodynamics is tough enough, before getting into the really hard stuff.

  404. russell: “Not a lot of plasma physicists in the room, for most rooms I find myself in.”
    No kidding. Magnetohydrodynamics is tough enough, before getting into the really hard stuff.

  409. Thanks for the expressions of concern. We are fine. No water and were able to get away to our place outside Austin yesterday afternoon. We’ll probably turn our place in Houston over to a family who needs a place to stay.
    I read with interest a number of the comments here and the links. While Houston is getting all or almost all of the press, most of the rest of the Texas coast from Corpus to Louisiana got hammered and hammered hard. Flooding went as far as San Antonio and Austin.
    This was not a Katrina, or even close. Katrina was a heavy storm surge, failed levees and 9 inches of rain. We got 50 or more inches of rain. We got it over an area of roughly 5 counties, a huge watershed, that drains out of three major rivers and a couple more minor ones. Houston does have a large flood water retention capacity, two huge reservoirs on the west side of town. They just aren’t big enough to hold that volume of water. No place in the US can withstand 50 inches of water over 3-4 days.
    My news is current as of yesterday. I don’t think there are reliable numbers on how many homeless there are and how many businesses (jobs) are damaged or totaled. I heard somewhere, so this is not authoritative, the number of semi-permanently homeless to exceed 500,000. That’s just for Houston. There is Beaumont, Corpus, Victoria, Galveston and everything in between. Other than body count, Katrina isn’t even close in magnitude.
    The fallout will begin to be comprehended who-knows-how-many news cycles from now. Houston will be old news. My firm has three lawyers and two staff personnel who have lost their homes including contents. This is crappy, but at least we can keep the paychecks coming and do a intra-firm fund for relief.
    I’m pretty busy right now, but the Count (whose real name you would not believe) asked me to drop in. Again, thanks to all for their thoughts. A little $$$ to the Red Cross or something like that would help a lot. Adios.

  410. Thanks for the expressions of concern. We are fine. No water and were able to get away to our place outside Austin yesterday afternoon. We’ll probably turn our place in Houston over to a family who needs a place to stay.
    I read with interest a number of the comments here and the links. While Houston is getting all or almost all of the press, most of the rest of the Texas coast from Corpus to Louisiana got hammered and hammered hard. Flooding went as far as San Antonio and Austin.
    This was not a Katrina, or even close. Katrina was a heavy storm surge, failed levees and 9 inches of rain. We got 50 or more inches of rain. We got it over an area of roughly 5 counties, a huge watershed, that drains out of three major rivers and a couple more minor ones. Houston does have a large flood water retention capacity, two huge reservoirs on the west side of town. They just aren’t big enough to hold that volume of water. No place in the US can withstand 50 inches of water over 3-4 days.
    My news is current as of yesterday. I don’t think there are reliable numbers on how many homeless there are and how many businesses (jobs) are damaged or totaled. I heard somewhere, so this is not authoritative, the number of semi-permanently homeless to exceed 500,000. That’s just for Houston. There is Beaumont, Corpus, Victoria, Galveston and everything in between. Other than body count, Katrina isn’t even close in magnitude.
    The fallout will begin to be comprehended who-knows-how-many news cycles from now. Houston will be old news. My firm has three lawyers and two staff personnel who have lost their homes including contents. This is crappy, but at least we can keep the paychecks coming and do a intra-firm fund for relief.
    I’m pretty busy right now, but the Count (whose real name you would not believe) asked me to drop in. Again, thanks to all for their thoughts. A little $$$ to the Red Cross or something like that would help a lot. Adios.

  415. Seconded, McKinney. In due course no doubt we can all go back to sniping at each other, but in the meantime thank heavens you’re safe, and good on you for trying to house a rendered-homeless family.
    By the way, I prefer to think of the Count as a Count – he’s infinitely more interesting than the only real Count I’ve known personally (Polish ancestry, Italian title, couldn’t stop talking about sex)!

  416. Seconded, McKinney. In due course no doubt we can all go back to sniping at each other, but in the meantime thank heavens you’re safe, and good on you for trying to house a rendered-homeless family.
    By the way, I prefer to think of the Count as a Count – he’s infinitely more interesting than the only real Count I’ve known personally (Polish ancestry, Italian title, couldn’t stop talking about sex)!

  423. “Count (whose real name you would not believe)”
    Gandhi? Mohandas Gandhi? Is that you?
    You’ve changed. Looks good on you.

  424. “Count (whose real name you would not believe)”
    Gandhi? Mohandas Gandhi? Is that you?
    You’ve changed. Looks good on you.

  429. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/university-north-carolina-deny-richard-spencer-request-speak-campus
    The only free-speech-dialogue I will have with his Nazi ilk is how many of his fillings I plan to remove for keepsakes before he chooses whether to enter the Kenner Easy-Bake Oven head first or feet first.
    Firebomb his inner Dresden and make of Argentina a Nagasaki for him and his.
    He’s my chum, chum. I bait my hook with him to catch much greater whites.
    Ya know, if Hitler was an American citizen right here in 2017, his free speech rights would let him win the world for Lebensraum. Third Reich money flowing to him would have been declared speech and IG Farben would have peoplehood bestowed on them as the luckiest loved people in the world.
    He’s have announced the invasion of Vermont and California by Panzer Divisions and the SS from a podium in front of the cheering coeds at Southern Methodist University and the University of Florida.
    The Eizantzgruppen would park their vans alongside the White House motor pool to attend the Wansee Conference II in the White House Briefing Room.
    Roy Cohn and Jerry Falwell Jr. would cater the event with wedding cakes.

  430. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/university-north-carolina-deny-richard-spencer-request-speak-campus
    The only free-speech-dialogue I will have with his Nazi ilk is how many of his fillings I plan to remove for keepsakes before he chooses whether to enter the Kenner Easy-Bake Oven head first or feet first.
    Firebomb his inner Dresden and make of Argentina a Nagasaki for him and his.
    He’s my chum, chum. I bait my hook with him to catch much greater whites.
    Ya know, if Hitler was an American citizen right here in 2017, his free speech rights would let him win the world for Lebensraum. Third Reich money flowing to him would have been declared speech and IG Farben would have peoplehood bestowed on them as the luckiest loved people in the world.
    He’s have announced the invasion of Vermont and California by Panzer Divisions and the SS from a podium in front of the cheering coeds at Southern Methodist University and the University of Florida.
    The Eizantzgruppen would park their vans alongside the White House motor pool to attend the Wansee Conference II in the White House Briefing Room.
    Roy Cohn and Jerry Falwell Jr. would cater the event with wedding cakes.

  431. When you’ve lost Coulter, you’ve lost the Nazi High Command in short skirts:
    https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/trump-selling-tax-cuts-he-previously.html
    See the embedded video therein of rump speaking in 1986 about taxes. He talks exactly like he does now, except the words mean even less, but are more mean and the exact opposite now.
    Afterwords, he and Rivers agreed that Michelle Obama has a penis and wished theirs was as big as hers.
    There is no evident progressive dementia since that time to this momentous time.
    He’s as sharp as this Taylor Caldwell character financing the perfect vehicle for the insertion of his thick-speeched forked tongue — the republican party:
    https://www.amazon.com/Dialogues-Devil-Taylor-Caldwell/dp/0891902791
    He was deep inside the republican party Trojan Horse all along like a lesion, a kidney stone, a bolus of concentrated poisonous venom waiting for the heimlich manuever to be administered by the hateful, deplorable republican base to get it all over us.
    That’ll do me for a Wednesday.

