Do the ends ever justify unethical means to pursue those ends? I believe this is a nuanced question and the answer is, "it depends on the ends and the means in question."
However, I do believe it is incumbent on all of us to bend way over backwards, question our own biases and inclinations, and bring a "beyond the shadow of a doubt" standard when deciding to pursue unethical means in pursuit of an end.
But in today's society I fear that this standard is not being routinely used, and we have certain people routinely using unethical means to pursue dubious ends.
In politics, unethical means are now routinely used to dishonestly smear opposing politicians with the end of getting your side into power.
For example, Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren was widely criticized for using her supposed Cherokee ancestry on a job application for a University position.
There is no reason not to believe that she believed it. It had been passed down in family lore, and at the time there were no readily available genetic tests. Eventually, she did the right thing, got tested, and found she was only 1/1024th Native American, which she shared, and is much less than she believed. Nonetheless, the right continues to smear her to this day, with Trump leading the charge with his nickname "Pocahontas".
Now the "ends" of fighting to get into power is always portrayed as "civilization saving". Unless they get into power, it will be the end. Horrible things will happen! They may even believe it. In fact, I'm sure they do. The goal of "saving civilization" of course justifies a little bit on unethical politics, surely.
Did it really "end civilization" when Biden got in? Did it really "end democracy" when Trump got in? Of course not.
What's "odd" is how often these lofty goals seem to coincide with the protagonist's interests. Trump does not care about money, but he cares a lot about his own fame and ego. Trump fighting to get into office may "Make America Great Again", but it also feeds his larger than life ego. Just a coincidence, that.
The Clintons created a massive multi-billion dollar foundation "for the good of the world". The fact they and their cronies can travel the world in private jets, effectively laundering years of influence peddling graft has nothing to do with their lofty goals, surely.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying their goals are not the betterment of humanity, just that it fits the pattern that they also benefit, in both examples.
Climate Change as an example. Is a massive catastrophe of unimaginable proportions looming if we keep using fossil fuels? No, of course not. Do the high priests of climate change believe that? Maybe. Do they make money by convincing everybody? For sure. Massive wealth transfers are due to the climate change lobby.
The war in Ukraine. Is the West really sending all those weapons, including now cluster bombs, to "save democracy"? It's naive to think so. They may believe it. Just a coincidence that all the war hawks get hundreds of billions of dollars in motion, winding up in the hands of corrupt Ukrainians, US arms manufacturers, a revolving door of generals and arms executives, and politicians' war chests. Just a coincidence that, surely, that the ones most pushing the wars most personally benefit from them.
COVID hysteria. Drug companies made trillions. More trillions were set in motion toward those positioned best to benefit from the hysteria. Amazon and Walmart did great. The small businesses that went bankrupt, not so much. Just a coincidence, that. Did they legit believe they were helping to save lives while enriching themselves? Of course they did. It's the way the human brain works. Did this justify censorship, effectively forced vaccination, civil rights abuses? Well, yes, unethical means in normal times, but the end was to save grandma! Sure.
Aggressive prosecution of January 6 protesters beyond any possible definition of fair play as compared to, say, the thousandfold more destructive BLM protesters. "We must prosecute them harshly! It was an insurrection!" Also, just so happens you can smear your main political rival at the same time. Just a coincidence that.
Running Biden, a now senile, always mediocre, politician, with his entire family credibly accused of illegal gains via influence peddling. Democrats as a group turn a blind eye to all the allegations and evidence, because "anything to keep Trump out of office again!" and thus "save democracy!"
Utter, cavalier, suspension of First Amendment rights by the government indirectly getting views that don't suit their narrative du jour banned from social media. This was found to be the case in a recent court injunction with mounds of evidence behind it. The govt was told to cease and desist. And when they appealed for a stay, were denied it. "It's Russian disinformation!" they shriek. Never mind that the court found that the vast majority was not that. The reasoning of the preliminary injunction is excellent. Players in the govt believed that the means (violating first amendment rights) justified their ends (COVID vaccines, suppressing Trump via election interference regarding the laptop, protecting Fauci and the US govt from the lab leak theory). I disagree.
Yes, sometimes very important ends justify somewhat unethical means, but you better be bringing a far higher standard on both ends than they routinely do nowadays, or it's just plain wrong.
Julie, Julie, Julie, you do go on. Before commenting on your post,I need to point out that you aren't an American citizen. You live and vote in Canada which has its own issues.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the arguement of the ends justifying the means actually applies to most of what you wrote about. For example, Donald Trump's enormous ego and willingness to lie to aggrandize himself isn't an example. He just parrots what his base wants to to hear. He needs to be Important. That's just a psychological pathology, not the end justifying the means.
Climate change and COVID are arguably over stressed by some. But bear in mind millions of people died of COVID, many more than the influenza pandemic of 1919. There was a genuine need to take quick action. Lives were saved. Money was wasted. Not an end justified by means...just an honest try to stop killing people.
Climate change is real. Just ask the people in Vermont. Or ask the people in a large swath of the US who are suffering through the hottest weather ever recorded. It's real. Will it stop if we cut out fossil fuels? I agree that it won't. It's too late. We can slow it down if we stop spewing carbon. If the end here is to avoid mass extinction, including humans, then the means of changing energy sources certainly justifies it, even if it makes Elon Musk richer.
I agree that Biden is a bumbling political hack who should never have been put up for President. I understand that his lack of contraversial positions made him a safe candidate. Trump is dangerous. Democracy survived him, but we got too close to ending up with our own dictator-in-chief. Trump's need for power at all costs disqualifies him from being put into power.
I agree about the Clintons. They have always been dishonest. Despite that, Bill did a very good job as president. He lowered the national debt and brokered a stable economy. To this day, all the Republicans can do is point to Hillary and her antics. They can't criticize what Bill did as president.
The prosecution of the January 6th insurrection participants is justified under the law. They attempted to overthrow the legal election of our president. The BLM rioters and their leaders got a pass they didn't deserve. I agree that we need to recognize that any violence in the name of social change isn't permitted. That goes for the me-too ladies who break the law. We can't tolerate violence and I think that all violent protestors need prosecution. In the United States we have very good ways for people to express opinions and make change. They don't include violence.
