Uncategorized

Bikeshedding and Baloney – Trump Edition

This was Jaime Jessop five days ago:

It’s become a war now and it seems Trump is the only Western leader willing to fight it on our behalf – and his of course. They are gunning for him.

Jaime was pointing to a Daily Mail story succinctly titled Twitter boss Jack Dorsey apologizes for blocking Biden Ukraine story ‘with zero context’ – but STILL doesn’t let users share it because it ‘contains private information like email addresses’ – as Trump threatens to remove Facebook and Twitter protections. (That link is now to an updated version late in 15th October, over 24 hours after the original.)

This was me strongly agreeing with Steve McIntyre around the same time:

Was that unfair to Trump? Or too much wishful thinking on my part?

This thread is an opportunity to discuss the current President and the forthcoming US election, just as we did on the day the result of the last one became clear. See Trump, climate and the future of the world. Brad Keyes spoke for all of us that time, I’m sure, when he wrote:

First, it’s hard to believe the normally-reliable expertocracy got this one so ass-forwards. 

What can we expect of the expertocracy this time? And how much will it matter?

Bikeshedding and Baloney Bigly

Two weeks ago I defined terms as follows:

In my framing bikeshedding is avoidance of difficult thoughts by staying narrow in mind. And baloney is what happens, internally, and then externally, when we pretend to understand the big picture when we don’t.

Here I’m positively encouraging us to try and express a view, however tentative, on the big picture, just as that phrase “Trump, climate and the future of the world” intimated four years ago.

I guess it’s that subtle difference between an opinion – or indeed a fear – held and expressed with humility and, well, the other thing. But it does seem to me there are some big picture issues arising.

Here’s a Twitter interaction from two months ago that points to one of my own top concerns:

SSCI is the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Steve is quoting from their report on ‘Russiagate’. Hmmm… is the previously unknown prodigy who worked out who the Steele dossier’s primary sub-source was. But feel free to count all that as bikeshedding. What’s the big picture here? (I realise that there’s more than one possible angle. But I went first. China might well be Steve Bannon’s and yours. And they could be related.)

179 thoughts on “Bikeshedding and Baloney – Trump Edition

  1. Yr reference to the Cliscep time machine, ‘Trump, climate and the future of the world.’ Fascinating tuning in to those astute ‘n oft witty comments and comments less so, since we but see the fuchure darkly.

    Picking out out this comment from Catweazel…

    ‘Having lived through the Cuban missile crisis, when at a British public school we were excused lessons on the 23rd October 1962 because no-one knew if there was any further need for them and the World came within 20 minutes of mutually assured destruction, hence being aware of just how fast and how hard the shit can hit the fan, personally I think I’d rather give it a miss.

    But there again, I’m not a “Liberal” Leftist, so I haven’t a clue why you lot may prefer a warmonger with a nice safe underground bunker to hide in to someone who prefers peace between nuclear armed states…

    As a secondary consideration, a Trump presidency appears likely to utterly defuse the crazy Warmist scam, and that can only be a good thing for everyone but subsidy farmers, AGW delusion dependent academics and all the other ten thousand or more parasites who fly round the World in private jets, first class and business class – de-planing into huge fleets of limousines – to spend two weeks all expenses paid at five star resorts, thus creating a carbon footprint the size of an average Third World nation, to pass laws making my life more expensive.’

    Well Trump didn’t diffuse yr globalists but he did diffuse the situation in the Middle East for now, and supports the US Constitution against its free to interpret Democrat judges who think they’re there to make the laws. Who’da thought?

    Liked by 3 people

  2. At the risk of getting very badly stung by poking the Trump hive here. Hasn’t the incumbent POTUS been bikeshedding a tad? No Mexican-paid wall despite much posturing. Coal production down. And what has he really done about climate science? Was all that Red Team-Blue Team posturing just indecision as to which colour to paint that shed?

    Like

  3. I don’t like Trump one little bit. I think the only thing in his favour is that his instincts are sometimes correct. He’s right to be suspicious of the climatocracy; he’s right to mistrust the Chinese leadership; he’s right to mistrust the Iranian mullahs; he’s right to try to bring North Korea in to the fold.

    Yet for all that, he’s a total failure. He is not remotely Presidential in his approach and has made the USA a laughing stock. He’s not inclusive, so can’t persuade people to go along with his ideas, even on those rare occasions when he’s right. He feeds off and encourages people’s prejudices, and (although the Democrats and MSM have certainly played their part) he has presided over a massively divided country, whose divisions have worsened on his watch. Many of his tweets are puerile and cringeworthy.

    I’ll be glad to see him voted out, though I have no enthusiasm at all for the person who will replace him in the White House. Are Trump and Biden really the best that the two big political parties can offer to the electorate in a country of around 330m people?

    Like

  4. A total failure who has somehow managed to defuse tension in North Korea, Syria, Iran, and the Gulf States. I’d go for that type of failure everytime over the preening, posturing and war-mongering of an Obama. Even the assassination of that Iranian general, greeted with such howling by the Guardianistas, seems to have had better results than most USA foreign interventions in the last 20 years

    Liked by 3 people

  5. If you don’t read Breitbart or other dodgy rightwing US websites then you won’t know what the Daily Mail story is about. There are about four or five separate sources demonstrating that Hunter Biden was paid millions by Russians, Chinese and Ukrainians because he was the son of his father, or to put it round the other way, Vice President Biden used his influence on US foreign policy to channel money to his son. The New York Post is revealing information from a laptop belonging to Biden Jnr via Rudi Giuliani. Breitbart has information from an ex-associate of Biden’s business partner Devon Archer (both now in prison) on how Chinese billionaires paid for a guided tour of the White House. Peter Schwiezer’s books “Secret Empires” and “Profiles in Corruption” add more. A recent report from a Senate committee revealed the 3.5 million Hunter Biden received from the ex-wife of a mayor of Moscow. And finally there’s Joe Biden himself boasting about his quid pro quo deal – forcing the sacking of the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company that paid Hunter Biden over a million to sit on its board.

    All this is, according to the Guardian, “debunked conspiracy theories.”

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Beth, talking of the Cliscep thread that began on 9th November 2016:

    Fascinating tuning in to those astute ‘n oft witty comments and comments less so, since we but see the fuchure darkly.

    We did indeed see the future imperfectly, with the benefit of 2020 hindsight. Steve Mc’s summary four years later I think bears repeating:

    Many times Trump seems to be his own worst enemy. On the other hand, someone without his particular flaws would probably not have been able to withstand the assault on his presidency by regime change plotters and media.

    I think, re-reading, many of us did foresee Trump being his own worst enemy. But his strength in withstanding and resisting the so-called ‘resistance’ against him, which was far worse and more underhand than I could have predicted, I for one did not foresee.

    Famous UK climate sceptic, and leftie, and brother, Piers Corbyn, put two points in Trump’s favour succinctly earlier this month, surprising the Daily Express:

    Asked about which policies had won him over, Mr Corbyn praised the Mr Trump’s commitment to jobs as well as him becoming the first US President not to start a war in over 30 years.

    I wouldn’t agree with Piers on all matters of science or politics but I thought that had two virtues: no bikeshedding and courage. (Or maybe that’s just two sides of the same coin.)

    The not-starting-wars chimes in with MiaB’s point today and Catweazel’s four years ago, quoted by Beth:

    But there again, I’m not a “Liberal” Leftist, so I haven’t a clue why you lot may prefer a warmonger with a nice safe underground bunker to hide in to someone who prefers peace between nuclear armed states…

    OK, videos coming up. On the Hunter Biden scandal Geoff tries to unpack, but Twitter and Facebook won’t, I pointed indirectly to Steve Bannon two days ago in the main post. Here’s a quick way there:

    Now less than two minutes on how Trump’s weaknesses shouldn’t make us miss the big picture of what he’s up against:

    … and the whole speech:

    I agree with Klingenstein – but he doesn’t even mention the no-new-wars or indeed not wanting a new Cold War. (This I think is because he’s trying to get Republican never-Trumpers to swing back to the President.)

    On how extreme the alternative being presented is this genuinely shocked me:

    The big picture is indeed hard to achieve balance to describe. But the survival of US democracy I genuinely think is at stake, as I implied in my tweet to Steve on 14th.

    Having said which, all views to the contrary on Cliscep are also warmly welcomed!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Richard says, ‘I think, re-reading, many of us did foresee Trump being his own worst enemy. But his strength in withstanding and resisting the so-called ‘resistance’ against him, which was far worse and more underhand than I could have predicted, I for one did not foresee.’

    …Like Yogi Berra says about prediction. But you also refer to his strength in withstanding the resistance against him. This is resistance against a unified progressivist press that has come to dominate western society in the US and elsewhere. In Oz I don’t expect much coverage in the media of the Hunter Biden computer story.

    Think we should acknowledge Trump’s strengths.There’s a lot of focus on Trump’s personal flaws but as a *leader* he has shown the necessary strengths of courage, committed energy and common sense. His dealing with North Korea was masterly, carrot and stick, I’d say, he doesn’t bend to blackmail and the press don’t frighten him into compliance with their woke politics, as more compliant leaders are wont to do. And regarding dignity or lack thereof, on ceremonial occasions at home or abroad, he does okay.

    Richard,.I too think democracy is at stake if Biden wins. Here in Oz, with China expanding its sphere of influence in our region,I appreciate the US as our powerful friend and democratic ally.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Scott Atlas, Trump’s newly appointed coronavirus adviser who was himself spectacularly censored by Twitter for sharing a mask-sceptic Tweet, certainly frames it as a war:

    The country, Atlas said, is in dangerous territory if people who show data contrary to conventional wisdom are silenced.

    “This will mark the downfall of the United States if censorship of information is allowed,” he lamented. “It honestly is the end of the country.”

    He shared the above article (which quotes him) on Twitter:

    Atlas obviously sees the deadly danger to civilisation of scientific censorship, manifest in its most extreme and destructive form during the coronavirus pandemic. But let’s not forget that exactly the same form of media-assisted censorship has been at work in the silencing of climate sceptics and the attempted exile of said sceptics to the ‘fringe’. I’ll say it again, if Covid-19 hysteria crashes and burns, then climate hysteria is in imminent danger of doing the same. But Trump needs to win big and he needs to open up America again on Atlas’s advice.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. I should have added two other comments when making my earlier post.