  432. When you’ve lost Coulter, you’ve lost the Nazi High Command in short skirts:
    https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/trump-selling-tax-cuts-he-previously.html
    See the embedded video therein of rump speaking in 1986 about taxes. He talks exactly like he does now, except the words mean even less, but are more mean and the exact opposite now.
    Afterwords, he and Rivers agreed that Michelle Obama has a penis and wished theirs was as big as hers.
    There is no evident progressive dementia since that time to this momentous time.
    He’s as sharp as this Taylor Caldwell character financing the perfect vehicle for the insertion of his thick-speeched forked tongue — the republican party:
    https://www.amazon.com/Dialogues-Devil-Taylor-Caldwell/dp/0891902791
    He was deep inside the republican party Trojan Horse all along like a lesion, a kidney stone, a bolus of concentrated poisonous venom waiting for the heimlich manuever to be administered by the hateful, deplorable republican base to get it all over us.
    That’ll do me for a Wednesday.

  439. “Hurricane Harvey’s record-shattering flooding and rainfall…could wreck more than half a million vehicles.”
    Cash for Clunkers destroyed as many. The hurricane is just more indiscriminate.

  440. “Hurricane Harvey’s record-shattering flooding and rainfall…could wreck more than half a million vehicles.”
    Cash for Clunkers destroyed as many. The hurricane is just more indiscriminate.

  445. Definition: Price Gouging — Someone selling something for a price someone else doesn’t approve of.

  446. Definition: Price Gouging — Someone selling something for a price someone else doesn’t approve of.

  451. Funnynot, I can listen to this speech by Richard Spencer on Google’s Youtube ….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-LnO2DOGE
    But this guy can’t talk without losing his job at Googletank
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/researcher-fired-from-google-backed-think-tank-after-praising-antitrust-fine-2017-08-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
    So, now I have to sell all of my mutual funds to rinse myself of the horseshit that is America.
    At least Anne Marie Slaughter’s name fits her function.

  452. Funnynot, I can listen to this speech by Richard Spencer on Google’s Youtube ….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-LnO2DOGE
    But this guy can’t talk without losing his job at Googletank
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/researcher-fired-from-google-backed-think-tank-after-praising-antitrust-fine-2017-08-30?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
    So, now I have to sell all of my mutual funds to rinse myself of the horseshit that is America.
    At least Anne Marie Slaughter’s name fits her function.

  453. The ObWi commentariat: Count, if you would, tell him all our thoughts and prayers are with them.
    I take a back seat to nobody in wishing McTX well, but I’ll be goddamned if my “prayers” are with him. Who the hell sent The Great Houston Flood in the first place? Was it Librul Satan, at a moment when Supply-Side Jesus wasn’t paying attention?
    Okay, I apologize — a bit. “Thoughts and prayers” has become a cliche that rolls trippingly off the popular tongue every time the God of Abraham inflicts some outrage on His creatures, so I should just act like a duck and let it roll off my back. But it’s the having to act like a duck that gets my feathers ruffled.
    –TP

  454. The ObWi commentariat: Count, if you would, tell him all our thoughts and prayers are with them.
    I take a back seat to nobody in wishing McTX well, but I’ll be goddamned if my “prayers” are with him. Who the hell sent The Great Houston Flood in the first place? Was it Librul Satan, at a moment when Supply-Side Jesus wasn’t paying attention?
    Okay, I apologize — a bit. “Thoughts and prayers” has become a cliche that rolls trippingly off the popular tongue every time the God of Abraham inflicts some outrage on His creatures, so I should just act like a duck and let it roll off my back. But it’s the having to act like a duck that gets my feathers ruffled.
    –TP

  457. At this point we are going in circles. I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument.
    The argument is of the same genre as telling blacks to “just slow down” when pushing to end segregation, or hectoring Democrats to tone down their divisive “identity politics” (Lille) because a few folks claim to be offput for some reason or another.
    It is a dead loser.
    But I would assert that we must be doing something right if 70% of the American public agrees that global warming is a problem. That’s more than half the battle right there.
    Then the question becomes one of policy, not this inane discussion about the terrible harm posed by “inaccurate” (sic) predictions.

  458. At this point we are going in circles. I’m starting to believe that some of you would rather feel smug and look down on the lazy and stupid instead of wining the argument.
    The argument is of the same genre as telling blacks to “just slow down” when pushing to end segregation, or hectoring Democrats to tone down their divisive “identity politics” (Lille) because a few folks claim to be offput for some reason or another.
    It is a dead loser.
    But I would assert that we must be doing something right if 70% of the American public agrees that global warming is a problem. That’s more than half the battle right there.
    Then the question becomes one of policy, not this inane discussion about the terrible harm posed by “inaccurate” (sic) predictions.

  459. Pat Robertson has not yet attributed Houston’s misery to liberal sacrilege, that I know of, as he has done every other catastrophe over the past 40 years.
    https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/26/16202436/700-club-terry-heaton-pat-robertson-trump
    Maybe there aren’t any LGBT folks in the Houston area.
    Wait, Ann Coulter has been taking names and booking the boxcars for points east in Poland:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/08/ann-coulter-god-punishing-houston-credible-cause-hurricane-climate-change/
    God did find out that Robertson is prone to bestiality of the equine variety and so gave him a kick in the ass:
    http://wtkr.com/2017/08/11/pat-robertson-hospitalized-after-horseback-riding-incident-cbn-says/

  460. Pat Robertson has not yet attributed Houston’s misery to liberal sacrilege, that I know of, as he has done every other catastrophe over the past 40 years.
    https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/26/16202436/700-club-terry-heaton-pat-robertson-trump
    Maybe there aren’t any LGBT folks in the Houston area.
    Wait, Ann Coulter has been taking names and booking the boxcars for points east in Poland:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/08/ann-coulter-god-punishing-houston-credible-cause-hurricane-climate-change/
    God did find out that Robertson is prone to bestiality of the equine variety and so gave him a kick in the ass:
    http://wtkr.com/2017/08/11/pat-robertson-hospitalized-after-horseback-riding-incident-cbn-says/

  461. just want to say i’m digging the mad libs count.
    “trimming their artichoke wicks”. i’m stealing that.

  462. just want to say i’m digging the mad libs count.
    “trimming their artichoke wicks”. i’m stealing that.

  463. McT, good to hear you are safe and you may not be able to answer, but I wanted to ask, when you wrote
    This was not a Katrina, or even close. Katrina was a heavy storm surge, failed levees and 9 inches of rain….No place in the US can withstand 50 inches of water over 3-4 days.
    You mean that Houston and Harvey are something on a order worse than Katrina, or the opposite? When I read the first sentence, I thought the latter, but the rest of the paragraph suggests the former.

  464. McT, good to hear you are safe and you may not be able to answer, but I wanted to ask, when you wrote
    This was not a Katrina, or even close. Katrina was a heavy storm surge, failed levees and 9 inches of rain….No place in the US can withstand 50 inches of water over 3-4 days.
    You mean that Houston and Harvey are something on a order worse than Katrina, or the opposite? When I read the first sentence, I thought the latter, but the rest of the paragraph suggests the former.

  467. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/29/1694387/-Republican-won-t-apologize-for-calling-George-Soros-a-Hungarian-Jew-with-hatred-for-America
    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
    All the king’s horses and all
    the king’s men
    ate omelots made of republicans
    Take an owl. Boil it. Render it. Remove the feathers, remove the eyes and gullet. Take away the bones, the viscera, the flesh, the skin, the talons. Extract its wisdom from the brain cells, discard that organ. Place the concentrated drop of wisdom in a thimble. Throw the thimble into the maw of a volcano. It’s gone. Incinerated. Missing and presumed dead on November 9, 2016, like America.