One more thing. You mention the war in Ukraine. It's very much in our (including Canada's) interest to stop Russian territorial aggression. It's naive to believe it will end in Ukraine if Putin is successful. It's in all of our interest to maintain stable borders around the world. Sure, enormous amounts of money are being spent to help the Ukraine defend itself. We have to do this. If Putin wins, NATO countries will be invaded next. Then our (including Canada) military will end up fighting a new war in Europe. I don't want to see that. Do you doubt that Putin will stop at the Ukraine borders? I am sure he won't.
Canada is a pimple on the USA's ass. We may as well be the 51st state. When the US provokes a nuclear war, it won't really matter that there's a border drawn on the map.
DeleteYou miss my point re Trump. I'm quite sure he firmly believes he is running to "Make America Great Again". His mind needs that crutch to justify his other actions.
My further point is everybody is Trump. They ALL claim to be (and believe themselves to be) saving humanity, while conveniently enriching or empowering themselves.
Climate of course changes. Is it due to manmade CO2? In some part. Are there other causes? Yes. Do scientists fully understand it? No. Do they understand it enough to push this ridiculous green new deal type crap and impoverish the most vulnerable among us with high energy bills? NO! Lots of people making lots of money, though.
Many COVID actions were useless. Masks likely did very little. Lockdowns were tremendously net negative. Vax was never useful for young and healthy, nor for anyone with natural immunity from having caught it. It DID leak from a lab. Lots of people making lots of money, though.
"Trump is dangerous!" We had him as president for 4 years and no danger emerged. In fact, the world was WAY safer.
Yup. Bill did good. While enriching himself ridiculously.
"It was an insurrection!" An "insurrection" with no weapons, no organization, and a guy in a buffalo hat wandering around the capital, escorted by the capital police? Brainwashing at its finest. A naked political play be Democrats to demonize Trump.
Your take on Ukraine is way off. Putin has a history of invading places when NATO threatens to engulf them and they are strategic to Russia. It is an utterly unproven hypothesis that he will invade Europe (and rather ridiculous). The best US thinkers have been warning about Russia's reaction to NATOfying the Ukraine for DECADES. This war was provoked by the West to sell arms after Trump was not in the way to stop them. True evil from the US on a grand scale.
Maybe talk to some actual experts on climate science before espousing this.
Deleteyou are in Toronto, right? The U of T has very good scientists. Maybe talk to them to see if they agree with you
Short answer: no
you won't find a single reputable department in the world where climate scientists will endorse your view (in some field adjacent to climate science)
find me 3 highly cited scientists that will endorse your view. They don't exist. You can find cranks. Because that's what this view is
It's hard to believe that you have such a skewed view of the world. What troubles me is that a lot of people share your views. This isn't the place to extensively fact-check you. Just a couple of corrections: 1. Masks and lockdowns not only slowed the spread of COVID, but also vastly reduced flu and other infectious disease transmission. 2. What you said about Ukraine and Putin is exactly what Chamberlain said about Hitler and Poland. NATO does raise the stakes for Russia. Any European alliance is a theoretical thread to Russia. However, NATO has been around a long time and has never been mobilized against Russia. Biden made it clear yesterday that Ukraine would not be granted membership in NATO as long as the war is going on.
DeleteThere were many weapons in the Jan 6 insurrection. I watched it with my own eyes. Capital police were attacked and injured. You and Fox News are clearly on a different, non-climate-change planet. The rest of us have to face reality.
Anonymous:
DeleteActual experts: Judith Curry, Will Happer, Bjorn Lomberg (on the economic effects), Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christi, and so on and on. Your inability to even know there are scientists in the field who disagree is evidence of your brainwashing.
Lion:
DeleteYour certainty of your point of view versus mine, in the presence of no great evidence either way, is suspect.
Comparing everything to Hitler is right from the Democrat playbook.
NATO has repeatedly violated its assurances to Russia that it will not move East. This is seen as an act of aggression by Russia. The US were none too pleased when Russia put missiles in Cuba. Nor would Russia be pleased with the same in Ukraine.
What weapons? Guns? I think not. If you were planning an insurrection, and you're a rabid 2A MAGA Republican, you'd think they would bring guns. Hmmmmmm? You must be referring to the Q-Annon Shaman's US flagpole?
Hi Julie:
Deleteregarding the number of climate experts with your point of view:
Good for you for finding 5
Here are your people:
Judith Curry, Georgia Tech
Will Happer UNC
Roy Spencer, U Alabama Huntsville
John Christy U Alabama Huntsville
Richard Lindzen, retired from MIT
(Bjorn Lomberg Danish author: Not a climate scientist)
Spencer & Christy are at a minor place (not even the main Alabama campus). Curry and Happer are at solid schools.
Lindzen is the only one at a top school. Of all the climate scientists at MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale & other Ivies, he is the only one to hold climate denying status. Lindzen is a well-known for liking to be difficult. You can have him. He is the only one at a really top university to have your climate opinion
The top ranked universities in Canada are U of T. McGill and UBC. How many experts at these top universities agree with you? I think there are zero.
Don't you think that that's problematic? There are 40+ climate scientists at U of T, McGill, UBC: why are none of them on your list?
I can find, many, many more than five. I just wanted to make the point of how irrational, biased, and uninformed you are not even realizing there is another side to the debate.
DeleteSpenser and Christy are from one of the top climatology research lab in the world at UAH.
Lomberg is an economist. He makes the point that even if you believe the IPCC "science", the economic effects of the predicted rise in temperature is negligible.
Most "climate scientists" were hired if and only if they espouse the govt mandated views. Even so, if asked to honestly answer if it's been scientifically proven that the question if the slight rise in CO2 will lead to global warming that is catastrophic to human life, even those shills are unlikely to say that. (The actual science collected in the IPCC reports does not even say that, only the politically motivated summary for policymakers).
Do some real reading of alternative viewpoints rather than parodying the dogma du jour.
ok, so now your argument is:
DeleteMost "climate scientists" were hired if and only if they espouse the govt mandated views
Bullshit
provide some evidence for this claim.
why do no top universities have scientists that fit your view?
there is a simpler solution: you are full of shit.
No, there are plenty of great contrarian scientists. Huge compendiums of their work is published by the NIPCC. The most extremists one that you rely on were hired because of their extremism. Other's just go about their research, in their little areas, like computer modelling of climate, keep their heads down, don't rock the boat, but take a far less extremist and certain view than you have.