    First, I do give Trump credit for not starting any new wars (unlike both his Democrat and Republican predecessors).

    Secondly, the immediate assault on him by the incredulous MSM and Democrat establishment, after he won the election but before he had even taken office, beggared belief. However, the faults of the Democrats don’t redound to Trump’s credit, they just shame the Democrats. So the rest of my anti-Trump sentiment stands.

    In some ways, his climate scepticism does us no favours, since the climate concerned can point to Trump as (in their eyes) the Devil incarnate, and tar the rest of us with the same brush.

    Like

  10. Scott Atlas being interviewed, very well, by UnHerd in the UK, published less than two hours ago:

    YouTube was good enough to draw my attention to this, having just read Jaime referencing the guy.

    Big Tech lending a hand!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. From Zero Hedge:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/debunked-wikipedia-editors-back-bidens-stifle-dissent

    “war has broken out behind the scenes at Wikipedia – where activist editors claim, with no evidence, that the Ukraine scandal has been ‘debunked.’”

    Ian Miles Cheong tweets:

    “Nothing to see here folks. Wikipedia says it’s debunked. The science is settled.”

    When a user removed the word “debunked” two minutes later an editor “reverted the change, adding, ‘it’s been debunked and we have consensus language here.’”

    “Consensus,” “the science is settled,” “debunked.” Haven’t we been here before?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Wow. So much that could be said. Let me start with Jaime:

    I’ll say it again, if Covid-19 hysteria crashes and burns, then climate hysteria is in imminent danger of doing the same.

    This is very close to my view. And I think ‘Covid-19 hysteria’ is bound to crash and burn. But it may be long and painful as it does. (And we may differ about what is and isn’t Covid hysteria, on the margins.)

    I have always felt that Covid-19 should be an incredibly valuable – if gut-wrenching – learning experience for those in charge of policy.

    Geoff:

    “Consensus,” “the science is settled,” “debunked.” Haven’t we been here before?

    That’s very interesting about Wikipedia and the Hunter Biden/Ukraine material.

    This followed Steve Mc giving evidence of Google suppression of search results on Sunday:

    How remarkable that Eli (aka Josh Halpern) didn’t have anything to say there.

    It’s not the just the same playbook, it’s the same people.

    Like

  13. Alan (with apologies):

    At the risk of getting very badly stung by poking the Trump hive here. Hasn’t the incumbent POTUS been bikeshedding a tad? No Mexican-paid wall despite much posturing. Coal production down. And what has he really done about climate science? Was all that Red Team-Blue Team posturing just indecision as to which colour to paint that shed?

    That last sentence is very clever, thanks.

    Yes, Trump has done some bikeshedding as POTUS.

    He hasn’t really made much of a dent in the climate science industry.

    I thought his pulling out of the Paris agreement was major, though. And his statement on doing so I thought was so good that it was worthy of the term Guenieresque. Because it was nothing to do with the science. Just the policy stupidity. And that was easily enough.

    It’s not a full answer. There probably isn’t one. It’s messy.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Mark, I do get the dislike of Trump. Thanks for expressing it. Courage has many facets!

    However, I found I changed on this. The key light-bulb moment for me was what Victor Davis Hanson said about Trump’s authenticity here:

    I saved you 1 minute 55 seconds of intro there!

    Another thing I’ve come to appreciate is his sense of humour. When alongside Theresa May in London he asked Jeremy Hunt, sitting in the front row, whether he thought Michael Gove (a key rival) was going to be a good candidate for the Tory leadership. Everyone fell about. (He’d also just claimed that he didn’t know and hadn’t met Gove. That early interview for The Times with Rupert Murdoch sitting in probably did register. But Gove had taken a few pot shots at the new POTUS. It was a masterful way of dealing with all that.)

    But he also messes up, in all kinds of ways. Becoming close to vengeful, as Tom Klingenstein puts it. Not that other politicians haven’t been motivated by such base emotions. But Trump is so open about it.

    Like

  15. Richard. As I’m sure you realize, my criticism of Trump was for his relative inactivity regarding climate SCIENCE. His pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement is a policy issue, and was rather brave. He was, however, unable to convince any other country of any significance to follow suite.

    Like

  16. It took only five days for the coup to brainstorm and focus group their story
    The Biden hard drives are just more proof that the President Trump is a Russian spy.
    Additionally, the oligarch tech lords will not be stopped in their destruction of the public square.
    There is open talk of criminalization of supporters of President Trump and those who served the nation under his Presidency.
    This is shaping up to be the last election.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. ALAN
    Why should Trump try and convince any other country to follow suit? He’s perfectly happy to see competitors price themselves out of markets with expensive energy and overstrict environmental rules. From our point of view we see someone who loses an opportunity to give a solid argument why he’s doing the right thing. But I bet his supporters don’t see things that way. Giving solid arguments is what the swamp creatures do, well briefed as they are by their paymasters. It’s a looking glass world. Trump even looks like a character drawn by John Tenniel.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Actually there is no evidence at all that President Trump is cooperating with or being handled by Russians now any more than he was during 2016::
    None at all

    Like

  19. There are very real limits on what POTUS can do by way of domestic policy. Most Presidents only manage to get one or two things done. Obama got his rather crappy health care act through but that’s about it. Are there 1 million electric vehicles on the road in the USA? It’s about 190,000. Is 80 %of USA energy “clean”?

    Trump struggled to get the majority Republicans to formulate any amendment to the health care system.

    Like

  20. Geoff
    “Why should Trump try and convince any other country to follow suit? He’s perfectly happy to see competitors price themselves out of markets with expensive energy and overstrict environmental rules.“

    That’s short termism. So competitors grow weaker and are less able or willing to buy American products. How long will it be that American products are subjected to tariffs because they were produced with fossil fuel energy?

    If I remember correctly around 4 years ago geoengineering was a hot topic. Geoengineering affects everybody. Climate change is considered a global problem and may be “solved” by a global solution. To oppose this development, which could adversely affect everyone, Trump would have needed allies.

    Finally, even Trump cannot believe that the presidency will remain in sceptical hands. Unless the science is debunked (something Trump has neglected) policy decisions will be made at a global level, and without allies the climate crisis hoax continues and might well intensify.

    Like

  21. Alan, do you see any signs that any leader of the BRIC nations, which are among the heaviest users and suppliers of fossil fuels, shows any signs of believing the mantra?

    Like

  22. MiaB. I repeat, my concern is that Trump, despite blowing all hot about challenging the climate science consensus, has done very little. Here we were all in favour of Trump’s support for the Red Team – Blue Team proposal, yet this has gone nowhere. The actions of BRIC nations are not pertinent to any discussion of this point.

    Like

  23. Regarding Trump, in terms of summary, the only significant aspect was it was choice between Hillary vs Trump, and currently choice of Trump and Biden.
    For fun one can compare Hillary vs Biden.
    It seems with Hillary it seems she was her own man and Biden quite the opposite. Hillary was leader and Biden is not. Where would Hillary lead to could be question. Biden is, where will he be lead to- which might be a good thing- if Biden was following the will of people. There also idea that Biden if elected would not even be the US president, not even the Vice President. He spent his time in a basement, until
    he is not longer of use, not being the President.
    So one might be tempted to compare Hillary vs Kamala. But you can’t really say Kamala will be her own man, either. But she might be the face of the President. One could imagine she could be “active”. One can imagine Kamala might be trying to get a second term. But there no reason to assume she has capable to do anything. Hillary, there was no doubt, she could done something, and probably include a string failures doing something. And getting US into a hot war, would have been quite possible.
    Generally no US president ever tries to get us into war, and not question that Hillary would try to get US into a war. So, matter, would she succeed in not getting the US into a hot war [or other kinds of war}.
    So Hillary vs Kamala in terms of chance either will lead to a hot war and terms continuing get US involved in various conflicts and might go even worse than “normal”.
    In terms stopping US riots {petty war} Kamala has made it worse- rather doing utter nothing- made worse. So, proven she will let things, burn.
    Anyways, it seems Trump will win in huge landslide.
    I always have some doubt about who US public votes for, but seems they always elect the right person
    for the job {even in the case of Obama- the worse US president, ever- but then again, what were the choices- McCain and Romney].
    Or no one can say the US primaries choices are getting right people for the job.
    It seems US primaries always tend to pick worst possible people for the job.
    And that seems to make the US elections, interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. With all these Trump videos, I’d like to add Ben Shapiro’s:

    I don’t think Trump is going to win and I blame fracking. While it’s probably the only thing holding up the US economy, it does have its drawbacks. For one, there’s a plethora of plastic structural things that break. Does anyone have a family heirloom potato chip bag clamp? But the big one is that it gives the left a cake that they can both have and eat. They can rail against it while reaping its benefits. Gas backup allows them to temporarily sustain the unsustainable increase in renewable energy.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Mike, Shapiro talks fast! And it’s impressive, not least because he admits he got Trump wrong this time four years ago. Me too. I want to come back to that, but maybe after the election.

    Alan, one very good thing Trump did on climate science was to give some level of authority to Will Happer:

    (Best thing Delingpole’s done in the last year, in my humble view.) I agree that major change didn’t ensue. Not yet. Again, and because it’s related, I want to come back to that. But let’s get the election done first.

    Like

  26. Victor Davis Hanson on How Trump Should Approach the Final Debate this evening:

    On substance Trump need not recount all the litanies of injury suffered at the hands of the media/progressive party fusion. He has done so and earned our empathy. But that was then, and this is now—and now is the very future of the country.

    On the scandals he need not go into the weeds of Mueller, China, Burisma, and the labyrinth of Clinton-Obama-Biden corruption. Most don’t want to hear the details.

    Instead, he should just press Biden simply for yes or no answers: “Joe, what is true—what you’ve denied for years about your son’s activities or what your son says you did on his emails?”

    “And are you for or against, yes or no about fracking, the Green New Deal, reparations, the wall, the tax cuts, Court packing, ending the Electoral College, ending the Senate filibuster, and admitting two more states?”

    And when Biden won’t answer yes or no—Trump can simply smile and say to the American people, “There you have it, he doesn’t think you ‘deserve’ an answer and Joe can’t give one even if he wanted—his leftist masters won’t let him.”