  468. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/8/29/1694387/-Republican-won-t-apologize-for-calling-George-Soros-a-Hungarian-Jew-with-hatred-for-America
    Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
    Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
    All the king’s horses and all
    the king’s men
    ate omelots made of republicans
    Take an owl. Boil it. Render it. Remove the feathers, remove the eyes and gullet. Take away the bones, the viscera, the flesh, the skin, the talons. Extract its wisdom from the brain cells, discard that organ. Place the concentrated drop of wisdom in a thimble. Throw the thimble into the maw of a volcano. It’s gone. Incinerated. Missing and presumed dead on November 9, 2016, like America.

  469. But I would assert that we must be doing something right if 70% of the American public agrees that global warming is a problem. That’s more than half the battle right there.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 30, 2017 at 09:51 PM
    I acknowledge that:
    I prefer to look at the trends, which are moving in a positive direction:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
    Posted by: Pollo de muerte | August 30, 2017 at 07:11 AM
    but …
    Then the question becomes one of policy, not this inane discussion about the terrible harm posed by “inaccurate” (sic) predictions.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 30, 2017 at 09:51 PM
    This is where we disagree, from my same earlier post:
    The hard work is turning this vague sense of “there’s a problem” into actual policy. It’s not self-indulgence. It’s important.
    Posted by: Pollo de muerte | August 30, 2017 at 07:11 AM
    A similarly large majority of Americans think poverty is a problem and that people on welfare would rather get off welfare and work for living. But then you look at opinions on the efficacy of welfare and those numbers are in the toilet. It’s one thing to get folks to recognize the problem, it’s another thing entirely to get folks to pay for a solution. Paul Ryan just shows the graph with poverty rates flat over the last several decades even in the face of all that money spent on the poor* and the political fight is won … that’s why the models are important and how we discuss the models is important.
    Here’s the thing, AGW is such a big problem that it may overcome crappy messaging, but I promise you that this smug condescension coupled with overstatement ain’t helping get things done in a timely manner.
    * Really not that much money.

  470. But I would assert that we must be doing something right if 70% of the American public agrees that global warming is a problem. That’s more than half the battle right there.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 30, 2017 at 09:51 PM
    I acknowledge that:
    I prefer to look at the trends, which are moving in a positive direction:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx
    Posted by: Pollo de muerte | August 30, 2017 at 07:11 AM
    but …
    Then the question becomes one of policy, not this inane discussion about the terrible harm posed by “inaccurate” (sic) predictions.
    Posted by: bobbyp | August 30, 2017 at 09:51 PM
    This is where we disagree, from my same earlier post:
    The hard work is turning this vague sense of “there’s a problem” into actual policy. It’s not self-indulgence. It’s important.
    Posted by: Pollo de muerte | August 30, 2017 at 07:11 AM
    A similarly large majority of Americans think poverty is a problem and that people on welfare would rather get off welfare and work for living. But then you look at opinions on the efficacy of welfare and those numbers are in the toilet. It’s one thing to get folks to recognize the problem, it’s another thing entirely to get folks to pay for a solution. Paul Ryan just shows the graph with poverty rates flat over the last several decades even in the face of all that money spent on the poor* and the political fight is won … that’s why the models are important and how we discuss the models is important.
    Here’s the thing, AGW is such a big problem that it may overcome crappy messaging, but I promise you that this smug condescension coupled with overstatement ain’t helping get things done in a timely manner.
    * Really not that much money.

  471. Harvey Update: turns out a lot of those high information experts were wrong about Houston. WJ, you might want to read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451082/houston-land-use-policies-are-not-blame-its-flooding
    As a side note, the picture at the top of the article captures the flooding in what is knows as The Villages, a stand alone, somewhat loosely knit organization of 5 high end “villages” that are politically distinct from but right in the middle of Houston. Harvey was very egalitarian.
    If you take the time to read the article, please re-read the first several paragraphs. Then, read the rest of the piece. My hat is off to the author, who definitely stepped outside of his normal arena to go against the flow.

  472. Harvey Update: turns out a lot of those high information experts were wrong about Houston. WJ, you might want to read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451082/houston-land-use-policies-are-not-blame-its-flooding
    As a side note, the picture at the top of the article captures the flooding in what is knows as The Villages, a stand alone, somewhat loosely knit organization of 5 high end “villages” that are politically distinct from but right in the middle of Houston. Harvey was very egalitarian.
    If you take the time to read the article, please re-read the first several paragraphs. Then, read the rest of the piece. My hat is off to the author, who definitely stepped outside of his normal arena to go against the flow.

  473. McKinney, thanks for that. I’d agree that it’s important to remember that Harvey was so overwhelming that even perfect, ideal land use would have been utterly overwhelmed. (Whether that’s because Harvey was a demonstration of what climate change has in store is another discussion.)
    That said, it remains true that some local decisions had significant negative impacts. It’s not reasonable to design your transportation infrastructure to allow for the evacuation of most of the population. But what Houston appears, from this great distance, to have for transportation capacity is way on the low side.
    Admittedly, transportation infrastructure has failed to keep up with growth in most places where the economy is not shrinking. That’s why commutes are so bad. (And, in extreme cases, non-commute traffic as well.) But the shortcomings of others doesn’t excuse our own faults.

  474. McKinney, thanks for that. I’d agree that it’s important to remember that Harvey was so overwhelming that even perfect, ideal land use would have been utterly overwhelmed. (Whether that’s because Harvey was a demonstration of what climate change has in store is another discussion.)
    That said, it remains true that some local decisions had significant negative impacts. It’s not reasonable to design your transportation infrastructure to allow for the evacuation of most of the population. But what Houston appears, from this great distance, to have for transportation capacity is way on the low side.
    Admittedly, transportation infrastructure has failed to keep up with growth in most places where the economy is not shrinking. That’s why commutes are so bad. (And, in extreme cases, non-commute traffic as well.) But the shortcomings of others doesn’t excuse our own faults.

  475. That said, it remains true that some local decisions had significant negative impacts. It’s not reasonable to design your transportation infrastructure to allow for the evacuation of most of the population. But what Houston appears, from this great distance, to have for transportation capacity is way on the low side.
    Which local decisions?
    Which transportation capacity is on the low side?
    How would any of the above mitigated the flooding?
    Except for certain designated areas, we were told–the entire city was told–do not evacuate, shelter in place. This was the correct advice.
    Houstonians have actual experience with trying run from a Hurricane. The freeways become hopelessly grid-locked and everyone is left out in the open at the mercy of whatever Mother Nature has cooked up. You can’t put 2-3 million people on a freeway system at one time anywhere in the world and not get gridlock. Fortunately, when this happened before Ike, everyone realized the futility of running and went home. Had we tried to evacuate in advance of Harvey, the body count would dwarf Katrina.
    What we saw after Harvey and what the author documents was repeated instances of experts on the left trying to make science the servant of ideology. There is a lesson to be learned here, but not by Houston.

  476. That said, it remains true that some local decisions had significant negative impacts. It’s not reasonable to design your transportation infrastructure to allow for the evacuation of most of the population. But what Houston appears, from this great distance, to have for transportation capacity is way on the low side.
    Which local decisions?
    Which transportation capacity is on the low side?
    How would any of the above mitigated the flooding?
    Except for certain designated areas, we were told–the entire city was told–do not evacuate, shelter in place. This was the correct advice.
    Houstonians have actual experience with trying run from a Hurricane. The freeways become hopelessly grid-locked and everyone is left out in the open at the mercy of whatever Mother Nature has cooked up. You can’t put 2-3 million people on a freeway system at one time anywhere in the world and not get gridlock. Fortunately, when this happened before Ike, everyone realized the futility of running and went home. Had we tried to evacuate in advance of Harvey, the body count would dwarf Katrina.
    What we saw after Harvey and what the author documents was repeated instances of experts on the left trying to make science the servant of ideology. There is a lesson to be learned here, but not by Houston.