DeleteWhy are you so angry?
The top three Universities in Canada for climate science according to various world rankings are:
DeleteUBC, McGill, U Toronto
The top US universities for climate science according to various sources are:
Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Cal, etc
U Alabama Huntsville is WAAAAAAAAAAY down that list
What is your evidence that UAH is "one of the top climatology research lab in the world"?
It isn't even in the top 500 according to US News World Report
are you going to give me a Breitbart ranking???
because that's so respected.
In your diatribes about COVID, you backed MIT & Harvard led research. but in climate science you go to science powerhouses like U Alabama Huntsville
My, you're a snob.
Delete"The Department of Atmospheric and Earth Science is a nationally recognized academic organization with world-class faculty. Students and facilities are co-located with UAH's Earth System Science Center, NOAA National Weather Service, NASA, and other partners at the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC)."
Spenser and Christy do cutting edge work on satellite measurement of global temperature. They are only one of two places that do it in the world, the other being RSS. They are botgh highly published and highly;y referenced scientists.
"Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principal Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society."
Christy lists 136 publications in top-tier journals.
Roy Spencer is equally distinguished.
You are not.
I am merely pointing out that your supposed experts are at very low ranked universities.
DeleteYou stated "Your inability to even know there are scientists in the field who disagree is evidence of your brainwashing."
For any claim, you can always find someone to disagree. When I am not an expert in the topic, I go to the places where the smartest most qualified people work, to see their opinions. It is noteworthy that your view is in a tiny minority among people who are experts in the field. When I asked you for experts at top-ranked institutions, you couldn't find me any, except one retired crank. Then you bring up people at very low ranked places, and say they are experts.
Am I a snob? I am a snob for good arguments. Your faith in weak thinking people is not for me.
You seem to have no way to judge someone's quality, even. You use authority to select your authority to then believe them with a religious fervour, as if a high priest.
DeleteYour approach is anathema to all thinking people. Thinking people read and reason and discern. You do none of that.
Yes. “Unethical means are now routinely used to dishonestly smear opposing politicians with the end of getting your side into power.” The rest of this post is a pretty good example of that.
ReplyDeletePlease be specific. Pick the one where you think you have the very best argument.
DeleteOk let’s use the Climate Change example.
DeleteYou present climate change activists as knowingly (or perhaps unknowingly) making up a problem in order to enrich themselves though a massive transfer of wealth scheme vial lobbying.
I would absolutely describe that as a dishonest smear.
First in the fact that you present climate change as a false dilemma. Either that climate change is going to destroy all humanity tomorrow or that it is not real at all and believing in it is foolish. But then tomorrow comes and humanity hasn’t been wiped out so therefor the entire thing is a hoax. Climate change is real, but it is also an incredibly complex and slow process. It gets measured in inches not miles and small changes in variables can have significant effects in long term outcomes. So, the wildest most doom speaking predictions didn’t turn out to be accurate. Great! But that doesn’t mean the entire concept and study around it is false or that the climate isn’t still in worse shape today than it was 30 years ago and remains on a downward trajectory.
Then also that you present it as a wealth transfer scheme in order to bring money into the pockets of the climate change lobby. That the fact that people make money in an industry is proof that that industry is corrupt and underhanded. This isn’t a standard that you hold any other industry to I am absolutely sure.
While looking at anything related to climate change goals as a dishonest scheme but also ignoring the much larger and more influential lobbies that fight against it for the sake of their own profits. Pretending that companies like Exxon Mobil haven’t penned their own studies to discredit the ones done by their critics (though sometimes supporting their critics but pretending it does the opposite in press), that the oil, coal, or gas industries don’t have absolutely massive government funding and backing for their own enrichment, or that they aren’t a much larger and more influential lobby influencing politics.
For example, using opensecrets.org to see public verified political contributions we can see the monetary influence of some of these lobbies with the money donated to congress members broken down as the following
Alternate energy $784,580
Oil $17,644,693
Coal $32,713,495
Natural gas $2,557,440
Discrediting climate change is politics. It brings money into the pockets of the people on the right so they can keep their positions of power and continue to make money in those industries themselves. So yes “Unethical means are now routinely used to dishonestly smear opposing politicians with the end of getting your side into power.”
The climate change lobby wants to make sweeping and incredibly costly changes to energy production based on an unverified hypothesis whose main predictions since 1980 have all fallen flat on their face. If you don't recognize these ridiculous false claims as propaganda, there's little hope for you.
DeleteHere you continue the smear and with an obvious lack of understanding of science. Climate change and humanities effect on it is an unverified hypothesis only in the fact that is can’t be tested and verified due to its scope in the same way that evolution is a theory. It isn’t unverified or a theory because they simply haven’t tested and verified but in that it literally can’t be tested in that way. Scientific consensus is literally the best it can have and it DOES have that.
Deletehttps://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Of course it has always been tactic used. People hear the word theory and hypothesis and tend to believe it means “wild guess”. Where the theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/06/15/theory-hypothesis-and-law-debunking-a-climate-change-contrarian-tactic/?sh=393f9e837ca7
But of course, the ends are just to win elections and hold onto power or to feel comfortable in ignorance rather than facing issues when they occur while the effects are still small enough in scale that you can comfortably ignore them. The means is discrediting scientists and continuing the vilification expertise and anti-intellectualisim. And of course, the ends justify the means.
I submit it is you who lacks an understanding of science if all you can do is quote a debunked "consensus" rather than recognize the limitations of the computer models which is the only basis for the claim that excess CO2 has any significant effect on the climate. Equating the complex matter of effects of CO2 on climate with Newtonian gravity is a ridiculous comparison and puts you to shame.
DeleteI realize that you will never believe anything that doesn't come from the far right. Please understand one very important fact. Things like climate change, according to the geological evidence, tend to occur very quicky in geological terms. That's where us regular people get tripped up. "Very quickly" is under a thousand years to a geologist. There is evidence of prior climate change that only took a hundred years. It's believed that they were triggered by mass events like super volcanoes erupting.
DeleteThe current problem is not hard to verify. We can measure greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere as well as the carbon dioxide / methane emissions from both internal combustion engines and biological sources (cattle, mainly). Other sources include rotting garbage, animal waste (chickens, etc.).