    I agree with every word. Will POTUS have the self-control?

    I may have to focus on work now. Until closer to the election itself. Ciao.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Sorry about your future absence Richard. For balance I would have asked you what Joe would have to do to counter your devastating plan should the Donald adopt it and have the control to carry it out. Personally I have doubts whether this is possible and have never known any politician stick to yes or no answers.

    Like

  28. ALAN KENDALL
    We know what Biden will do in the unlikely event of a difficult question coming his way. As in the first debate, he will say: “I do’ wanna answer that. Wha’ I wan’ say t’e American people is: ..”

    And he’ll turn his warm smiling Irish eyes to camera and burble for two minutes.

    Get used to it. We’ll be seeing a lot more of it in the next four years. Unless Trump uses his last three months in power to start a world war or two.

    Like

  29. RICHARD DRAKE invites us to come out from behind the bikeshed and consider the bigger picture. So here goes:

    Tuesday and Wednesday the Guardian’s live coverage of the US presidential election reported that Biden was “lidding” (putting an end to) his daily activities around 11am EST. Today they report:

    Joe Biden’s only engagement today is the debate, while Kamala Harris will takes part in a ‘Women Mobilize for Biden’ virtual rally.

    The vice presidential candidate will be addressing a screen, while the presidential candidate will be presumably resting.

    Ready for a two hour debate moderated by a fellow Democrat.

    From which the subject of foreign policy has been removed, in order to prevent any discussion of his financial links with China, Russia and the Ukraine.

    If Biden requires 24 hours of repose before facing a two hour debate, how long should he rest before taking up the presidency for four years?

    Meanwhile, in the same twelve hours of GMT daytime, Zerohedge has reported that:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-offloads-court-packing-decision-commission-study
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/hunter-biden-laptop-linked-fbi-money-laundering-investigation
    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/senate-panel-votes-subpoena-zuckerberg-dorsey-over-ny-post-censorship
    https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/usa-today-refuses-publish-hunter-biden-scandal-op-ed-so-here-it
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rudy-giuliani-describes-alleged-underage-material-hunter-bidens-laptop
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/kamala-harris-schumer-cuomo-and-feinstein-listed-key-contacts-biden-china-joint-venture
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-campaign-implies-hunters-ex-biz-partners-are-russian-assets
    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-campaign-implies-hunters-ex-biz-partners-are-russian-assets

    In that mother lode (no, that’s not rude) are confirmations from two more of Hunter’s ex-business associates that the e-mails are genuine, and that the “big guy” who took 10% off the top (before his 50% share of the profits after expenses) of every deal with Russia, China and the Ukraine was indeed Joe Biden.

    Funnily enough, neither the BBC nor the Guardian reported any of the above in their live coverage of the US election, though both found a prominent place on their front pages for a story of Rudi Giuliani being caught by Borat with his hand down his trousers.

    There’s an interesting 60 minute video by Rudi Giuliani in the links above. ZeroHedge summarises the first 20 minutes and I watched the remaining 40. I creased up when he paused midway to deliver a message from his sponsors for a miracle treatment for stiff joints. My European mentality boggled at much of his style, his histrionics. Then, about four minutes before the end, Giuliani draws some conclusions, and I felt won over – not necessarily to Rudi and his boss, but to a certain vision of what democracy might be. To a jaded old European like me, it sounds weird. But Giuliani is older and no doubt more jaded than me. If you’d told me a few weeks ago that I’d be transcribing the thoughts of Rudi Giuliani (minus his recommendations for stiff joints) I’d have said … well, I don’t know what I’ve had said, but I’d have been sceptical.

    This is our vice president negotiating for our country with China, maybe our biggest adversary, though he believes they’re not. And the son is getting a billion and a half guaranteed for a useless private equity fund? And that’s not disclosed by the Obama administration? How much more was done like this that wasn’t disclosed?

    This isn’t their government. This government belongs to us. I know Big Tech and the newspapers and the television don’t think it does. That’s why they have the iron curtain up. But I’m going around that iron curtain. These are the facts and they’re available to you. We’re going to have more available to you but I don’t know why you would need much more. This is a man who sold out his country, sold out his son. He shouldn’t be a thousand miles from the White House – within a thousand miles of the White House. He should be in another house. That’s where he belongs. That’s where he would be if he was anybody else but a privileged, protected member of the club. Club turns out to be corrupt club. It’s gotta be broken up. We’ve gotta have a Teddy Roosevelt go in there and break it up like he broke up the big monopolies of 1900 and 1901 and 2 and 3, and you know who can do that.

    Joe Biden’s not going to do it. He’s part of it, he’s going to make it worse. Be nobody better at it. Be nobody that could be a Biden-day (?) Teddy Roosevelt than the president that we have right now, because he cares only about you, and the United States. He doesn’t give a damn about any of these important people. Because they’re not important when they’re crooks. I don’t care if they have billions. My father used to say, you know they put their pants on the same way. A good man can be a very poor man and a really bad man can be a very rich man. And we got some really bad rich men. And we got a lot of really good poor men. And this country should be working for all the people, not just the ones who can put up an iron curtain.

    This election’s about a lot of things. But one of them is to send a message (?) America. This is our government. This is not a government in which a presidential candidate can say: You don’t deserve to know my opinion about something. This is not a government in which the people (?) can put up an iron curtain so that you won’t get information, that you would’ve gotten on the other candidate. (?)

    We gotta straighten this out. You got the ballot box to do it. You send a message to the Democratic party. You vote – Republican. For President, House, Senate. Throw ’em out. Throw out (?) Throw out Biden. Throw out the people that come from the Clinton era and let the Democratic Party start again. And then we’ll have a two party system with two parties debating each other, disputing each other, but not hating each other, and not hating America. Because one of these two parties, at the top, hates our country. And it’s the Democrat Party.

    So I thank you very much for listening to me. I know that this is complicated stuff, but being a citizen of a democracy requires hard work sometimes, particularly when you’re being obstructed, and they’re trying to prevent you from getting the information you need. We need you to use your common sense there. To use that very special common sense that the American people have, and send them a message so hard, so tough, so, so powerful, that this will never happen again. Thank you.

    Liked by 4 people

  30. I thought this forum was a place for critical thinking to counter the climate cult, but now the Trump cult seems to have taken hold.

    Like

  31. Wow! The bigger picture is (according to Geoff and a minimum of 4 “likers”) the American election and all the accompanying mudslinging. So Trump is a climate sceptic and so everything else (and that’s a lot) is forgiven, even though promises to challenge “the science” have come to naught.

    Where, oh where is an old, Trump hating, climate change sceptic to go🤨 Not here anymore, not Bishop Hill and Jo Nova has turned into a antipodean Republican love in. And I doubt if it will end next week. If Biden wins it will be contested. Think I’ll get out some box-sets and retire to my man-cave.

    Like

  32. Seriously? If you host some guy’s vision of what a genuine democracy should look like, complete with its rejection of the notion that a belligerent, anti-democratic foreign power should have any place interfering in the governance of another nation’s democracy, and you get 4 likes (which is near a record for this site) then, ergo, the hosting site, formerly a bastion of rational climate scepticism, becomes transformed overnight into an echo chamber for the ‘Trump cult’? Is anybody who would prefer to vote for Trump, warts and all, in preference to traitorous, paedo, CCP-bottom-licking, immoral trougher Biden, now a ‘cult member’? Did I really wake up this morning to find that I’m now a brainwashed Trump scientologist?

    Like

  33. Jaime, I don’t believe I said that (in fact, I know I didn’t). I was making a light-hearted remark, seeking to keep Alan Kendall’s valuable contributions here, rather than watch him depart. I made similar attempts to keep you, and your valuable contributions here, not so long ago, you may recall.

    Please don’t be so sensitive. Humour loss is the last thing we need at a time like this.

    Like

  34. Reading it all through again, I wonder if Jaimes’ comments were aimed at Alan K rather than at me specifically (or at both us, perhaps). If so, my comment still stands. I think Alan’s comments were also quite light-hearted.

    In any event, Alan’s comment focuses on a real issue, which I think climate sceptics need to address. Why is it that climate hysterics tend to be on the “left” of politics (whatever that means these days) while climate sceptics tend to be on the “right” (again, whatever that means)? I have opined in the past about finding myself in what I would once have regarded as strange company (no offence intended) as I sit here sharing climate (and other types of) scepticism with others with whom I have politically little else in common. Why do people on the “left” fail to make the connection between their obsession with climate and the damage that their policy prescriptions will cause to the poorest in society, here and around the world?

    It’s rather a big issue, I think, one perhaps worthy of a discussion piece here. I persevere at Bishop Hill, and maintain a decent modus vivendi with people there whose views are well to the right of mine, but like Alan, I can find it hard going at times. That’s my (and his) issue, perhaps, but why the left/right divide over climate, and what on earth makes a small number of people like Alan and me not succumb to the norm?

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Mark, we’re all getting a bit hypersensitive here aren’t we? I wrote my comment before your comment even appeared on the site. It was mainly in response to PM610310, with a bit of a dig at Alan too. We all have different opinions here, but we should strive to co-exist and not be tempted to use a broad brush to label those with whom we disagree, and I say that fully cognisant of the fact that I am probably not entirely innocent in that respect. These are fractious times. Let’s not be fractured.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Alan: “Wow! The bigger picture is (according to Geoff and a minimum of 4 “likers”) the American election and all the accompanying mudslinging.”

    1) ‘Likes’ don’t necessarily mean agreement with all therein, rather that the contribution / info / links are appreciated as useful angle of debate. 2) ‘Bigger picture’ doesn’t mean an exclusive one that *eclipses* other issues, rather a wider one that adds issues; their relative importance is itself part of the debate and they’re also potentially on different timescales. This US election is a highly important issue for the climate conflict (the polarisation could hardly be greater regarding party / leader climate policies within the most powerful nation on Earth), and various others too.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Mark: “Why is it that climate hysterics tend to be on the “left” of politics (whatever that means these days) while climate sceptics tend to be on the “right” (again, whatever that means)?”

    This was not originally true, and to a fair extent it is still not really true, albeit it’s a changing picture.