  477. McKT, thanks and I appreciate your feelings. I remember Katrina and there were lots of people (Tacitus being one of them) proferring solutions while failing to understand many of the basic facts about NO. So I feel your pain.
    However, my understanding for the lack of evacuation was that the flood systems were designed to first fill up the roads.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-cities-flood/538251/
    This might be one of the guys who you are taking issue with, but the argument that roads are for floodwater conveyance makes a more sense to me than to try and make places for the floodwater to go.
    But (and you knew this was coming), how do you (or some article you think is apropos) address the fact that these weather events are becoming much more common
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/hurricane-harvey-probably-isnt-a-500-year-event-anymore/
    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/28/16211392/100-500-year-flood-meaning
    The first one is from that magazine loved by us fellow travelers, but I tend to view Kevin Drum as a moderate commentator, not given to flights of fancy. The Vox article talks about how the notion of a 500 year flood is quite flawed. Given this, are you still as sanguine about climate change?

  478. McKT, thanks and I appreciate your feelings. I remember Katrina and there were lots of people (Tacitus being one of them) proferring solutions while failing to understand many of the basic facts about NO. So I feel your pain.
    However, my understanding for the lack of evacuation was that the flood systems were designed to first fill up the roads.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-cities-flood/538251/
    This might be one of the guys who you are taking issue with, but the argument that roads are for floodwater conveyance makes a more sense to me than to try and make places for the floodwater to go.
    But (and you knew this was coming), how do you (or some article you think is apropos) address the fact that these weather events are becoming much more common
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/hurricane-harvey-probably-isnt-a-500-year-event-anymore/
    https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/8/28/16211392/100-500-year-flood-meaning
    The first one is from that magazine loved by us fellow travelers, but I tend to view Kevin Drum as a moderate commentator, not given to flights of fancy. The Vox article talks about how the notion of a 500 year flood is quite flawed. Given this, are you still as sanguine about climate change?

  479. The article McKinney links to tells us that “the Washington Post is reporting now that Harvey dumped 19 trillion gallons on Texas — a large portion of that hitting the Houston area”. I followed the link in the article, and learned from the Washington Post that “Over Harris County alone — which is home to Houston — 1 trillion gallons of water fell in the four days from Saturday through Tuesday.”
    So the article’s “large portion” is more like 5%. Which doesn’t in itself change the conclusion, but it does cast doubt on the rigour of the analysis.

  480. The article McKinney links to tells us that “the Washington Post is reporting now that Harvey dumped 19 trillion gallons on Texas — a large portion of that hitting the Houston area”. I followed the link in the article, and learned from the Washington Post that “Over Harris County alone — which is home to Houston — 1 trillion gallons of water fell in the four days from Saturday through Tuesday.”
    So the article’s “large portion” is more like 5%. Which doesn’t in itself change the conclusion, but it does cast doubt on the rigour of the analysis.

  481. The Atlantic link that lj included in his 7:53 am linked to an article about China’s “sponge cities”. Really interesting.
    Some governments are taking seriously the threat of climate change, and trying to mitigate its effects. I imagine that it will be a difficult and imperfect engineering and urban planning task, perhaps with some trial and error involved. Sad that some of the most vulnerable regions in the US are run by climate deniers and libertarians who reject concerted action, and aren’t even willing to try.

  482. The Atlantic link that lj included in his 7:53 am linked to an article about China’s “sponge cities”. Really interesting.
    Some governments are taking seriously the threat of climate change, and trying to mitigate its effects. I imagine that it will be a difficult and imperfect engineering and urban planning task, perhaps with some trial and error involved. Sad that some of the most vulnerable regions in the US are run by climate deniers and libertarians who reject concerted action, and aren’t even willing to try.

  483. The damage done to Houston was due to not so much the size of the storm, but that it stalled in place over the Houston area. It would be difficult to link hurricanes stalling over high population areas to climate change.

  484. The damage done to Houston was due to not so much the size of the storm, but that it stalled in place over the Houston area. It would be difficult to link hurricanes stalling over high population areas to climate change.

  485. If storms are more likely, the likelihood of storms stalling over a given area will go up proportionately, unless some other factor made them less likely to stall.

  486. If storms are more likely, the likelihood of storms stalling over a given area will go up proportionately, unless some other factor made them less likely to stall.

  489. This might be one of the guys who you are taking issue with, but the argument that roads are for floodwater conveyance makes a more sense to me than to try and make places for the floodwater to go.
    This is what he says:
    “A series of slow-moving rivers, called bayous, provide natural drainage for the area. To account for the certainty of flooding, Houston has built drainage channels, sewers, outfalls, on- and off-road ditches, and detention ponds to hold or move water away from local areas. When they fill, the roadways provide overrun. The dramatic images from Houston that show wide, interstate freeways transformed into rivers look like the cause of the disaster, but they are also its solution, if not an ideal one.”
    Our roadways do not provide overfill. That is just not true. Our roadways flood when there is more water than our flood control system can accommodate. I’ve bolded our flood control system. You can’t develop without putting in flood mitigation. We have a ton of that. Texas doesn’t regulate like CA, but none of us like being flooded out of our homes and politicians don’t get elected by openly proclaiming their indifference to flood mitigation. Our highways do not channel water. Citizens would not stand for that. Water does not flow down I-10 or I-69. Rather, it rises and where the roads are low enough, they become covered in water.
    This is another example of a purported expert offering factually incorrect information. His position is physically impossible. Geographically and topologically, Houston is on a coastal prairie. Elevations vary by less than 100 feet for the most part and are completely random and uneven. For our roads to serve as water conduits, they would have be built on a steady incline from inland to the gulf. There are many reasons why this isn’t done, first among them being it’s physically impossible to build a 50 or 60 mile stretch of road on a high-to-low grade when you are located on level land to begin with–there is no elevation to work with. As it happens, most of our newer freeways and high volume roads are elevated, not depressed, as they would need to be to channel water. The reason for this is to allow roads to be passable during floods. We need our roads for emergency services and normal travel, not water discharge
    But (and you knew this was coming), how do you (or some article you think is apropos) address the fact that these weather events are becoming much more common.
    Well, there’s actually been quite a lull in hurricanes since 2008. I think we had one Cat One in 2010. Whether Harvey was and Irma will be more powerful due to climate change is something you can find scientists on both sides of. I don’t know about the rest of the world, but our winters are noticeably milder and have been for some time. Selling me on the notion that we are in a warming cycle is easy. Selling me on the notion that human activity is a factor and maybe even a large factor in the current cycle is also an easy sell. What I’m not buying is that ceding control of the economy to centralized planning is anymore likely to make things better than trying to work around and with whatever actual conditions unfold–yes, there is a consensus that the earth is warming, no, there is not a consensus on what it means in the out years. And even if the US depopulated overnight, China and India along with Russia and most of its former satellites aren’t going to play ball, so it would be actual economic and lifestyle suicide in aid of symbolism.
    Sometime back, someone here linked to an article in the Guardian that pointed out the dystopia we would have if we actually did what some say is necessary to forestall disaster. If that person can re-link, I’d be really appreciative.
    So the article’s “large portion” is more like 5%. Which doesn’t in itself change the conclusion, but it does cast doubt on the rigour of the analysis.
    Maybe not. If you were to calculate the area over which Harvey dropped its 19 trillion gallons, you would see that it is quite large, far more than 20 times the size of Houston. Houston, at 600 sq miles, is 1/3 of Harris County. Harvey dropped its load over 20,000 or more square miles. Don’t think of this in terms of gallons. Think of this in terms of 20-50 inches of water dumped out over a huge area and then being funneled out of maybe 15-20 rivers and bayous. Houston got a disproportionately larger share of Harvey’s rain than did any other area of the gulf coast except perhaps Beaumont.