According to CBS 60 Minutes, cattle account for about 30% of carbon emissions. I agree with you that reducing hydrocarbon emissions won't solve the global heating problem. However, it will help a lot.
What I can't understand is why you and your friends get so upset by alternative, renewable energy projects. Sure, they are expensive and not perfect by any means. They are improving. Where I live, 85% of our electricity comes from renewable resources, mostly hydroelectric. Only 6% comes from coal. Power is cheap here. So, we have done a good job reducing carbon emissions at the same time saving consumers money.
We have a new plug-in hybrid car. So far we have driven 1,100 miles. We have bought just 7 gallons of gas. Gas is $5.50/gal here. The rest of our driving was electric. I calculated my cost of electricity as the equivalent of $1.25/gal of gas. I'm saving money and not emitting as much crap into the air. Since my electricity is almost all from non-hydrocarbon sources, the power I use to charge my car is clean and not contributing much either.
My point is that whether or not you believe climate scientists, the technology of clean driving has finally reached the point where it's possible to avoid contributing to the problem while, at the same time, saving money.
It took a long time and a lot of investment to build the internal combustion infrastructure. Some people made billions during that process. The same is true of the new, electric car infrastructure. Billions will be spent and made, and in the end, we'll end up with a cheaper, better way to travel.
Essentially, you and your friends are Luddites. You cover up your desire to stop technology with a lot of arguments that are nothing more than objections to progress. Even if there were no climate crises, the evolution of the electric car (fuel cell included) is just the next step in technological evolution.
The only people who need this progress to stop are the ones funding your Trump..oil and gas producers--foreign and domestic. Carmakers are happy to switch. They just want to make money by selling cars. The Saudis, Russians, Bushes, and others heavily invested in oil and gas have a lot to lose. They pay for a lot of the false "research" you like to quote.
It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. Just understand that advances in technology, like battery-powered cars, makes life better for people who adopt it. My hybrid lets me make short trips (30 miles) without using gas. Longer journeys require the gas/battery combo to go to work. On those trips I get over 30 mpg. That's pretty good and I don't have to worry about finding a charging station.
I believe we will develop ways to go all-electric without inconvenience. The result will be beneficial to all of us. Sure, it will make Elon Musk and others a lot of money. So what? Oil and gas made the Rockefellers and Bushes rich. That's the way capitalism works.
Very weak sauce calling me "far right" and using that to try to smear me. Stick to real arguments.
DeleteWe have pretty detailed temperature proxy records from ice cores for the current interglacial. It shows many warm periods: Minoan warm period, Roman warm period, Medieval warm period. Modern warming period looks a lot like those. You've been bamboozled by govt pseudo science.
I don't mind alternative energy if it could pay for itself. My energy bills are 2x because of all the subsidies and carbon taxes.
Hybrids are great.
First, I wasn’t “Equating the complex matter of effects of CO2 on climate with Newtonian gravity is a ridiculous comparison and puts you to shame.” I was equating your dismissal of anything called a hypothesis as a wild speculation instead of what they actually are in science. The comparison was your dismissals of a climate change because it is only a hypothesis being as ridiculous as that of thinking gravity isn’t real because it is a “theory”.
DeleteAlso. It isn’t debunked. I cited a source. If you would like to cite a source as reputable as Nasa and the 18 associations that were included in that source that instead debunks it feel free.
You mentioning of ice cores as your big debunk so let’s look at more ice core records. There is an image that goes around in the circles on the right that shows data from a Greenland ice core record as proof that human-emitted CO2 couldn’t possibly be the cause of climate change. People on the right take that data and cherry-pick the parts that they find to be helpful for their arguments and ignore all the rest. That data collected wasn’t actually saying that (though the images look compelling)
Using more ice core records as well as other methods the "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period," were regional phenomena, not global events. Here is the study published on it
https://boris.unibe.ch/132301/7/333323_4_merged_1557735881.pdf
Also here are some of the opinions of the people who published that original Greenland ice core record that the right is misrepresenting for their own political and financial gain.
Kurt Cuffey
https://www.sfgate.com/green/article/There-s-no-disguising-it-global-warming-s-no-2603012.php
Richard Alley
https://earthsky.org/earth/richard-alley-on-abrupt-climate-change/
Your contention that manmade CO2 will lead to catastrophic warming is not a hypothesis that can be disproven in your frame. It is up to us to "prove" that it is not CO2? Just listen to yourself turning science on its head. The null hypothesis is continued natural variation as shown in the Greenland ice core data (and the more recent unfudged temperature records). The proof of your claim lies with you, I'm afraid. Please reference a paper that definitely shows beyond question the physics that excess CO2 will significantly warm the earth that does not rely on very shaky computer modelling. You will be unable to.
DeleteThere are many competing studies demonstrating they were not regional.
"The effort to diminish the MWP as merely “regional” has inspired several organizations and individuals in response to compile lists of research papers covering all areas of the world and reconstructing temperatures from the approximate MWP years of 1000 to 1250. One of the most comprehensive collections I am aware of has been compiled by Craig Idso at the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Idso has listed well over 100 studies from literally every corner of the world, organized under categories that include Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Europe, North America, Northern Hemisphere, Oceans, and South America. As with the Hockey Stick graph, the idea that the MWP was merely “regional” has been thoroughly demolished."
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/04/causation-of-climate-change-was-the-medieval-warm-period-regional/)
"It is up to us to "prove" that it is not CO2? Just listen to yourself turning science on its head." I literally never said that. In fact, what I said is that can’t be tested and verified due to its scope and that scientific consensus is literally the best it can have (which it does outside of the right wing funded propaganda farms).
Delete“Please reference a paper that definitely shows beyond question the physics that excess CO2 will significantly warm the earth”
Wait, now you are making the claim that excess CO2 can’t warm the earth at all. That part isn’t really debated by anyone. The greenhouse effect can be physically shows at high school science fairs
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/
though I guess if you want to go with a more critical study, you could reference something like this
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022466
or you could look at something like” On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691
Back in the original post you write “Do the high priests of climate change believe that? Maybe. Do they make money by convincing everybody? For sure. Massive wealth transfers are due to the climate change lobby.”