    As climate culture first arose, as is typical with cultures they make whatever alliances they can locally and opportunistically. In the US, the Dem / Lib orientated public were early out of the gate in allying with catastrophic climate culture (CCC), meaning that the Rep / Con public rejected it (merely via opposing the stance of their traditional enemy, not via rationality). However, in Germany for very many years the main climate change action / support came from *right* of centre, not left, and Merkel was known as ‘the climate chancellor’. The same polarisation as occurs in the US didn’t happen because a) the US is far more publicly polarized (on a big range of issues) than other Western nations, and b) CCC was not without allies on the German left, despite its main partner being right. Within other countries, such as the UK, CCC has managed the clever feat of allying almost equally with *all* main parties. For many years, out of only 2 skeptics regularly up speaking in parliament, 1 was Labour, 1 was conservative. Currently, there is essentially no official skeptic representation in parliament.

    As CCC has grown and globalised, the different nature in different countries experience clashes and so re-alignment to some extent. Given the US status and power, and until Trump, there is a net ‘pull left’. At one point in UK this did seem to cause some conservative resistance, but the fragility of same is easily observed by the current government’s gung-ho for net-zero. While grass-roots conservatives still harbour more skepticism, and for instance Labour in charge would have gone further and faster re climate policy, the lean is still slight in that the government seems to have no blowback from its own side that would yet be considered dangerous (may change post covid). In Oz however, the global net pull left almost pulled the right in two as a main fissure opened up inside the right rather than between left / right. Hence in-fighting, climate being a critical issue in Oz politics, and a quick succession of prime ministers swapped mostly because of this issue.

    I think the net pull left will continue to grow, and policy evolution more closely matches the left because this is CCC’s best chance I think. Plus the public right are more skeptical than the elite right (i.e. actual politicians, barring the US and especially Trump of course). So maybe what happened in Oz could occur in the UK, post covid. And the clinging on to CCC (because of perceived popularity / morality / science) by much of the right, sends a gift to parties like the National Rally in France and PVV in Holland, (albeit they haven’t really seized it yet, which shows how soft right resistance still is). Yet currently, outside the US it’s a closer approximation to say that most parties support climate orthodoxy, than to say only left ones do, and this is not causing right parties too much grass-roots grief as yet.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. @ Andy “Currently, there is essentially no official skeptic representation in parliament.”

    Two days ago there was an article by Tom Chivers on UnHerd (sommat like “Why do people believe obviously untrue things?”). He recited the catechism (climate change real and dangerous), then explained that a farmer in Montana had a lot to lose by blaming climate change for weather damage. This was because the farmer might be ostracised by right-leaning neigbours.

    At this point the author was close to generating enough voltage to start up the old arc welder. He might have wondered how hard would it be for a UK MP to ask: “Is climate change really going to lead to catastrophe?” The answer is very hard indeed. None opposed the declaration of a climate emergency. None as far as I know opposed the extension of the CO2 reduction target from 80% to 100%. Not because not one of 650 MPs had any doubts. But because they were fearful of the consequences of speaking out.

    What Chivers did not grok in that moment was that it is possible for the majority to believe wrong things in order to fit in, just as it is possible for smaller communities to coalesce around wacky ideas. He did not appreciate either that it is possible for some subjects to have a little nuance to them, such that the debate is not between “no climate change” and “catastrophic climate change,” and that the reality might lie somewhere between.

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Alan Kendall wrote: “So Trump is a climate sceptic and so everything else (and that’s a lot) is forgiven”

    Just maybe he has far less to be forgiven for than you seem to think, unless being big and brash and saying what he thinks is too much. He has been subject to one of the greatest witch hunts of all time. Laws have been broken left right and center to “get him”. The media habitually take his words out of context and apply the least charitable interpretation, if not outright lie, about everything he says and does. So did the things you think he’s being forgiven for actually happen in the way you think they did?

    Everybody loved the guy not so long ago, didn’t have a bad thing to say about him. He’s an old school liberal. Many good stories about his generosity, treatment of people and works for minority communities, but run for President against the democratic (not to mention many republicans) establishment, and have the temerity to beat them all in one of the most embarrassing upsets to the political elite establishment in recent history, and suddenly he’s the most evil, fascist, racist, homophobic, sexist man on earth.

    2+2 != 5.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Jaime, thank you for your comment – pax!

    Andy West, thank you also for your response. I largely agree with what you say, insofar as you talk about “right” and “left” political parties or movements. However, when it comes to individual beliefs, I still hove to my view that those who consider themselves to be left-wing (or who others might regard as left-wing) tend to be highly concerned about climate change, and often to push the extreme versions of it (“we’re all doomed unless we commit economic suicide, and destroy our lifestyles immediately). Similarly, most individuals who are sceptical about the alarmism around climate change, seem to me to be more right-wing in their views (at least seen from my soft left perspective).

    I remain bemused as to why people who claim to be concerned about the poorest in society are so keen to implement policies that will make the lives of very many of those people so much worse, ostensibly to save them from a climate chaos (which in this country at least will almost certainly not cause any or at least any significant problems for most people). Taking it one stage further, now that I’m on a roll, why are Scots politicians among the most zealous of the climate hysterics, when Scotland of all countries almost certainly stands to benefit from some warming, and when given Scotland’s insignificant GHG emissions, they can make no meaningful difference to anything anyway, whatever steps they take to commit economic suicide?

    Like

  41. Geez, there’s almost too much to take in, certainly to respond to.
    First, my 6.48am post was largely in agreement with that of PM610310. I originally started posting at Cliscep because it was largely apolitical and a very welcome change from Bishop Hill. You dealt sensibly (except for Brad!) with matters that interested me and mostly dealt with your resident troll (where are you Len?) in a pleasant fashion. In recent weeks the American election has cast its shadow over us. In an election where I don’t believe hardly any of us regulars can vote or even influence, political views are broadcast. And those views are so, so uneven.

    Second, Mark Hodgson responded largely in the same light-hearted way, and then more seriously picking up and expanding my main point that at Cliscep and other sceptical sites the political leanings of contributors is so one-sided. But explaining this disparity is difficult -as difficult to explain as accounting for the left-wing bias of British academia.

    Third Jaime weighed in with an admonishment to lighten up, despite Mark and myself trying to be light hearted.

    Andy came in with comments related to “likes” commenting ‘Likes’ don’t necessarily mean agreement with all therein, rather that the contribution / info / links are appreciated as useful angle of debate. But PM610310’s post and mine kicked off a whole debate (i.e. a useful angle of debate), yet as of a few minutes ago have garnered nary a like. Like says what it says on the tin.

    Later Andy commented upon “This US election is a highly important issue for the climate conflict “. I agree, but “The bigger issue” includes all the other matters that are required of a leader. No one should mistake my commitment to climate scepticism, yet four years ago I wouldn’t have voted for Trump and this year I have even less inclination to support him. After all those promises to look into climate science, the result has been nada.

    I’ll respond to later comments directed to me in a later post. But I do need to thank Mark for his support, which cannot have been easy in front of a potentially hostile crowd.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Of course I’m not a Trumpy! I just accept the principle that it’s more interesting and useful to reveal the flaws on your own “side” than to hunt with the pack. I only got into climate denial because of my confusion at seeing the usually sensible centre left media (the Guardian in my case) apparently muddled about climate change. Twelve years on it’s clear that there’s been a sea change in our politics and the left has become the ideologically rigid defenders of all kinds of unpleasantnesses, including cold war-mongering and support for censorship, both of which have been at work in the anti-Trump campaign.

    The point of quoting Rudi Giuliani at length was precisely that he’s the sort of person I wouldn’t normally spend a second listening to. There have been a lot of people on the left expressing themselves recently, e.g. Glenn Greenwald, who was sacked from the Intercept, which he founded, for expressing anti-Biden thoughts. It’s complicated and it’s not likely to get simpler soon.

    Liked by 2 people

  43. JIT, good points.

    “Not because not one of 650 MPs had any doubts. But because they were fearful of the consequences of speaking out.”

    But I’d argue rather, because of ‘a whole range of (largely subconscious) biases’, of which explicit fear of losing group status / acceptance / moral approval by speaking out, is just one. This is how cultures work.

    The Montana farmer scenario is likely a spin-off of Dan Kahan’s ‘Kentucky farmer’ scenario, which got a little oxygen within orthodoxy a few years back. In which such farmers still disbelieve (man-made) climate change due to their cultural bias (indeed including from peer pressure), and yet change their practices to accommodate it; thus this called “knowing disbelief”. I challenged Dan on the theory at cultural cognition blog some years back. There is *not* evidence to show that this is true, and he eventually fell back to ‘the jury is still out’, which I guess was fair enough. The quoted papers on farming practice show mainly that farmers in Kentucky or elsewhere have always adapted to the environment at practically every timescale, because climate has always changed psuedo-cyclically on various timescales anyhow. Plus as farming has gotten more and more competitive, they have had to constantly up their game in order to survive in the business (resulting in more produce out of less land in a continuous trend since farming began, but especially lately). So in fact they are *not* dong anything different to accommodate (specifically man-made) climate change.

    Like

  44. Mark: “I still hove to my view that those who consider themselves to be left-wing (or who others might regard as left-wing) tend to be highly concerned about climate change, and often to push the extreme versions of it (“we’re all doomed unless we commit economic suicide, and destroy our lifestyles immediately). Similarly, most individuals who are sceptical about the alarmism around climate change, seem to me to be more right-wing in their views (at least seen from my soft left perspective).”

    Well it depends which country you are in, and whether the issue arises in a reality-constrained (competes with other policies / issues) or unconstrained manner (free-form opinion), as these give different results. And you perhaps know more people who are climate-literate, but publics aren’t, which also makes a difference. Outside the US, and including the UK, political lean is not a particularly great predictor of climate attitudes, albeit you need to assess over different survey questions because it can be biased one way or the other depending upon how the issue is framed (e.g. fiscal framing gets different results to ‘clean environment’ framing, etc). Having said that, per my above, public right leaning is more skeptical than politicians right leaning. Interestingly, at the level of whole nations (and again excluding the US), religiosity as a predictor of climate attitudes across nations is an order of magnitude better than any political lean. This is a cultural interaction thing.