  490. This might be one of the guys who you are taking issue with, but the argument that roads are for floodwater conveyance makes a more sense to me than to try and make places for the floodwater to go.
    This is what he says:
    “A series of slow-moving rivers, called bayous, provide natural drainage for the area. To account for the certainty of flooding, Houston has built drainage channels, sewers, outfalls, on- and off-road ditches, and detention ponds to hold or move water away from local areas. When they fill, the roadways provide overrun. The dramatic images from Houston that show wide, interstate freeways transformed into rivers look like the cause of the disaster, but they are also its solution, if not an ideal one.”
    Our roadways do not provide overfill. That is just not true. Our roadways flood when there is more water than our flood control system can accommodate. I’ve bolded our flood control system. You can’t develop without putting in flood mitigation. We have a ton of that. Texas doesn’t regulate like CA, but none of us like being flooded out of our homes and politicians don’t get elected by openly proclaiming their indifference to flood mitigation. Our highways do not channel water. Citizens would not stand for that. Water does not flow down I-10 or I-69. Rather, it rises and where the roads are low enough, they become covered in water.
    This is another example of a purported expert offering factually incorrect information. His position is physically impossible. Geographically and topologically, Houston is on a coastal prairie. Elevations vary by less than 100 feet for the most part and are completely random and uneven. For our roads to serve as water conduits, they would have be built on a steady incline from inland to the gulf. There are many reasons why this isn’t done, first among them being it’s physically impossible to build a 50 or 60 mile stretch of road on a high-to-low grade when you are located on level land to begin with–there is no elevation to work with. As it happens, most of our newer freeways and high volume roads are elevated, not depressed, as they would need to be to channel water. The reason for this is to allow roads to be passable during floods. We need our roads for emergency services and normal travel, not water discharge
    But (and you knew this was coming), how do you (or some article you think is apropos) address the fact that these weather events are becoming much more common.
    Well, there’s actually been quite a lull in hurricanes since 2008. I think we had one Cat One in 2010. Whether Harvey was and Irma will be more powerful due to climate change is something you can find scientists on both sides of. I don’t know about the rest of the world, but our winters are noticeably milder and have been for some time. Selling me on the notion that we are in a warming cycle is easy. Selling me on the notion that human activity is a factor and maybe even a large factor in the current cycle is also an easy sell. What I’m not buying is that ceding control of the economy to centralized planning is anymore likely to make things better than trying to work around and with whatever actual conditions unfold–yes, there is a consensus that the earth is warming, no, there is not a consensus on what it means in the out years. And even if the US depopulated overnight, China and India along with Russia and most of its former satellites aren’t going to play ball, so it would be actual economic and lifestyle suicide in aid of symbolism.
    Sometime back, someone here linked to an article in the Guardian that pointed out the dystopia we would have if we actually did what some say is necessary to forestall disaster. If that person can re-link, I’d be really appreciative.
    So the article’s “large portion” is more like 5%. Which doesn’t in itself change the conclusion, but it does cast doubt on the rigour of the analysis.
    Maybe not. If you were to calculate the area over which Harvey dropped its 19 trillion gallons, you would see that it is quite large, far more than 20 times the size of Houston. Houston, at 600 sq miles, is 1/3 of Harris County. Harvey dropped its load over 20,000 or more square miles. Don’t think of this in terms of gallons. Think of this in terms of 20-50 inches of water dumped out over a huge area and then being funneled out of maybe 15-20 rivers and bayous. Houston got a disproportionately larger share of Harvey’s rain than did any other area of the gulf coast except perhaps Beaumont.

  491. Our roadways do not provide overfill.
    Overfill or overrun?
    For our roads to serve as water conduits, they would have be built on a steady incline from inland to the gulf.
    That’s not really how it works, though. You get the water to the nearest detention or retention site. It’s not foolproof, of course, but you don’t simply drain all the water with manmade infrastructure to the ocean.
    Either way, your link has me thinking, at least. I’d be interested in seeing a few responses from a few of the supposedly biased experts Charles Marohn criticizes to see how they manage to address the points he makes. I don’t know why I should be supposing he’s the unbiased one.

  492. Our roadways do not provide overfill.
    Overfill or overrun?
    For our roads to serve as water conduits, they would have be built on a steady incline from inland to the gulf.
    That’s not really how it works, though. You get the water to the nearest detention or retention site. It’s not foolproof, of course, but you don’t simply drain all the water with manmade infrastructure to the ocean.
    Either way, your link has me thinking, at least. I’d be interested in seeing a few responses from a few of the supposedly biased experts Charles Marohn criticizes to see how they manage to address the points he makes. I don’t know why I should be supposing he’s the unbiased one.

  493. The first one is from that magazine loved by us fellow travelers, but I tend to view Kevin Drum as a moderate commentator, not given to flights of fancy. The Vox article talks about how the notion of a 500 year flood is quite flawed. Given this, are you still as sanguine about climate change?
    Missed this one. I’ve addressed climate change and my position here has been consistent over the years–yes, it exists, no, my friends on the left should not be in charge of retooling the world economy to mitigate effects we do not know we will experience.
    The “more fierce, less frequent” storm idea is new to me. Maybe it’s been around awhile, or maybe it’s science being shaped by advocates to account for the lower number of storms.
    That said, the whole concept of a 100, 500 or 1000 year flood is outdated if it ever had relevance. Once you change the hydrology materially, you either increase or decrease flood severity. Flood severity is a function of four things: how much rainfall over how much time falling on how large of a surface with how much absorption/discharge capacity. 50 inches of rain is a buttload of rain, period full stop.
    Is that unprecedented? I have no idea. If these become the norm year-in and year-out, we’ll have to either engineer a solution or rethink coastal living. If this is something that happens somewhere in the Western Hemisphere every 10 years or so, we’ll just have to live with it. Right now, we don’t know what we are looking at. The modeling is not consistent.

  494. The first one is from that magazine loved by us fellow travelers, but I tend to view Kevin Drum as a moderate commentator, not given to flights of fancy. The Vox article talks about how the notion of a 500 year flood is quite flawed. Given this, are you still as sanguine about climate change?
    Missed this one. I’ve addressed climate change and my position here has been consistent over the years–yes, it exists, no, my friends on the left should not be in charge of retooling the world economy to mitigate effects we do not know we will experience.
    The “more fierce, less frequent” storm idea is new to me. Maybe it’s been around awhile, or maybe it’s science being shaped by advocates to account for the lower number of storms.
    That said, the whole concept of a 100, 500 or 1000 year flood is outdated if it ever had relevance. Once you change the hydrology materially, you either increase or decrease flood severity. Flood severity is a function of four things: how much rainfall over how much time falling on how large of a surface with how much absorption/discharge capacity. 50 inches of rain is a buttload of rain, period full stop.
    Is that unprecedented? I have no idea. If these become the norm year-in and year-out, we’ll have to either engineer a solution or rethink coastal living. If this is something that happens somewhere in the Western Hemisphere every 10 years or so, we’ll just have to live with it. Right now, we don’t know what we are looking at. The modeling is not consistent.

  495. That’s not really how it works, though. You get the water to the nearest detention or retention site. It’s not foolproof, of course, but you don’t simply drain all the water with manmade infrastructure to the ocean.
    We use sewers underneath our roads to get the water to the detention locations. We do not use our roads for that purpose. The person who said that is just wrong.

  496. That’s not really how it works, though. You get the water to the nearest detention or retention site. It’s not foolproof, of course, but you don’t simply drain all the water with manmade infrastructure to the ocean.
    We use sewers underneath our roads to get the water to the detention locations. We do not use our roads for that purpose. The person who said that is just wrong.

  497. The person who said that is just wrong.
    That conclusion may be correct, in spite of the flawed argument you made for it.