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is funded by the likes of ExxonMobil (oil) and Peabody Energy (coal). It is literally a front for the energy industries to push their biased “studies”. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change purpose is to continue the massive wealth transfer already in place in their favor. Craig Idso himself receives monthly funding from the Heartland Institute to the tune of over 100,000 dollars a year for his efforts in “convincing everybody”.
Very convenient that it can't be tested or verified. Very "scientific" that.
DeleteRead more carefully. I do not say it cannot warm the earth. I say it has not been demonstrated that such a small increase from 0.027% to 0.054% will result in catastrophic global warming.
The simple science you reference shows CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I've answered that elsewhere in the comments on this blog. That means it can absorb long-wave infrared rays and warm up (like water vapour, which is a MUCH MORE important greenhouse gas). What is the difficult question is the impact of a tiny extra amount of CO2 on global temperature in the presence of many other heat reservoirs and transfer mechanisms. The papers you reference do not address that. The third one you reference looks like a joke. That's the best you can do?
"Very "scientific" that." Yes... it literally is MOST things in sciences aren't tested of verified in the way you are describing. The reality is that science deals in probabilities, not proofs. The idea that unless we have irrefutable reproducible proof of something that we should not possibly act on it would mean we would never take any actions in our lives.
DeleteHere is an example. without using models or hypothesis based on collected data prove beyond question the physics of how general anesthesia works. It is not actually known. We have shown that it does work in the vast majority of cases. We have lots of data showing it working in the past. If we use it again it is very probably that it will work again based on everything that we have observed. But we can’t prove how it works. Does that mean you should refuse it before you next surgery? Because we can only cite data and probabilities and not definitive proof does that make it gamble and wild hypothesis that it will work? Of course not.
And that is the truth of science in general. The deeper you go into any subject you will eventually find an underlying theory or hypothesis that it is residing on. That is still science.
Yes, there is the null hypothesis. That random chance is assumed to be the default cause of change. Alternative hypothesis is then proposed and tested to demonstrate that in the given condition and the two are compared to determine the more likely scenario. The fact that you assume the majority of climate science in the world hasn’t done this is ludicrous.
I've written two pieces on this topic in the last six weeks. The ends never justify the means. The means are how we get to heaven. I swear...you and I were meant to be together. You were born 20 years too late, though! Wemedge
ReplyDelete🙏
DeleteMy energy bills are nearly half what I paid in NY where fossil fuel powered the generators. I just bought "shares" from my power company in a local solar farm. The idea is that they sell a limited number of shares at $20/month each. You get back the money from power they "buy" from the farm. The estimate was that I would get back about half of my $20 each month that way. I bought the shares as a way of contributing to the solar effort. To my utter shock, when I got my June bill, I got back $44 for my $40 share cost. I guess it's my climate change profit. :)
DeleteMust be nice. Mine are double. How much are yours subsidized? In Ontario the subsidies come in the form of sweetheart 50 year deals with "green energy" providers that whenever they are online the electrical utility is REQUIRED to buy their more expensive electricity and turn down the more conventional sources (which, crazily, includes turning down hydro-electric). Idiots in charge.
DeleteElizabeth Warren didn’t use her ancestry on her application to get the job. That’s a.exaggerated lie used by her opponents. She did use it to connect others after having the job basing her belief in family ancestry on family lore. Google Trump pretending to be his own spokesperson and revisit your ethical leadership
ReplyDeletePost.
Well, she listed herself as a minority which made her more attractive to schools looking to hire for "diversity", and then the school used her to fill its quota. A distinction without a difference.
DeleteBut my whole point was I think it was an honest mistake. To the best of her knowledge at the time, she did have American Indian heritage. so it's not an issue of her deceiving anybody anyways, and those who use this against her are the ones I am criticizing. I assume we agree on this?
I agree in the criticism but you used a falsehood. She never claimed anything on a job application and there were no Native American quotas she was trying to hit when she identified herself, an already te urged professor. You printed a misstatement and should correct it. It is not a distinction without a difference, you printed a lie. We can agree that’s ironic given your post.
DeleteI was repeating the claims I heard from Republicans. You improve my point further.
DeleteShe did identify herself as a minority with Cherokee background in the listing of lawyers.
"Warren wrote she was American Indian in a 1986 registration card she filled out for the State Bar of Texas"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-calling-herself-native-american/2019/02/05/1627df76-2962-11e9-984d-9b8fba003e81_story.html
Why did she do this? For no reason? Just for shits and giggles? Come on now...
I believe that she honestly believed it, and used it to her advantage.
But what advantage? You keep repeating the false myth that somehow decades into her career her ancestry would give her an advantage. I lived in America in those decades and outside of college admissions (which this wasn’t), there was not an advantage. The article posted does not support your mietthat she unwittingly used false information on a job application. The image you have in the post is also a simulated falsehood but I guess your ends justify your means.
DeleteYou continue missing the point. Of course the image is a falsehood. It's a mean meme inspired by Trump et. al.
DeleteEven then, Universities liked more "diversity" in their faculty. I agree it was not a deciding factor, but I'll bet it helped get the Harvard position. Why else did she claim it on her bar registration? Don't be naive. It wasn't shits and giggles.
But she was justified, as far as I'm concerned, because she believed it herself.
There is no evidence Harvard knew she self identified as having Cherokee ancestry before hiring her. But I believe you believe it because you want to.The fact you believe that shows the deep problems in our political discourse. Clinging to falsehoods because you want to believe it is the big issue you’ve exposed here. Elizabeth Warren may have done that but there is no proof it gave her advantages. She believed he family.
DeleteYou’ve read lies about her so often from people you like that you were comfortable falsely stating she lied on a job application because others lied before you. That’s the problem. You should correct your post and remove that offensive picture.
No. It illustrates my point perfectly.
DeleteAnd while there is no proof Harvard used the information in hiring, it is true they reported her as a minority on statistics, and it is unquestionable that she identified herself as a minority. For what reason?
What a fundamental existential question. Out here in California at 630 am, I haven’t finished my coffee and frankly was hoping for some newfound StrictJulie titillation.
ReplyDeleteDo you waterboard a terrorist to find the location of a dirty bomb? Of course, but we all should employ such means only in rare and extreme circumstances, and cajole our opponents to do the same.
Rosco
Good example. We agree. More porn coming soon!