    Like

  45. Here’s Giuliani laying into Biden. I just don’t think people realise how utterly corrupt and criminal this man really is – a man who is currently running against Trump for the presidency of the United States! Unbelievable. That’s the reality now, so however much one may detest Trump for his lack of statesman-like qualities, his abrasiveness, his alleged racism, sexism, or other perceived shortcomings, I don’t think anybody can reasonably argue that he is not the better candidate to lead the US for the next 4 years. I argue that Trump is the ONLY major world leader who appears not to have been corrupted by corporatists and globalists. I hope I’m right. I don’t trust him 100% but if Biden gets in, the US is probably finished and along with it, western civilisation. I really do think that much is at stake with this election.

    Like

  46. Even further off-topic:

    Did you know that ‘Ypres’ was Agent Zigzag’s second wife’s first baptismal name? (Ypres Betty Farmer, born in 1917 in Cleobury Mortimer.)

    Lots of other Brit babies had ‘Ypres’ in their names 1915-1918 (usually as a second or third name). Horribly sad.

    FFFFF Wipers Fritz signing off

    Like

  47. On a related (sort of) point to the issue (or non-issue!) of the political bent of climate sceptics and climate alarmists, it seems that the dividing line on climate scepticism largely (but not entirely) transfers to scepticism about the political response to Covid-19. Pay a visit to our friend aTTPs’s site, and you’ll see the same sort of comments about Covid-policy scepticism as you’ll find there about climate sceptics. You won’t read any alternative views there.

    On the other hand, TinyCO2 (once a visitor to this parish, now encountered by me solely at Bishop Hill), although a climate sceptic of the first order, is largely in favour of the political response to Covid-19 in this country, if I interpret her comments correctly.

    All of which makes me think that sceptics are more diverse and free-thinking than alarmists, but then I would say that, wouldn’t I?

    Like

  48. Mark, you say:

    “On a related (sort of) point to the issue (or non-issue!) of the political bent of climate sceptics and climate alarmists, it seems that the dividing line on climate scepticism largely (but not entirely) transfers to scepticism about the political response to Covid-19. Pay a visit to our friend aTTPs’s site, and you’ll see the same sort of comments about Covid-policy scepticism as you’ll find there about climate sceptics.”

    I understand now why Tom Fuller doesn’t comment or write here anymore:

    “I understand why some people are climate skeptics. Many are intelligent people who have studied the issue.

    I can understand why some people are skeptics about various aspects of the scientific study of Covid-19 and attempts to deal with it.

    I think people who tick both boxes are in a bit of difficulty dealing with reality.”

    Which is quite funny really – or it would be, if present circumstances were less grave – seeing as how ATTP’s blog is powered exclusively by unicorn farts these days.

    https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/10/24/policy-in-the-language-of-science/#comment-183405

    Like

  49. “I can understand why some people are skeptics about various aspects of the scientific study of Covid-19 and attempts to deal with it.”

    ‘Attempts to deal with it’:

    1. Stay at Home Save the NHS
    2. Stay at Home Save Lives
    3. Stay at Home Save Christmas

    I don’t think he does understand. Personally, I’ve abandoned Covid scepticism, in that to be armed and dangerous and in possession of facts, science and data was a totally useless strategy. All that remains now is raw fury.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8898985/Boris-Johnson-announce-national-coronavirus-lockdown-WEEK-save-Christmas.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

    Like

  50. I can no longer read or comment on the Clim Cov Brexit Peace Prize article. My Mac takes one look at all those tweets and uploads and has a funny turn. Can anyone do anything about it?

    Liked by 1 person

  51. As an American who is living through what is happening in the United States right now, I have a few observations. I reflect on how Cicero outlined the techniques to get a crowd to disregard facts and instead follow emotions.
    I observe that historically when a person is falsely accused continuously then the accusers are not interested in justice.
    Until President Trump declared as a Republican, he was a moderate democrat, well known for decades for anti-racism stands, widely praised by black leaders, who famously forced the ending of racist property restrictions. In a long series of interviews over many years, Mr. Trump never once showed any inkling of any dubious stand with Russia. His business dealings we’re widely seen as smart, tough, legal and successful. Even when faced, in the 1990s, with the possible loss of his fortune, he came back. To much acclaim the NYT called him the “come back kid”.
    Fast forward to 2016. When Mr. Trump states the fact that some Ilegal immigrants are violent criminals, he is called a bigot who says all immigrants are violent criminals.
    For starters.
    Those claiming Me. Trump is an idiot/fraud/hitler/etc. are frankly just demonstrating the power, as described from Cicero to Orwell, of manipulation to overwhelm reason. The billionaire Oligarchs openly moving to “reset” the economy -while staying in charge- are using their media, big Tech, and government influence to create the perception Pepe who should know better have of President Trump.
    They lie about him to damage him, and lie for their pathetic obvious puppet, Biden, to protect him.
    Wake up. We are being subjected to the billionaire club moving to take over as much of the world as possible.
    Amoral billionaires and corrupt bureaucrats running the world- what could possibly go wrong?

    Liked by 2 people

  52. @ Geoff you could try i) installing firefox if you’re using safari and ii) using the add-on “noscript” to turn off facebook and twitter and whatever else is embedded on the page (it means you won’t see them of course).

    Of course, with fingers on the levers of power you could start a new thread as “Climate, Covid, Brexit, Peace Prize continued”?

    Like

  53. Mark, I think Verdun is the winner, if there can be such a thing. Thousands of WW1 babies were christened ‘Verdun’, most of them in 1916.

    Oddly, there seem to have been only about fifty Somme babies in England. I think there were more Louvain babies than that. Perhaps babies named in commemoration of the Somme were named after individual battles instead.

    Climate babies? I can find only two in England: a 19th-century cobbler called Climate Hines and the 21st-century covid faith-healer Archbishop Climate Wiseman*. (There’s also an Edwin Montague Climate Stranack, but I think that’s a typo for Cliburn.)

    I can’t find any Influenza or Covid babies.

    ===
    *AKA Bclimax, among other names. As Bclimax, he offers an app that will order you ‘taxi rides, food, deliveries, city motor bikes, and private jets & Planes’. I was thinking of flying to Sicily next week to take my shoes and socks off and give a speech about preventing climate change at a secret (oops!) event organised by Google. I’ll probably install Archbishop Climate Wiseman’s app, give him all my banking details and book a private jet. And if I start feeling unwell on the way home, I’ll use his app to order some of his anti-covid oil and string. If that order doesn’t go through – perhaps because my bank account is empty – I’m sure the Archbishop will have another app that can help me.

    Onwards and upwards!

    Like

  54. Geoff: Sorry about that. I’ll look into possible solutions.

    FYI, Google Chrome on my Mac brings it up fine – if slowly – but Safari on my iPhone also gives up, as you’re finding. I’m the main culprit in embedding too many tweets, I expect, and I assume (but don’t know for sure) this is what is causing the problem. As Jit says, a new thread might make sense. I’ll look into it later today.

    Like

  55. Pingback: Malicious Intent on Climate and Covid | Climate Scepticism

  56. Jit, Richard
    Thanks. I’ve fixed the problem with a new post, to continue the discussion from here and from “…PeacePrize.” Hope that’s OK. Tweets certainly slow down loading, but I think it may have been a link to a paper on Hyperbole that automatically embedded the thing.

    Like

  57. Geoff,

    I’ve removed the dodgy hyperlink in the hope that it helps.

    Or should that just be ‘dodgy link’?

    Like

  58. Jaime,

    Anything on Fox News outside of Chris Wallace is spin, propaganda or outright lies. Trump has done nothing for the economy. He inherited a functioning economy which had grown for 7 ½ years and has not improved it. Pre pandemic his performance on jobs, growth and inflation was approximately the same as Obama’s last few years (and Obama had to deal with an obstructive Senate – hence Trump/McConnell have been able to ram through a succession of right wing /christian extremist judges into the courts including the Supreme Court).

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/05/trump-obama-economy/
    https://news.yahoo.com/myth-trump-economy-121817487.html

    I get that climate sceptics are happy that Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Except in the minds of impressionable children and the rest of the cult, there is no such thing as a climate “crisis” but Trump is isolated and has zero credibility. I doubt he even understands or cares about it. I am more concerned with real problems (like most real people). I am from Australia, and vote for the conservatives but have lived here for 2 + years and Trump is a disaster.

    I’ve seen the US up close and personal for the past 2 years, and even living in Northern California, 2 hours north of San Francisco is as far as you need to go to find dangerous people with guns. I certainly wouldn’t be living in Michigan right now, and I am definitely staying off the streets next week. Trump has made all of this worse.

    Like

  59. pm6….
    You are living in an alternate reality that ignores facts and data.
    But thanks for the chuckles.
    Perhaps living in Melbourne and dealing with the emerging Chinese police state in Victoria will be more to your liking.

    Like

  60. pm6….
    Quoting the Bezos Post, which is the newspaper that started the Russian scam, about Judges is literally like quoting Pravda or the CCP directly.
    Wow, you are a pathetic little troll.

    Like

  61. Could we all exhibit more self control and not distribute insults at those which we disagree with politically? One of the main reasons for my participation here is that good manners ruled. That seems to be under threat.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. From what I’ve read, it would seem that it all depends on the period you’re looking at when comparing Trump’s economic performance with Obama’s. If you look at the end of Obama’s term as President and compare it to the same length of time at the beginning of Trump’s term, Trump comes out well on top, but other comparison periods don’t reveal too much difference. The point is made that federal government can only have so much influence on the economy anyway, which is probably true. Certainly, Covid has had a big impact and that’s been down to individual State governers choosing to close down their economies. What’s undeniable is that Trump has performed exceptionally well on getting to record low unemployment and he’s done much more for blacks and hispanics than Obama did – despite being so terribly racist! With Biden threatening to close the country down and dismantle the oil industry, Trump’s definitely a safer pair of hands than Biden on the future US economy. If only we had our own Trump in Downing Street; instead we’ve got an avid ‘nuke the economy/build back Greener’ idiot in charge.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. A thought on US presidential election polls.

    In 2016 polls tended to converge towards a narrow-to-comfortable national lead for Clinton of 1-6%. They weren’t too far out. Only one, by USC for the Los Angeles Times, gave Trump a lead of 5%. Quite wrong, of course, or, if you prefer, right for the wrong reasons. I had a look at their methodology, which were quite different from all the others, since they went back each week to the same respondents, instead of taking a new sample each time. A journalist with an ounce of curiosity would have made story out of that and got himself a scoop.