  498. The person who said that is just wrong.
    That conclusion may be correct, in spite of the flawed argument you made for it.

  499. no, my friends on the left should not be in charge of retooling the world economy to mitigate effects we do not know we will experience.
    Nobody wants to retool the entire economy, just make a good faith attempt to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, and find innovative ways to address environmental challenges. That requires collective action.
    Instead, the libertarians have given us this. Thanks!

  500. no, my friends on the left should not be in charge of retooling the world economy to mitigate effects we do not know we will experience.
    Nobody wants to retool the entire economy, just make a good faith attempt to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, and find innovative ways to address environmental challenges. That requires collective action.
    Instead, the libertarians have given us this. Thanks!

  505. my friends on the left should not be in charge of retooling the world economy to mitigate effects we do not know we will experience.
    Dude, we can’t even get a carbon tax.
    The world economy is going to re-tool itself, with or without our input, control, or consent. Folks who do nothing are just going to be along for the ride.
    Looks like that will be us.

  506. my friends on the left should not be in charge of retooling the world economy to mitigate effects we do not know we will experience.
    Dude, we can’t even get a carbon tax.
    The world economy is going to re-tool itself, with or without our input, control, or consent. Folks who do nothing are just going to be along for the ride.
    Looks like that will be us.

  509. to mitigate effects we do not know we will experience.
    everyone knows it’s always best to wait for the disaster to strike and then prepare for it to come around again.

  510. to mitigate effects we do not know we will experience.
    everyone knows it’s always best to wait for the disaster to strike and then prepare for it to come around again.

  513. “It’s not binary, left vs libertarian.”
    Libertarians might disagree.
    As a general statement, it’s more of a triadic arrangement.
    Conservatives and liberals have their disagreements.
    Libertarians disagree with conservatives regarding state and societal action on social issues.
    Libertarians disagree with liberals on, well, everything else regarding state and societal action.
    There are degrees of disagreement, of course.
    We know Galt’s Gulch will flood every 500 years, but try to get any idea of action through Dagny Taggart’s head because she believes her stiletto heels place her on high ground, above where the lesser libertarians can afford to live.

  514. “It’s not binary, left vs libertarian.”
    Libertarians might disagree.
    As a general statement, it’s more of a triadic arrangement.
    Conservatives and liberals have their disagreements.
    Libertarians disagree with conservatives regarding state and societal action on social issues.
    Libertarians disagree with liberals on, well, everything else regarding state and societal action.
    There are degrees of disagreement, of course.
    We know Galt’s Gulch will flood every 500 years, but try to get any idea of action through Dagny Taggart’s head because she believes her stiletto heels place her on high ground, above where the lesser libertarians can afford to live.

  515. Libertarians disagree with conservatives regarding state and societal action on social issues.
    That is, except for elected libertarians, who mostly oppose women’s reproductive rights.

  516. Libertarians disagree with conservatives regarding state and societal action on social issues.
    That is, except for elected libertarians, who mostly oppose women’s reproductive rights.

  517. Ah, but are those real libertarians? Or just, as I suspect, libertarians of convenience? I’d bet on their libertarianism being a false flag, to avoid being tarred by the most visibly bigoted of their soulmates.

  518. Ah, but are those real libertarians? Or just, as I suspect, libertarians of convenience? I’d bet on their libertarianism being a false flag, to avoid being tarred by the most visibly bigoted of their soulmates.

  519. Ah, but are those real libertarians?
    Good point. “Real libertarians” lead the people without the bother of a government run electoral process.

  520. Ah, but are those real libertarians?
    Good point. “Real libertarians” lead the people without the bother of a government run electoral process.

  521. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-hurricane-irma-could-be-something-not-good
    Two views:
    1. he has no evidence, perhaps in the form of leas-than-100% consistently predictive computer models, on which to base those conclusions, so battening down the hatches should be a matter of individual choice with no supervision over general battening, especially if the supervision itself isn’t in the direct path of Irma.
    2. scientists, the ones at the NWS and NOAA with the less than 100%-consistent computer models, said Irma could be “something not good”, except expressed in an elitist, smarty pants vocabulary, often mistaken for liberal heecack, and rump is a barely articulate parrot which can mimic human communication, even though he shits on scientists from on high, though I expect he may have the survival instinct to move his expensive vase, probably a fake, from the lobby of Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.

  522. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-hurricane-irma-could-be-something-not-good
    Two views:
    1. he has no evidence, perhaps in the form of leas-than-100% consistently predictive computer models, on which to base those conclusions, so battening down the hatches should be a matter of individual choice with no supervision over general battening, especially if the supervision itself isn’t in the direct path of Irma.
    2. scientists, the ones at the NWS and NOAA with the less than 100%-consistent computer models, said Irma could be “something not good”, except expressed in an elitist, smarty pants vocabulary, often mistaken for liberal heecack, and rump is a barely articulate parrot which can mimic human communication, even though he shits on scientists from on high, though I expect he may have the survival instinct to move his expensive vase, probably a fake, from the lobby of Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.

  525. From the Count’s TPM link:

    “There’s a new and seems to be record-breaking hurricane heading right toward Florida and Puerto Rico and other places. We’ll see what happens,” Trump said during a meeting with congressional leaders. “We’ll know in a very short period of time, but it looks like it could be something that will be not good. Believe me, not good.”
    (…)
    The President said he and Congress “have many, many things that are on the plate.”
    “Hopefully, we can solve them in a rational way and maybe we won’t be able to,” he said. “We’ll probably know pretty much at the end of this meeting or the meetings that we’ll be having over a short period of time.”

    Whether it’s over a short period of time or a very short period of time, our president is as thoughtful and eloquent as ever. In any case, we’ll know what happens after we see what happens.

  526. From the Count’s TPM link:

    “There’s a new and seems to be record-breaking hurricane heading right toward Florida and Puerto Rico and other places. We’ll see what happens,” Trump said during a meeting with congressional leaders. “We’ll know in a very short period of time, but it looks like it could be something that will be not good. Believe me, not good.”
    (…)
    The President said he and Congress “have many, many things that are on the plate.”
    “Hopefully, we can solve them in a rational way and maybe we won’t be able to,” he said. “We’ll probably know pretty much at the end of this meeting or the meetings that we’ll be having over a short period of time.”

    Whether it’s over a short period of time or a very short period of time, our president is as thoughtful and eloquent as ever. In any case, we’ll know what happens after we see what happens.

  527. I bought a flashlight recently because of the fear of the scam of darkness.
    I bought groceries the other day because of the fear of the scam of hunger.
    I bought Bandaids the other day because of the fear of the scam of booboos.
    Now, yes, capitalists capitalize.
    I haven’t shot Limbaugh in the head yet because of the fear of the scam of conservative talk radio horseshit.
    But that’s because I’ve yet to buy a cache of weapons and ammo because of the fear the NRA and Limbaugh peddle, at great capitalist profit to themselves, because of the fear of the scam of crime and government tyranny.
    So far, I have limits.
    The day is young.

  528. I bought a flashlight recently because of the fear of the scam of darkness.
    I bought groceries the other day because of the fear of the scam of hunger.
    I bought Bandaids the other day because of the fear of the scam of booboos.
    Now, yes, capitalists capitalize.
    I haven’t shot Limbaugh in the head yet because of the fear of the scam of conservative talk radio horseshit.
    But that’s because I’ve yet to buy a cache of weapons and ammo because of the fear the NRA and Limbaugh peddle, at great capitalist profit to themselves, because of the fear of the scam of crime and government tyranny.
    So far, I have limits.
    The day is young.