Delete"Do you waterboard a terrorist to find the location of a dirty bomb?" Actually no you probably shouldn't, because it has been proven to not actually work. All torture does is cause someone to tell you what they believe you want to hear, not tell you the actual truth.Traditional regular interrogation is actually more effective.
Deletehttps://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/does-torture-work-research-says-no/
I think his point was, assuming it does work, it would be a good example of ends justifying means.
DeleteBut well taken point.
But I do understand that a nominal amount of "torture" gives the guy an excuse to spill the beans when there are other benefits on offer as well.
I can tell you, though, that if it was me about to be tortured, I'd spill my guts! You?
First place, it is "Phocahontas", not Pocahontas, thereby drawing attention to how fake she is. I don't believe it was an "honest mistake". I am no fan of Hilary Clinton, but I believe when she said she was named after Sir Edmund Hilary (the first person to climb Mt Everest, even though he did a year after she was born), that that was an honest mistake. Probably something she just heard thru family lore and believed it. Other than having an amusing anecdote, there is no real profit in it. Contrast that with the career/financial advantage obtained by Sen Warren thru her deceit.
ReplyDeleteI think she did believe she was part Cherokee. I also think she used that belief to further herself professionally in a small way (she had many accomplishments).
DeleteDiversity, minority, gender, curiously other than gender, (which is now also a fuzzy area) there is no objective standard for "race" or for hispanic, etc. anyone can claim African or Hispanic heritage as there is no standard to verify it against. A woman can become Hispanic by marriage,
ReplyDeleteThe native americans have a process because they are paying out cash benefits from the casinos so they verify.
On the elections, neither Trump nor Biden won because of their leadership. Biden won because people hated Trump, Trump won because everyone hated Hillary. if they run against each other again it will who we hate least.
I think that's naive. Trump won because he energized his base and spoke to the people.
DeleteI believe that was partially true, people wanted something different and he gave them another option. Don't get me wrong, I was very happy with the way he was a disruptive influence. What I meant was he needed that democratic crossover vote, the same way Biden needed that Republican crossover vote. Based on my limited research, a number of voters who were not diehard Republicans or Democrats voted for him the first time but did not vote for him during the Biden election.
DeleteI was a Trump supporter in both elections but I personally thought he overstepped not because of the January 6 incident, but because of his unprofessional behavior during the first presidential debates. I believe that at the end of the day the president whoever they are must at least appear presidential and professional.
I never had any concerns about Trump's ability to deal with Congress because he had grown up with the New York Port Authority, the construction unions and city politics. If you compare those to Congress, Congress was a walk in the park.
I dont at all mind or even label his counter-attacks as "unpresidential". I think it's unpresidential to perpetuate proven hoaxes against the guy (e.g. the "fine people hoax" was a lynchpin of Biden's "campaign", if you can call it that).
Deletewhat do you think of Chris Christie?
ReplyDeleteI generally don't like current Republicans but mostly because they are so obviously corrupt. (I liked Romney, back a few years ago, and McCain.)
But Chris Christie is a guy I could get behind.
Trump? waaaay too much of a liar for me. I also really don't like that he clearly wants to do away with democracy.
Biden is ok; Obama ok; I didn't like Hilary or Bill Clinton because they were obviously scamming. Biden is just very old right now. Competent but I do worry he will die in office. Maybe that will be ok. It depends on his partner. Not wild about Harris.
I think there is zero evidence that Trump wants to "do away with democracy". That's the mainstream media brainwashing talking. We had 4 years as president to observe what he did when in power, and there was no hint of "doing away with democracy". He legit thought the election was rigged (it was in certain ways, for sure). He pursued all legal and democratic and constitutional means to challenge the results. When these were denied, he left office in the usual way.
DeleteI think Biden is very, very corrupt. LOTS of evidence for that now.
I support anybody who is against the war in Ukraine, so Trump, Vivek, RFKJr., ...
Julie, as always you are spot on. I see all the Trump haters responses and enviro kooks. I don't know how they justify the lack of honest evidence concerning so called global warming
ReplyDeleteI think there is evidence that the average global temperature has risen since 1980 (I trust the satellite data provided by Spencer and Christi - https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. Although anybody claiming they can notice it is dreaming (it was warmer in 1998, and this year we are only 0.2C warmer than the average from 1991-2020, where, to put it in perspective, daily changes of 10C and seasonal changes of 60C are common.)
DeleteI also trust individual temperature station data which generally shows it was warmer in the 1930s than it is now. Latest bogus "world record" discounts the record set in 1913 that they are claiming is "unreliable" because it's old. Even "the science" does not claim extreme weather events or forest fires have been getting any worse over time.
So global temps do appear to cycle up and down, and we've been on a slight upswing since 1980, however changes in ocean currents and various types of solar activity and cloud coverage could easily explain it.
Nobody has ever demonstrated a link between this most recent rise to excess manmade CO2. Only scientific illiterates make that leap based on coarse and unproven (and often unjustifiably calibrated) computer models whose results are all over the map. However, the folks whose career depend on it would have you believe otherwise.
The mistake people make is confusing the more basic science that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (heats up when it absorbs long wave infrared light) with the much more complex question of what impact a rise in CO2 by 0.02% would have on global climate.
You confuse facts (like: there is a global change of climate driven by human activity, mostly by the extensive use of fossil fuels or COVID is an airborne spread virus particularly dangerous to population aged 60+ and able to overhelm medical system) with responses to them (like: EU climate policy which doesn't make sense in many aspects or Trump's "its just a flu" or China's "zero COVID" on the other end). The latter one in many cases being faulty or ideologically driven.
ReplyDeleteI think your first "fact" is wrong. See my response immediately above for the climate question.
DeleteI have always acknowledged that COVID can have pretty serious ramifications for olds and fats.
I ALSO think that even if you believe manmade CO2 effects global temps that the response would not do anything except make poor people even more poor while the rich skate.
And yes, COVID response has likely resulted in far more deaths than COVID itself, which is now coming out in the excess mortality data.
It's because we are governed by politicians elected by emotional voters who can be easily manipulated.
Julie:
ReplyDeleteNot only can you titillate a man’s ardor, but you can challenge and cause a man’s mind to grow and explore as well. Very well written and thought out post.
I have been looking for someone to say what you have written…and just because you are Canadian does not mean that you cannot learn, observe, and comment on American politics and our culture….