    This year, a few days before the election, the polls are all over the place, giving Biden a lead of between 1 and 14%, with each pollster giving fairly consistent results week after week. With that kind of spread one at least is likely to be right. The biggest Biden lead (14%) is predicted by polls for the Guardian, the Independent, and the Boston Herald. Rasmussen Reports is alone in predicting a close result – a 1% lead for Biden this week, and even a 1% lead for Trump a week ago. They claim to have got the result right last time, though I can’t see them cited on the Wiki page for 2016.

    Most polls tend to have sample sizes of around 1000, which gives them a margin of error of about 3%. Note that this margin only applies to a perfectly constructed sample, which means getting the right number of respondents in key groups, which, in my far off market research days, meant age, sex, social class and geographical region. To these have been added race and educational attainment, making filling all the cells in a sample of 1000 an impossible task. It was difficult enough doing face to face interviews, but at least you could be sure of what sex and in what region people were, and you could have a good guess at their age and social class. Now interviews are by mobile phone, and there’s apparently a refusal rate of over 90%. Given these potential sources of error, it’s amazing how self-consistent polls are, with Rasmussen regularly giving a Biden lead of 3 to minus 1%, and the Guardian ranging from 10 to 14%. No doubt they “weight” the results to keep them in line with their previous guesstimates.

    Liked by 1 person

  64. Geoff, I’ve noticed exactly the same over the last weeks and days. And I think this also means that, while indeed one of them is likely to be right, simply taking the average (or indeed the poll integrator outputs, which have never been below ~6.5% if memory serves and have been usually nearer or indeed above 8 in the last days), may not be a great way to estimate which one 0: I’ve seen some discussion about the weightings which are being added for ‘quiet Trumpers’, which apparently a number of polls are doing, but how would one estimate this? Maybe those biased Rep add a big weight for this, and those biased Dem, a little one! I also noted that some polls occur much more frequently than others, their regular pulse so presumably pulling the average their way more than others. If you want to have more influence, just do more poll cycles!

    Liked by 1 person

  65. Facts…
    When dealing with trolls is like pearls before swine…
    But here are a few:
    Total lack of evidence that Judges nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate have been anything less than professional and mainstream in their rulings.
    WaPo as propaganda:
    The Russia craze, started by WaPo, proved to be completely fabricated.
    Pretending that only skeptics claim that consensus believers call it a climate crisis:
    XR, Australian climate policy, the false claims about the GBR, SLR, storms, floods, islands “sinking”, etc.
    Trump inherited a US economy with the lowest growth levels over right years in many decades.
    His predecessor claimed it was the new normal.
    By 2020 the US economy was growing at its highest rated ever, factories and industries were returning from China, wages and employment for all Americans was highest in decades.

    Liked by 2 people

  66. As the OP who became something of an absentee landlord on this thread, can I especially thank Geoff Chambers for his really honest and humble distlllation of the ‘big picture’ as he saw it, then his follow ups.

    Tucker Carlson is also an interesting thinker. A critic of Trump, for example, over his flip-flop policy on regime change in Syria, giving a platform to Democrat candidate Tulsi Gabbard and others of independent mind on that thorny subject. Carlson’s summing up of the decision today will do me.

    Liked by 1 person

  67. What is the Big Picture? It’s not whether Hunter leveraged (awful word) his pop’s position to get a job he didn’t deserve, nor whether Joe faced off against CornPop or someone back in 1966 or somewhen. It’s not Trump vs Biden & the most important election, er, since the last one. Trump is not going to be the climate sceptics’ saviour. He might be a stone in the shoe of the alarmists for 4 years but hey! Big Picture, what’s 4 years? Naught.

    So what is the Big Picture? Is it that we’re all in this together, a motley crew hurtling thro’ space on a glorious rock to a destination that is perfectly well known for all of us as individuals but unknown and unknowable for us as a species? Dunno. It seems that our world has never been better for people. When sceptics see climate policies imposed from on high that we think will slow or reverse human progress, it is natural to get moderately cross. Others don’t see what to us is perfectly obvious: that most of the western world is mobilising for war to fight against what is little more than a phantom.

    We probably get a bit crazy that those around us are calling for more war. In this world worthless plastic trash is called a commodity and ends up washing into the sea or is heaped up in recycling centres to eventually “accidentally” catch fire. In this Big Picture few of us look up at the stars – whether figuratively in seeing beyond the limits of our parochial first world troubles or literally, as city dwellers unawed by a cosmos we are blind to.

    Is the West fading? Burdened by guilt, decadent, out of ideas, and, yes, chasing phantoms as if this is some great project that ought to unite us in common endeavour. A moon shot.

    In the Big Picture, CO2 rose to the top of the to-do list when all the other major problems were solved, or at least heavily pruned. We may have never had it so good, but there’s a hint that we may never have it this good again. A lot of things point that way if you’re a pessimist: asset prices, low inflation, wage stagnation, the demise of manufacturing, even automation, the lead weight of climate policies, and the rise of confident but unscrupulous regimes.

    I dunno. I prefer to be an optimist, but just how rational is that?

    But I think the bike shed ought to be rust-coloured, & full of abandoned, vandalised bikes with occasional stray wheels forlornly padlocked to it. The air should taste a little bitter, as if someone has burnt something made of plastic. There should be little green domes of acrocarpous moss growing in the cracks in the concrete, & someone will have used a spray can to write ACAB in large letters on the back wall. I could go on about my dream bike shed, but I won’t.

    But seriously folks, I don’t care who wins, but really hope that the losing side accepts the result in good grace.

    Liked by 5 people

  68. Here is Melbourne, Australia treats people who dare to protest the lockdown.
    Please explain how this is a good thing:

    Liked by 2 people

  69. This sums up what I believe is actually happening in the US. And apparently much of the rest of the West.

    Like

  70. Hit,
    Losing in good grace to a revolting mixture of bureaucrats, thugs, racists and freakish billionaires is not going to happen.
    It can’t happen.
    Their coalition is wildly unstable. The lies they tell too widely separated from reality. Their victory will lead to decades of tyranny, civil war, suppression, censorship, lawlessness, , racial violence.
    Do you think the censorship cancer will suddenly stop spreading? The shitty irrational magical thinking of “climate science” has already spread and degrades other areas of policy and science.
    Look at the anti-scientific lockdowns, now indulged in violently around the world.
    The circular reasoning and anti-historical critical race theory is deeply rooted in the West now. It is a mind and soul killing meme.
    The US bureaucrats are brazenly talking about a coup against President Trump if he wins.
    The FBI knew about Biden corruption nearly a year ago. They had the hard drive that actually exonerates the President for what he was impeached for.
    And puts trolls blame Mr. Trump for this?
    Only a fool doesn’t see this for what it is.
    What is coming could easily make the French terror Lenin’s terror and the Cultural revolution look like child’s play.
    All to please some crazed obsessive billionaires and their lackeys.
    Those billionaires and their lackeys will be surprised when the rest of their fucking coalition figures out who’s actually still in charge.

    Liked by 2 people

  71. Beth: We must do a thread on the Australian situation.

    Jit: Thanks for that. I think!

    Here’s a closing thought on the US situation today from our sponsor.

    Well, he is for all climate blogs.

    Like

  72. I agree with Hunterson. I’m not optimistic. Even if Trump wins, I’m not optimistic. America is a great nation, a powerful nation still and with Trump at the helm, it may just start to turn the tide against this madness. Without him, all is lost. But the rot runs deep, very deep and it has infested every major country on earth, every major political party, almost without exception the entirety of western academia and its erstwhile ‘prestigious’ intellectual institutions, and it has also infested the judicial systems and police forces. Trump is going to have to weed out the rot in his own country before he can even begin to persuade other nations that there is a way out of this globalist tyranny racing ahead of itself now to literally take possession of our lives and our bodies and extinguish the joy of living and being free, which should be the birthright of every living thing on the planet.

    There is zero chance that the Democrats and their supporters will lose with good grace; far more liklely they will try to burn down cities in their anguish at losing. If Trump loses, I suspect many Republicans will feel cheated. That’s the way it is. The Poles are too far apart now, the space in between filled with bitterness, angst and resentment, for there to be ‘good grace’ on either side. It’s not going to happen. Any peace now will be attained only on the other side of a war.

    Liked by 1 person

  73. HUNTERSON7 3 Nov 2020 11.06 am
    Good video. You can hear what the demonstrators are saying. Police tactics seemed to be to arrest anyone who made a peace sign. The journalist mentions quite casually how Nazis too were just obeying orders. In context, in the middle of a classic case of state suppression of basic freedoms, it makes perfect sense. The question we’ve been churning over for a time about the Nazi analogy can be rephrased thus: “Is an analogy ok when made in a certain context, in the heat of a moment of confrontation, and not ok when written outside that context?” (France is faced with a similar dilemma over a stupid cartoon, but all debate on the subject is auto-censored.)

    Liked by 1 person

  74. RICHARD DRAKE

    can I especially thank Geoff Chambers […] Tucker Carlson is also an interesting thinker.

    I think I should be glowing with pride for that. If I only knew who Tucker Carlson was. (Now I do.)

    Steve McIntyre has also been busy with a useful timeline of the Biden story. It’s on Scribd which I’m afraid will upload itself automatically if I link to it. You can find the link here.
    https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/11/hunter-bidens-story-matters-especially-if-joe-biden-wins.html#more

    Liked by 1 person

  75. AIME

    I’m not optimistic… Any peace now will be attained only on the other side of a war.

    Cheer up. I don’t like to see you like this. My GP recommended Magnesium supplements against depression. Apparently we don’t get enough in our vegetables because of modern intensive farming methods.

    On post election violence: the fact that all the pundits are predicting it is a sign it may not happen. Hundreds of thousands of armed Americans have been confronting each other in the streets for months now, and there have been relatively few deaths. Nothing like the shootouts that are a regular feature of everyday life in Chicago or Marseille.

    Liked by 3 people

  76. Geoff, thanks, I’m going from ultra-gloomy to slightly upbeat and positive in ever decreasing time periods lately, which probably means I should just stop reading ‘news’ of fast moving events on line. When I said ‘war’, I wasn’t meaning specifically violent civil unrest, I was envisaging more a broad spectrum conflict of ideology, of cultures, peaking in the coming weeks and months, sparked specifically by the re-election of Trump (if that happens). I was thinking more of a war for the soul of western civilisation. I’m almost certain that there will be violence on the streets of the US – how widespread or serious it becomes, I don’t know.