  529. Advertisers who stuck with, and who are stuck with, Limbaugh’s horseshit after his scam and fear-stoking regarding Sandra Fluke:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/all-advertisers-who-are-sticking-limbaugh/330625/
    I can imagine, if not computer model, the leads and catch lines on the advertising copy for these fear and trembling bucket shops:
    “Drop everything, fatsos, and run, if you are able, don’t walk, NOW, and get your belly-fat reduction kit, before supplies run out!!!!!!!!!
    “Reclusive billionaire expert says we are days away from total currency collapse!!! Buy gold now!@#$! Send your dollars before it’s too late, because the payment on my Maserati is due, and my lender doesn’t accept gold!@&
    IRS after you? Call Doug now(&*%$! 1-800-YOU-SUCK. Ask for Ron Paul!
    Black is black and it matters!! Especially if the black guy is in government and/or is walking by your house minding his own business. Join the NRA! Get a free 100-slug clip coupon for purchase your nearest authorized (but not for long, if you don;t shoot a liberal) arms dealer! Free armored codpiece with derringer-in-a-bow-tie included.
    Rising oceans? Schmizing Schmocians! Call now: Boca Raton Realty. Our customer service agents are ready to take your calls, and then change their names, relocate their bucket shops, and disguise their voices, all after you send that money order and alert the Feds! Free snorkel guaranteed!@! Supplies limited!
    What God doesn’t want you to know. The Church of Pascal’s Wager Betting Parlour NOW OPEN for Business! God’s Love revealed! Or Not! Takes your chances! Send everything you own.
    Always be closing.
    It’s in the Bible and the Constitution.

  530. Advertisers who stuck with, and who are stuck with, Limbaugh’s horseshit after his scam and fear-stoking regarding Sandra Fluke:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/all-advertisers-who-are-sticking-limbaugh/330625/
    I can imagine, if not computer model, the leads and catch lines on the advertising copy for these fear and trembling bucket shops:
    “Drop everything, fatsos, and run, if you are able, don’t walk, NOW, and get your belly-fat reduction kit, before supplies run out!!!!!!!!!
    “Reclusive billionaire expert says we are days away from total currency collapse!!! Buy gold now!@#$! Send your dollars before it’s too late, because the payment on my Maserati is due, and my lender doesn’t accept gold!@&
    IRS after you? Call Doug now(&*%$! 1-800-YOU-SUCK. Ask for Ron Paul!
    Black is black and it matters!! Especially if the black guy is in government and/or is walking by your house minding his own business. Join the NRA! Get a free 100-slug clip coupon for purchase your nearest authorized (but not for long, if you don;t shoot a liberal) arms dealer! Free armored codpiece with derringer-in-a-bow-tie included.
    Rising oceans? Schmizing Schmocians! Call now: Boca Raton Realty. Our customer service agents are ready to take your calls, and then change their names, relocate their bucket shops, and disguise their voices, all after you send that money order and alert the Feds! Free snorkel guaranteed!@! Supplies limited!
    What God doesn’t want you to know. The Church of Pascal’s Wager Betting Parlour NOW OPEN for Business! God’s Love revealed! Or Not! Takes your chances! Send everything you own.
    Always be closing.
    It’s in the Bible and the Constitution.

  535. “‘Houston is governed by a number of different storm water ordinances from different entities,…The City of Houston, Harris County Flood Control District, and the Texas Department of Transportation all limit the amount of water you can release from a development, regardless of how much you pave.’ These regulations lay out rules for the quantity and rate of storm water runoff allowed from developments and for how that runoff is managed.”
    The Media Keep Saying Houston’s Development Caused it to Flood: An engineer explains why that’s wrong.

  536. “‘Houston is governed by a number of different storm water ordinances from different entities,…The City of Houston, Harris County Flood Control District, and the Texas Department of Transportation all limit the amount of water you can release from a development, regardless of how much you pave.’ These regulations lay out rules for the quantity and rate of storm water runoff allowed from developments and for how that runoff is managed.”
    The Media Keep Saying Houston’s Development Caused it to Flood: An engineer explains why that’s wrong.

  537. The Count’s advertising copy is, as we say in England, the dog’s bollocks. It really should be available to a wider audience in these troubled times…

  538. The Count’s advertising copy is, as we say in England, the dog’s bollocks. It really should be available to a wider audience in these troubled times…

  539. Watching Irma closely. Definitely getting out of Orlando. It’s iffy whether our place in Cedar Key will far enough west to be a good shelter. We’ll put the shutters up on Friday in CK and then make a decision. My wife already made a hotel reservation in Destin as a fallback.
    I had a hearing in Gainesville today. On the drive up, I saw a caravan of Miami-Dade S&R trucks headed south after working in Houston. No rest for those guys and gals.
    I spoke to a FHP trooper at the courthouse and they are considering reversing all the lanes on 95, 75 and the turnpike starting sometime tomorrow.

  540. Watching Irma closely. Definitely getting out of Orlando. It’s iffy whether our place in Cedar Key will far enough west to be a good shelter. We’ll put the shutters up on Friday in CK and then make a decision. My wife already made a hotel reservation in Destin as a fallback.
    I had a hearing in Gainesville today. On the drive up, I saw a caravan of Miami-Dade S&R trucks headed south after working in Houston. No rest for those guys and gals.
    I spoke to a FHP trooper at the courthouse and they are considering reversing all the lanes on 95, 75 and the turnpike starting sometime tomorrow.

  543. Can you imagine what 150 mph winds would do to my plumage?
    My wife works for a major cruise line. They are canceling scheduled cruises and offering free rooms to their employees as the ships head out to avoid the storm. We’ve never seen that before.
    This storm is no joke.

  544. Can you imagine what 150 mph winds would do to my plumage?
    My wife works for a major cruise line. They are canceling scheduled cruises and offering free rooms to their employees as the ships head out to avoid the storm. We’ve never seen that before.
    This storm is no joke.

  545. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hurricane-irma-rains-hit-puerto-rico
    Ratchet down the block grants:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/09/06/time-to-call-the-senate-again/
    Let’s see how capped block grants work presently:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/09/06/irma-puerto-rico-and-medicaid-block-grants/
    https://theintercept.com/2017/05/09/puerto-ricos-123-billion-bankruptcy-is-the-cost-of-u-s-colonialism/
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2017/06/01/will-puerto-rico-find-a-way-to-survive-its-debt-crisis/#47449f355b90
    rump told Houstonians that he is the federal government and he was there to help them
    Ronald Reagan:
    “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help …”
    Republican Governor of Texas: “Let me put it other words. Give us $200 billion.
    Either sumpins got to give or half of America needs to shut the fuck up.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkzO44VaUB0

  546. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/hurricane-irma-rains-hit-puerto-rico
    Ratchet down the block grants:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/09/06/time-to-call-the-senate-again/
    Let’s see how capped block grants work presently:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2017/09/06/irma-puerto-rico-and-medicaid-block-grants/
    https://theintercept.com/2017/05/09/puerto-ricos-123-billion-bankruptcy-is-the-cost-of-u-s-colonialism/
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanielparishflannery/2017/06/01/will-puerto-rico-find-a-way-to-survive-its-debt-crisis/#47449f355b90
    rump told Houstonians that he is the federal government and he was there to help them
    Ronald Reagan:
    “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help …”
    Republican Governor of Texas: “Let me put it other words. Give us $200 billion.
    Either sumpins got to give or half of America needs to shut the fuck up.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkzO44VaUB0

  547. This storm is no joke.
    A Cat 5? When the worst hurricane year (up til now) the US has ever seen had us hit by only one Cat 4 or 5 — which is to say, only like Harvey. And the season is young yet….

  548. This storm is no joke.
    A Cat 5? When the worst hurricane year (up til now) the US has ever seen had us hit by only one Cat 4 or 5 — which is to say, only like Harvey. And the season is young yet….