In my estimation what is happening in America is being paralleled in Canada…in fact I am American but currently visiting friends in the Blue Mountain area of Canada….so I have a feel…
I agree that most of what is happening is about money….I say this because if all the green climate stuff is so factual….why have I not witnessed a coherent public plan from our government in detail about the steps to get to a successful solution….what is happening is knee jerk and at the whim of politicians….where is the plan….? Lining special interests pockets…
Of course the climate always changes….always has..,ways will…and think about how much of the glaciers have already melted over the past thousand years….man cannot control the climate….probably never will..
I wish people would be more skeptical..research and think for themselves more often….you have done a great job…always!
An independent Woman…with your own perspectives…mmmm
I truly don’t know what to believe….show me some actual facts….not data trends…not instances of change that might seem out of the ordinary….not from politicians….I am patriotic….want to do the right things…but as you point out experts on both sides of the issue…
And do the ends justify the means? An age old question….at my point in life…I say no!!!
Thank you. Great comment!
Delete"I fear that this standard is not being routinely used, and we have certain people routinely using unethical means to pursue dubious ends."
ReplyDeleteYes. Agree! What if the "ends" are actually evil? It won’t matter much which side 'wins' if the 'good' of a culture is torn down to win it. "The ends justify the means," is just rationalizing shitty behavior.
You should have stopped there. The rest was bunkum.
A.J.
It seems we agree.
DeleteWhile I disagree with most of your specific examples (particularly Ukraine), I do agree with your larger point that we *all* should check ourselves regularly for whether any particular view is based in objective facts or, rather, our tribal affiliations. For me, Bill Clinton is an example. I actually liked a lot of his policies and still do. I'm an economic conservative. When's the last time we had a surplus in the federal budget? Bill Clinton. But, I excused the egregious personal conduct. Once I had a daughter who was 20, my views changed a little bit about the relative power dynamics at play between a 20 year-old intern and the President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteOn Ukraine, you can simply substitute 1938 for 2023, and Czechoslovakia for Ukraine, into the positions of the isolationist wings of the Republican party then and now. Always willing to buy "peace in our time" . . . at the smaller countries' territorial expense.
On the Bidens, I'm perfectly willing to admit that Hunter Biden is a worthless, over-privileged brat who has traded on daddy's name his entire life. Are you willing to admit the same about Don Jr.? But, in the end, unless you show me that Hunter trying to get rich on daddy's name actually influenced US political policy in an illegal way, or any way at all, you're just making the novel observation that kids in rich, political families capitalize on their parents' names and positions. Shocker.
If your entire argument is Putin is Hitler, that's a very poor argument. It shows the weakness of your position if that's the best you can come up with.
DeleteHunter is way worse than almost all people, including Don Jr. but that's not the point. The point is that the entire family is a graft laundering business, using dozens of cutout companies with no business purpose to try to hide money from China, Ukraine, Moscow, ... payments for no known purpose. Combine that with the fact that Joe was aware of and involved in Hunter's business (according to Hunter and eye witnesses), and Hunter has said that half of his "income" goes to his Dad. With all the evidence out there now, you have to be blind if you don't see it for what it is.
I don't hear you doing much to refute the Russia 2023-Germany 1938 comparison with respect to large democracies sacrificing smaller countries to appease aggressors. I actually don't see Hitler as a great corollary to Putin, except with respect to both of them vastly over-estimating their military brilliance and getting spanked hard as a result. I see Putin more like Hirohito/Tojo -- leaders with imperial ambitions whose reach far exceeded their grasp. In any event, the real point I made was the comparison between isolationist Republicans in 1938 and isolationist Republicans in 2023. There is no real daylight between the arguments then and the arguments now, and falling back on insults demonstrates that, deep down inside, you know that.
DeleteRe: the Bidens, you're just repeating right-wing media talking points, virtually none of which have actually been shown to be true in Comer's actual hearings. Virtually every point you made was supposedly going to come into evidence through a series of whistle-blowers who have never been produced, have disappeared and/or have now been outed as con men charged with serious crimes. Those hearings have been an abject flop, and Comer is becoming a total laughingstock. You know you're in deep doo doo as a Republican congressman if Steve Doocy is fact-checking you and suggesting your allegations lack credibility.
I don't have to refute your comparison. Comparisons don't prove a thing. That's why you get a bit of the stick, because you don't seem to realize that. You're trying to justify an unjustifiable horror with a weak comparison.
DeleteYou seem to be repeating left-wing media talking points, because you can't refute the evidence.
Comparisons don't prove a thing? Spoken like someone for whom the saying, "Those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it" was made for.
DeleteNo two situations are identical. You would need to make the case that all the prerequisites, all the conditions, and all the personalities of all the players are equivalent. Which they clearly are not. Not accepting a false equivalence to "prove" a point is not ignoring history.
DeleteYou think Putin is intent to conquer all of Europe, as did Hitler, and Ukraine is just the first step.
Trouble is, there were vast provocations leading to Putin's military operation not at all present in Hitler's day. Western policy analysts had been warning for many years of the "red line" to the Russians that was Ukraine, and Russia's inevitable response. You conveniently ignore all of that in your simplistic Putin=Hitler non-analysis.
Putin may well have designs on the rest of Europe, however most credible analysts find that to be highly unlikely. You would need to prove that point, which you cannot. The provocations from the West vis-a-vis Ukraine are sufficient in themselves to have motivated Russia to conduct its military operation.
I'm never clear what people arguing your side of this mean by "provocations." By what right exactly do you think Russia has some right to a territorial "buffer zone," and that if the countries who involuntarily constituted that "buffer zone" voluntarily leave the Russian orbit to join an alliance of other similarly-minded countries, that is a "provocation"? Countries have the right to join alliances. What you call NATO aggression was simply countries that had been held involuntarily in first the Soviet, then the Russian orbit bolting to the Western side at the first realistic opportunity, which they had every right to do. You can characterize it as a provocation only if you first accept the Russian proposition that they have some right to borders that are free from a neighbor they see as potentially hostile. Cuba is 90 miles from Florida. Are you OK with the US invading it, since they are aligned with Russia?
DeleteI never said I thought Putin seeks to conquer all Europe. You really do love the "straw man" argument strategy, don't you? It's so much easier to argue against something you wish someone said instead of against what they actually did.