    Liked by 1 person

  77. I was shopping last night and the supermarket was being shipped out as if a big storm is coming. I casually asked the young clerk who monitors the self-checkout line if the shopping was intense. I always use self-checkout when available and have no challenges using this option. After her answer, she looked at me with a sort of pity, and proceeded then to ask for my few items to check me out and did so.. She gave the vibe of someone who really feels sorry for someone else.
    I am working as voting poll center volunteer today. I also worked the early voting. Our location is new and on a lightly used street. So far all is quiet. 🙏👌

    Liked by 1 person

  78. @ Geoff quarter to five

    Steve McIntyre’s timeline: for such shenanigans, the word swamp was invented. Compared to this, the “golden showers” etc was thin gruel indeed (pardon the slightly nauseating mixture of imagery, which was accidental, but I’ve left it).

    Liked by 1 person

  79. An interesting aspect of the McIntyre data is that Biden’s supporters have been largely insulated from the financial impacts of the Covid policy disaster. Teachers, government workers and very wealthy never had a paycheck at risk from the anti-scientific lockdown hysteria.

    Liked by 1 person

  80. Evening Jamie,

    Maximilian Auffhammer recently noted- “On top of this comes a significantly more conservative supreme court, which makes me worry about Massachusetts versus EPA, the case that gave the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollution under the Clean Air Act.”

    https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2020/11/02/sticks-and-stones-or-prices-and-quantities/

    If president Trump is not reelected I anticipate some states and many heavy industries joining forces to petition the courts for a review of the endangerment finding.

    Liked by 1 person

  81. Hasta luego

    Like

  82. On Trump declaring victory from the White House (which he may not have exactly done), and accusing the Dems of fraud, multiple viewpoints are available. Here are two responses in the last hour that amused me.

    That joke went down like a bucket of sick with traditional Republican UN-sceptics of course.

    This I also enjoyed, from two folks who voted for Trump, one with more enthusiasm than the other:

    The fear of fascist takeover is of course very real. The fear is real, I mean. And that makes people feel that its referent is real. So they may do terrible things. Hold tight.

    Like

  83. Difficult to untangle all what’s happening at the moment, with the media lying, but it seems like PA stopped counting and went home when it was obvious Trump was winning! Trump has declared victory, perhaps prematurely or not, but it’s looking that way. Nobody is ever going to trust the media again after all this – they’ve shown themselves to be rotten to the very core. Meanwhile, here in the UK, the lockdown lies are coming out fast and furious, though if the vote goes ahead, Labour will still probably swing it. Effectively, the government has delegated power to the Labour party to decide the fate of the nation.

    Like

  84. Trump was ahead in WI and then the Democrats suddenly ‘found’ 110,000 votes. This is looking very bad. Attempted voter fraud to get Biden in. America hangs on a knife-edge. Civil war looks likely if they manage to pull this coup off; it’s a possibility if they don’t. Tomorrow, Britain is due to be shut down again. Christ. What a mess.

    Liked by 1 person

  85. Here’s an anniversary I missed in all the excitement.

    “Our planet’s greatest challenge.”

    Er, no. Not even close.

    The process of dealing with Covid can still I feel bang some sense into some particularly thick skulls. Plus the resulting financials.

    And Trump. Not that the fight is going to be pretty from here on in.

    That subthread from Jason Beale is worth a read.

    Like

  86. Just saw Philadelphia city commissioner Al Schmidt interviewed on CNN. He says something like: “We’re counting day and night, as you can see behind me.”

    Behind him is a vast hangar filled with empty desks. Not a soul in sight. Then three casually dressed figures cross the screen – the morning shift of vote counters? Dunno, but at least two of them had bulky looking backpacks – sandwiches for two days heavy counting?

    Liked by 2 people

  87. Does anyone know what’s going on? Twitter have censored the President of the US! The election hinges on a few key states in the NE which have apprently stopped counting? Not declared?

    Liked by 1 person

  88. So now it is taking direct corruption of the vote counting process to save Biden from embarrassing defeat.
    I personally watched a polling judge issue ballots to people who openly stated they had not registered to vote. The County clerk’s office went from stating not to issue ballots to non-registered voters to stating, against state law, everyone who shows up gets to at least vote provisionally.

    Like

  89. Across the country, if democrats can control the vote and the President is winning, there are suddenly problems with the counting. Computers crash, pipes break and flood buildings, ballots are “found”.
    This rebellion must be crushed

    Liked by 1 person

  90. I don’t think we know Jaime – nor, in my picture, does anyone, though I don’t doubt some are desperately plotting to make us think we know what ain’t so, perhaps including the Philadelphia city commissioner Geoff has just had the pleasure of viewing.

    I respect Bernie Sanders for spelling out the scenario we seem to be facing, on 23rd October, if not all the guy’s politics, Green New Deal included:

    Like

  91. Richard, Sanders seems very sure about what will happen doesn’t he? It’s odd though that all or nearly all of the postal ballots are Democrat.

    Like

  92. Jaime: ah ok. The ‘mostly peaceful’ protests aka looting in Democrat controlled cities would have been another possible answer. Both trying to ensnare Trump. It’s been a monumentally dirty campaign, the way I see it. They have been desperate to get rid of hombre naranja. The big picture of why remains fascinating.

    Like

  93. Whilst people are obsessing about Nazi comparisons on another thread, with the future of the free world hanging in the balance, I thought this was rather important:

    “I have not had time to delve deeply enough into the Wisconsin numbers to say definitively that voter fraud occurred there on a large scale. I will say this, however: one of two things is true. The first is that Wisconsin experienced a voter turnout that neither it nor any other state has ever come close to in the modern era, on behalf of the worst candidate nominated in the modern era. The second is that the Democrats used voter fraud on a massive scale to stake a claim to Wisconsin’s electoral votes.”

    Wow.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/11/massive-voter-fraud-in-wisconsin.php

    Liked by 2 people

  94. Here’s some news from Willis, plus his tragic but all-too-credible commentary.

    Like

  95. Before he went to bed in Toronto (I assume) Steve had two interactions I found instructive, one critical of the Trump campaign and one where he admitted that he himself had gone beyond the evidence in what he’d said. Here goes.

    One lawyerly type claiming to be Canadian (I never entirely trust such claims from pseudonyms, until I know them) disagreed with Steve on that:

    while someone else saw a weakness in Trump from well before:

    Blaming Trump will be in full swing soon. And calling him a fascist, of course.

    But it’s right that Steve is free to make his own criticism. This stuff is hard.

    The other interaction got into the weeds of what evidence there is for voting fraud.

    Steve as ever admits when he’s gone beyond the evidence, just as he always did on Climate Audit in the thick of ridiculous criticism from Mann and acolytes. Respect as always. And this sounded just a little bit hopeful.

    Overall, though, I think Steve is thinking it’s too little too late. Few have done more for the cause of truth in this area though.

    Liked by 1 person

  96. Jaime: Bannon has been taken down by YouTube. (Interestingly, this didn’t seem to take effect at the same time in all locales.) Here’s some relevant commentary from three long-time climate sceptics – Briggs, Steve Mc, Stockwell.

    Excessive language (and analogies) are an early Christmas present for these guys.

    Like

  97. Sadly, I think Steve may be correct regarding the rollout of the Biden hard drive the FBI withheld for months.
    But the rebellion/coup is deeper, more powerful and more organized than most of us realized until far too late.
    The vote counting scam, the complete buy-in by all media, the ruthless Orwellian nature of “coverage” on CNN etc is mind boggling.
    USA is facing a post Constitutional, post Republic governance. “banana repubvlic” may be too kind for what these wicked nerds have concocted.

    Liked by 1 person

  98. Hunterson: I too agree about the flawed “rollout of the Biden hard drive”. Even though Bannon and Giuliani are smart guys they didn’t understand the power of crowdsourcing. It may have been a fatal mistake. But, as you say, many have underestimated the level of organisation on the other side.

    All the same, I appreciate the wag who produced this.

    Like

  99. An eye-witness tweets:

    Once again, a bit of humour helps with the bitter pill:

    Like

  100. This seems very fair comment, from a reluctant Trump voter:

    Like

  101. Steve Mc though is debunking some Trump-supporting theories.

    Wherever the data takes us. That’s us at Cliscep too, right?

    Liked by 2 people

  102. Steve continues to learn, and discard his own theories if the data don’t support them:

    The big emphasis from the Trump campaign on substantial dirty tricks in the centre of Philadelphia doesn’t seem to be supported by the data either. There obviously were some – but not enough to make a material difference. They have got to work fast on the suburbs, to see if there is evidence of significant malpractice there, before bothering the Supreme Court.

    Like

  103. Richard, with all sincere respect to you and Steve, the democrat controlled vote counting machine does not act at all as if they agree that there are no significant voting irregularities.
    They are acting exactly like banana republic ballot fraud specialists.
    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
    Don’t over complicate this: it only diverts from the secretive, blatant vote fraud.
    Steve’s analysis can’t explain away halting vote counting and then minutes later walking in coolers and backpacks.
    Innocence does not explain violating multiple legal orders to allow meaningful witnessing of what is supposed to under the law to be a transparent process.

    Liked by 1 person

  104. It’s a globalist coup and if it succeeds, it is very, very bad news for the UK and and for America and indeed Western civilisation. Boris the Red has already come out in support of Beijing Biden, even as it is clear that the election results will be contested. At best, this means that he has made himself an enemy of the US president Trump if he is re-elected after this fiasco, at worst it means that BoJo will be a globalist Biden/Harris whore with whom he will work closely to tear down our respective democracies, annihilate civil liberties and proceed full speed ahead with the planned ‘Great Reset’ now that trump is out of the way. The fact that these scum all seem so sure of themselves worries me greatly. Do NOT expect lockdown to end on 2nd December. The old world did not pass away, it was stolen literally from beneath our noses and the new world will not be a nice place.