  551. Not “barely Cat 5”, but “Cat 5 so strong that only ONE storm in the Atlantic that was *slightly* stronger. So far.”
    Wind effects go up as the square of the velocity. Miami might be peeled off and hurled over to Cuba.

  552. Not “barely Cat 5”, but “Cat 5 so strong that only ONE storm in the Atlantic that was *slightly* stronger. So far.”
    Wind effects go up as the square of the velocity. Miami might be peeled off and hurled over to Cuba.

  553. Candidate for the first American, and I use the term with capacious, sneering charity, who needs to shut his fucking mouth the fuck up:
    “I think that’s ridiculous and disgraceful that they want to play politics with the debt ceiling at this moment when we have fellow citizens in need, to respond to these hurricanes so we do not strand them,” (Paul) Ryan told a news conference on Wednesday.”
    How many debt ceiling showdowns, Obamacare defunding threats, and gummint shutdowns did you inflict on “fellow citizens in need”, and before that, did keg stands over, Dagny Valance, you stinking, self-righteous, prairie scum vermin?
    “Pompey”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK0XcHPO3rc
    “Whiskey, quick!
    Dead!”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-UQst-pBI

  554. Candidate for the first American, and I use the term with capacious, sneering charity, who needs to shut his fucking mouth the fuck up:
    “I think that’s ridiculous and disgraceful that they want to play politics with the debt ceiling at this moment when we have fellow citizens in need, to respond to these hurricanes so we do not strand them,” (Paul) Ryan told a news conference on Wednesday.”
    How many debt ceiling showdowns, Obamacare defunding threats, and gummint shutdowns did you inflict on “fellow citizens in need”, and before that, did keg stands over, Dagny Valance, you stinking, self-righteous, prairie scum vermin?
    “Pompey”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK0XcHPO3rc
    “Whiskey, quick!
    Dead!”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-UQst-pBI

  555. Does everyone understand now how rump gets what he wants .. which is to run the room to get what he wants .. whatever that is, which is to make whomever is closest to him at the moment lick him up and down like a cat and do his bidding:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-praises-democratic-senator-heitkamp-facing-tough-2018-reelection
    Maybe this will help:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBgf6nSG0k8
    And this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnWvp6xyT5U
    or this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-spJqJWert0

  556. Does everyone understand now how rump gets what he wants .. which is to run the room to get what he wants .. whatever that is, which is to make whomever is closest to him at the moment lick him up and down like a cat and do his bidding:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-praises-democratic-senator-heitkamp-facing-tough-2018-reelection
    Maybe this will help:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBgf6nSG0k8
    And this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnWvp6xyT5U
    or this:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-spJqJWert0

  557. And then today Trump went all in with . . . the Democrats. He seems enthused (for the moment anyway) with tying aid for Harvey to raising the debt ceiling:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/06/paul-d-ryan-tying-harvey-aid-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-disgraceful-trump-lets-do-it/?deferJs=true&outputType=default-article&utm_term=.0dc76e9ef205
    Lots of smarmy comments about “Chuck and Nancy”, too.
    Plus, at his tax cut rally in North Dakota, hauling up on stage Democratic Senator Heitkamp and singing her praises.

  558. And then today Trump went all in with . . . the Democrats. He seems enthused (for the moment anyway) with tying aid for Harvey to raising the debt ceiling:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/06/paul-d-ryan-tying-harvey-aid-to-the-debt-ceiling-is-disgraceful-trump-lets-do-it/?deferJs=true&outputType=default-article&utm_term=.0dc76e9ef205
    Lots of smarmy comments about “Chuck and Nancy”, too.
    Plus, at his tax cut rally in North Dakota, hauling up on stage Democratic Senator Heitkamp and singing her praises.

  561. I’m not much for political calculus. I really don’t get how that sort of maneuvering works.
    That said, for the life of me, I can’t imagine what Trump thought he was achieving by suddenly undercutting congressional leaders in his own party.
    Am I missing something, or is he even dumber than I am about this stuff?

  562. I’m not much for political calculus. I really don’t get how that sort of maneuvering works.
    That said, for the life of me, I can’t imagine what Trump thought he was achieving by suddenly undercutting congressional leaders in his own party.
    Am I missing something, or is he even dumber than I am about this stuff?


  563. Am I missing something, or is he even dumber than I am about this stuff?
    I think the latter. Chaos is his preferred MO.


  564. Am I missing something, or is he even dumber than I am about this stuff?
    I think the latter. Chaos is his preferred MO.

  565. every day I wake up and ask myself, “Is that asshole still the President of the United States of America?”
    and every day, the answer is “Yes”.
    I shake my head and go on about my business.
    It’s a national brain fever, and it’s going to be like this until it burns itself out.
    Then it’ll be sort of normal for a while. And then the paranoid style will assert itself again.
    Lather rinse and repeat. Ever since about 1800.
    Craziest freaking country on the planet, except for maybe Russia.
    Trump isn’t dumb, he’s just stupid. All the way to the bank. “Chaos is his preferred MO” implies he actually has an MO, let alone a preferred one, as opposed to “he just wakes up every day and that’s who he is”.
    Chaos is who he is. He’s learned how to make it work for him.

  566. every day I wake up and ask myself, “Is that asshole still the President of the United States of America?”
    and every day, the answer is “Yes”.
    I shake my head and go on about my business.
    It’s a national brain fever, and it’s going to be like this until it burns itself out.
    Then it’ll be sort of normal for a while. And then the paranoid style will assert itself again.
    Lather rinse and repeat. Ever since about 1800.
    Craziest freaking country on the planet, except for maybe Russia.
    Trump isn’t dumb, he’s just stupid. All the way to the bank. “Chaos is his preferred MO” implies he actually has an MO, let alone a preferred one, as opposed to “he just wakes up every day and that’s who he is”.
    Chaos is who he is. He’s learned how to make it work for him.

  571. Remember when we all argued about drone strikes? I had to google it to know that there have been drone strikes lately. How we’ve changed.
    When I googled, I found this first. Not sure what others there may have been. Where are the drone strike objectors?
    Chaos has its political advantages.

  572. Remember when we all argued about drone strikes? I had to google it to know that there have been drone strikes lately. How we’ve changed.
    When I googled, I found this first. Not sure what others there may have been. Where are the drone strike objectors?
    Chaos has its political advantages.

  579. it really would be something if this non-partisan, pragmatist is the real Trump, and he’s just been playing a hard-right asshole because of the influence of people who are no longer in his circle (Bannon, Gorka, Priebus, etc.).
    a lot could get done if he wanted to actually make deals. it would infuriate the left and the right, certainly, so maybe he’d have a hard time finding partners to make deals with.

  580. it really would be something if this non-partisan, pragmatist is the real Trump, and he’s just been playing a hard-right asshole because of the influence of people who are no longer in his circle (Bannon, Gorka, Priebus, etc.).
    a lot could get done if he wanted to actually make deals. it would infuriate the left and the right, certainly, so maybe he’d have a hard time finding partners to make deals with.

  581. Is there a real Trump? He seems like an ill-tempered jellyfish or tumbleweed, other than his craving praise and attention.

  582. Is there a real Trump? He seems like an ill-tempered jellyfish or tumbleweed, other than his craving praise and attention.

  583. At this point, I think the challenge with finding partners is that Trump has earned a solid reputation for not living up to his side of a deal. Even if he is actually sincere.
    So any partners would insist that he ante up first, before they even begin to move. That, or he signs on to something they are already doing. Which would make it hard to then take credit for it — although apparently not for Trump.

  584. At this point, I think the challenge with finding partners is that Trump has earned a solid reputation for not living up to his side of a deal. Even if he is actually sincere.
    So any partners would insist that he ante up first, before they even begin to move. That, or he signs on to something they are already doing. Which would make it hard to then take credit for it — although apparently not for Trump.

Comments are closed.