And, no you don't need to have identical conditions in order for one historical incident to have a bearing on another. That's just silly. Come on, you're usually better than this.
The US was none too happy when Russia installed missiles in Cuba. I now expect you to come out 100% for Cuba and Russia's complete right to do that if they so please. And the US literally did all but invade Cuba over it in Bay of Pigs. It was only Kennedy who stopped a full scale invasion.
DeleteYou were the one who argues Putin=Hitler, therefore you argue Putin wishes to take over Europe, by the reasoning I'm supposed to expect from you. If that's not analogous, why are other things analogous?
We can learn from history, but you cannot argue your point by claiming history repeats.
"you're usually better than that"
Well, we now have China installing listening posts in Cuba. You're side is losing their shit about it. It doesn't mean we get to invade them. Yes, the U.S. did all but invade Cuba, and a President had to go on TV and own up to it and it ended. We didn't actually complete an invasion, and the fact that we started one became an international embarrassment.
DeleteNo, I did not argue Putin = Hitler. Nor did I argue Putin wishes to take over Europe. (He just wants to take over any part of it that at some point was a part of what he sees as Kievan Rus and the empire of Catherine the Great and/or Peter the Great. Unfortunately, the misses all sorts of intervening history, and relevant elements of the old history. Like that the capital of Kievan Rus was Kiev. Can we go back to THAT history? A combined Russia and Ukraine were historically ruled from not Moscow but Kiev. Problem solved.
At first I thought it was your usual straw man. Now, I think probably just a few too many glasses of good wine or good beer with the hubby on a Saturday night. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
I don't have a "side". I have my views on various issues. Suggest you organize yourself likewise.
DeleteThe only justification you bring for prolonging and escalating the war in Ukraine at great risk to the world, and continuing to bring misery and suffering while not working toward peace, is a weak historical analogy that you now deny. It wasn't me who invited Hitler to dinner.
Speaking on American politics as a Canadian is like a wine drinker commenting on beer ! Stick to your frolics in and out of the bedroom ! Biden has much more credence than the “ I am your best president trump “ are you kidding ? Trump is only in it for himself and to fill his pockets ! But what do I know I am in Australia !
ReplyDeleteTrump was already a very wealthy man. Politics made him poorer.
DeleteJoe never did anything but politics and wound up rich.
Hmmmm...?
Rediculous answer ! Trump was and is a millionaire ! He incited asssault against American democracy and gets away with it ! No wonder America is a mess with all the gun toting rednecks ! But what would you know your Canadian !
DeleteWrong! Trump has made so much money from his Presidency from requiring government workers to stay at his resorts to exhorbitant speaking fees. He was never as rich as he pretended to be which is why he fought so hard to keep his taxes from being public. He declared bankruptcy many times until The Apprentice made him money and then he became a professional politician.
DeleteHa ha! Anybody who can afford their own private 747 is plenty rich (and that was before the presidency). His presidency only went to decrease his brand value. His wealth is why he can't be bought by the special interests.
DeleteDear Julie,
ReplyDeleteEver since I stumbled upon your blog many years ago you have intrigued me. And your forays into controversial issues, although less arousing, are also intriguing. However, having read your latest post and your responses to the flood of comments, I am wondering, tongue in cheek, whether or not the means of your controversial posts justifies your ends of lots more views and comments. You are rapidly approaching 16mil page views, and you deserve it! There is no blog out there, that I know of, that comes even close to yours. I’m looking forward to seeing your page views click over 20mil. If Trump gets ‘elected’ again that will definitely give you the means to continue singing his praises and help you get there more quickly.
Thank you Julie for all the pleasure you have given me.
My ends are to educate. My means are to speak truth as I see it, even when the truth is unpopular.
DeleteWe'll see if 20M is in the cards. The censors seem to have it in for spanking porn more and more.
And thank you for the kind words
🙏
I used to live in the NY/NJ area. Family still does.
ReplyDeleteThe reason New Yorkers and those from NJ and Connecticut would not vote from Trump was because we had decades to know that the lifelong failure-monkey in a fright wig of a loser managed to run six casinos, an airline, a football league, and a magazine into the ground. And Jesus-fuck! Do I need to add that he also ran a Triple Crown contender thoroughbred into near death, ending his racing career? And don't get me on his associations with the Genovese, Gambino crime families, and “Little Nicky” Scarfo's Philadelphia crime family. Or Roy Cohn.
We knew his noxious presence in our midst as one of the most relentlessly ill-informed and ruthlessly self-caricaturing people in American public life! His entire life has been that of a wealthy dullard with what he perceived to be a divine right to the admiration and grateful deference of others.
Hell, Jimmy Breslin who was from the same Queens, NY as Trump, calling Trump a Queens guy running "crap games, his bullying and bragging, his cheapskate scams, his abuses of the press and the public, calling out Trump for what he was then and what he is today - a moral coward.
His fellow New Yorker, Pete Hamill, called Trump: "Snarling and heartless and fraudulently tough, insisting on the virtue of stupidity, it was the epitome of blind negation."
Interesting about how all these supposed criminal activities have never come out despite him being the most investigated man on planet earth. Easier to believe that it's your TDS talking. Get a grip, man!
DeleteI feel guilty after reading your article. It made me realize that I have fallen deep into the ways of those on the other side of the fence from me. I don't know that I can escape. It has become habit.
ReplyDeleteThe sentences of J6 are way out of proportion to the offense. I can't recall anyone else mentioning it.
Thanks for a good read.
Well, what do you know about that.
DeleteMy pleasure.
The second point Lombard makes is that there is no amount of money that could have any meaningful affect on warming.
ReplyDeleteBogey
Ahhhh... an educated man!
DeleteI continue on. So much meat in this. Sending arms to Ukraine has shown how low our stockpiles are, how long it takes to get production going and that so many arms are single source. Bogey
ReplyDeleteVery true.
Deleteall these people giving you shit because you're Canadian; you are more informed than most Americans on issues that directly affect them. It's easier to parrot a sound bite you heard on the propaganda agenda roll, I mean mainstream news, than form an educated opinion such as your have
ReplyDeleteThanks. I try to consider "both sides", but one side is so consistently stupid it's getting harder!
Delete