    Like

  105. Hunterson, Steve’s analysis, interesting though it may be, fails to recognise the reality on the ground. Votes counted where observers have been excluded are not legal, votes from dead people are not legal. Those votes must be excluded. Let’s see what happens when they are, then decide if a Biden win is remotely believable – supposedly he polled 8.9 million more votes than Obama in 2012 and virtually every time the guy appeared in public, he was an absolute disaster. Whatever happens now, America is set for years of internal strife.

    Liked by 1 person

  106. Looking for other explanations for the data …

    and Steve has also just retweeted this

    I’m also leaving Cliscep at this point. Could be for just two weeks or maybe two months. In which case, Happy Christmas all. Or two years.

    Like

  107. I’ll come back on here occasionally just to chat about the good old days when we thought we could beat the Green blob and its ever more menacing and militant political wing with science, data, facts, logic, rationality and common sense. But in the end, they just ignored all that and steam-rollered over everything – science, the Enlightenment, democracy, human rights, civilisation, humanity.

    Liked by 1 person

  108. Looks like it’s me, (at least in the Northern Hemisphere.) Anyone want to take over a second hand climate blog, 2 million words on the clock, slightly foxed, only twelve previous owners?

    Liked by 1 person

  109. Hmmm…
    I’m clearly not in tune with what is going on at this amazing site.
    I honestly am not following what’s happening.
    But the devolution into post rational, post-Western culture seems to be accelerated.
    I guess our small bit of free thinking/ free speaking is not isolated from the ebb tide.

    Liked by 3 people

  110. It was the Steve Bannon War Room video episode 476 Geoff. Apparently, he talked about having Fauci’s head on a pike and all the usual suspects freaked out. He got permanently banned from Twitter for it. Still OK to make comedy sketches depicting a severed Trump head as far as I know; in fact that sketch will probably make a comeback by popular demand.

    Like

  111. The maculate conception of this new world order: billionaires funding racist and fascist thugs, media coordination that would leave Minitruth awe struck, daily hates morphed into 24×7 hates…
    Watching this coalition that is made up of inherently unlike components survive will be like watching late Roman Republic machinations. Maybe even late Empire, with emperors in and out of power sometimes every few months…
    But to be clear about this site:
    I have enjoyed the many fascinating articles, the underlying optimism that there is hope for data driven narratives, the independence of the many contributors, and the tolerance with which my terrible typing has been treated.
    If the Fellowship of this Ring is moving on, well it has been a wonderful journey.
    Very best regards and best of luck to all.

    Liked by 4 people

  112. going on recent comments at this blog, the old Laurel and Hardy Catchphrase seems apt – “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into!”

    which from wiki – “Most times, after Hardy said that phrase, Laurel would start to cry, exclaiming “Well, I couldn’t help it…” and begin to whimper while speaking gibberish”

    ps – not meant to apply to anyone in particular, just to lighten the mood 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  113. Hunterson: That is much appreciated. As everyone here is, by me.

    I should perhaps have said that 7th November was always going to be a big change for me, partly to do with other work, and my departure (of indeterminate length, but for at least two weeks) isn’t to do with recent controversies. I will continue to make full backups!

    Like

  114. I’m clutching at little rays of hope and probably will do until Jan 6th. Apparently, Biden’s victory violates Benford’s Law which can be used as evidence of election fraud. The fact that Wiki have revised their entry on November 5th speaks of the same old tactics beloved of the Left – if you don’t like the science, then change it, or ignore it. Bring in new ‘experts’ who disagree with it.

    An interesting thread here though:

    Liked by 1 person

  115. I won’t be posting here any more (at least on this thread.) My ancient Mac can’t cope with so many tweets and takes ages to upload and get to the end of the thread. When everybody else has left I shall be banning uploads from Twitter. It’s perfectly easy to copy and paste the content of a tweet. All you have to do is miss out the first and last character of the tweet and add it in later, and it won’t automatically upload itself and send you off to Twitterland.

    HUNTERSON7

    I have enjoyed the many fascinating articles, … and the tolerance with which my terrible typing has been treated.

    Hang on. It’s not over yet.

    I shouldn’t be telling you this, but WordPress allows me to change anything I like on this site, including comments. I’ve sometimes used it correct spelling when it gets too out of hand, but I can use it to transform Jaime into Zorro if I like, print all Richard’s posts in gothic typeface, or make Alan Kendall admit that he hacked the UEA servers. So far I’ve resisted the temptation, but my patience has its limits…

    Like

  116. JAIME
    Benford’s Law?? I love the graphs, but to anyone who doesn’t have a degree in statistics it sounds like reading chicken’s entrails. The media would kill it with ridicule. Can you imagine a half a dozen conservative judges, known for their purist interpretation of the constitution, announcing: “Biden had too many threes and fours in his scores – we’re handing it to Donald”?

    Like

  117. Like I said Geoff, I’m clutching at straws, hoping that justice, logic and reason will win the day, that if it can be demonstrated in a court of law that Biden’s vote tally is statistically extremely unlikely or impossible, then combined with all the other evidence which the Trump team might collect, the baying hyenas of the media may be shocked into stunned silence.

    Like

  118. Here is a useful resource on Benford’s law. It is a paper titled: ‘Benford’s Law and the Detection of Election Fraud’, and it was published in the journal ‘Political Analysis’. I will not supply a link because it is to a pdf file, and I know this causes a problem for some readers. However, for those who cannot access the paper, I reproduce its abstract below:

    “The proliferation of elections in even those states that are arguably anything but democratic has given rise to a focused interest on developing methods for detecting fraud in the official statistics of a state’s election returns. Among these efforts are those that employ Benford’s Law, with the most common application being an attempt to proclaim some election or another fraud free or replete with fraud. This essay, however, argues that, despite its apparent utility in looking at other phenomena, Benford’s Law is problematical at best as a forensic tool when applied to elections. Looking at simulations designed to model both fair and fraudulent contests as well as data drawn from elections we know, on the basis of other investigations, were either permeated by fraud or unlikely to have experienced any measurable malfeasance, we find that conformity with and deviations from Benford’s Law follow no pattern. It is not simply that the Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or a fair election fraudulent. Its ‘‘success rate’’ either way is essentially equivalent to a toss of a coin, thereby rendering it poblematical at best as a forensic tool and wholly misleading at worst.”

    In accordance with my recently imposed self-moderation, I do not intend commenting upon the paper’s contents.

    Liked by 1 person

  119. In accordance with my not wanting to (be seen) to dominate the narrative here at Cliscep, I shall leave readers to read carefully John’s cited paper plus ponder the applicability and the reliability of Benford’s Law in the detection of fraud by reading beyond that study. It’s a fascinating statistical tool with a wide range of applications. Forensic evidence? Probably not, but used in conjunction with other evidence, it might be a useful part of the prosecution’s case.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffsb&q=Benford%27s+Law+success+rate&ia=web

    Like

  120. As a point of clarification, the general utility of Benford’s Law in the detection of fraud is not the issue. It is indeed a fascinating statistical tool with a wide range of applications. The cited paper is only concerned with its proven applicability when looking specifically at election fraud (which is the issue). The data under analysis has to meet a number of criteria for Benford’s Law to apply. The question, presumably, is whether or not those criteria are met by election returns data.

    As an aside, I first came across Benford’s Law at university when I offered up the results of a physics lab experiment for marking. My data should have obeyed Benford’s Law, but my tutor pointed out that it didn’t. I was aghast at the implied allegation that I had fiddled the results of my experiment, and I would have lodged a formal complaint had it not been true.

    The moral of the story: Don’t cut corners, no matter how keen you are to get to the student’s union bar for a bevy or two.

    Like

  121. Voter fraud / rigged election is a delusional conspiracy theory on par with Qanon. Trump’s lawsuits will fail because there is no evidence of systematic fraud. Trump lost because too many Republicans and Independents turned against him.

    This is a reasonable explanation as to what happened. The Democrats achieved a massive turnout primarily represented through early voting and mail ballots. The Republicans – concerned that this would have down ballot effects worked very hard to get their turnout up on election day, which they achieved – arguably better than the Democrats.

    Aware that a sizable chuck of their constituency was potentially planning to vote for Biden, they pushed the message that it was important to vote GOP in the House and Senate even if they were planning on voting for Biden. This seems to have panned out, hence preserving GOP Senate majority (Georgia runoffs notwithstanding), and picking up House seats. A lot of voters split their ticket voting opposite party to their Presidential pick, the same thing happened with Obama.

    According to Rep Don Bacon (Nebraska 2nd) his District voted for Biden by 5 – 6 %, yet re-elected him by the same margin. Interviewed on radio on Saturday afternoon after the AP had called the election, he said that much of his conservative GOP were fairly repulsed by Trump, quote “the tweets, the insults, the constant lies, and concerns about handling of the pandemic”. Last time they “held their nose”, but this time many of them decided to vote him out, figuring that Mitch McConnell would still be in control of the Senate.

    Like

  122. pms and “the nothing to see here move on”scam is great except for the fact that it’s made up.
    Just like the “Trump colluded with Russia”, or “Trump colluded with Ukraine”, or “ANTIFA is just an idea”. Or the rationalization that censorship by billionaires is good for a democratic process.
    The fact is democrat controlled vote counts have been crooked for decades, and “found”votes always favor democrats.
    The media, last time anyone not ignorant of American law, doesn’t have a Constitutional role in picking the President.
    The overwhelming evidence that in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona Nevada and Georgia, democrat controlled vote counts violated existing law and) or ignore Court orders.
    Back to Trump alienated…
    You mean alienated like when corporate media would literally parse inflammatory false quotes out of what the President said?
    Or how any achievement and f his was dismissed, ignored or lied about?
    Or how false accusations, known to be false, were treated seriously by media?
    Or how physical evidence of Biden’s long known corruption, like his racism, we’re just censored?
    Fortunately we have at least a few days more.
    Gore, when his Florida team was caught trying to corruptly flip the 2000 election, was praised for his refusal to concede.
    I think President Trump fighting to show the 100% correlation between “dirty elections” and “democrat vote counting” is worth it.

    Like

  123. So the Democrats rig the Presidential election, but forget to rig the Senate and the House. We’re all waiting for the overwhelming evidence.

    Outside of the cult everyone sees Trump for what he is – a con-man, serial bankrupt and obnoxious reality TV personality, and not all that intelligent.

    I guess there will be a great need for de-programming therapists once the spell is finally broken.

    Like

  124. What a great pity it is that this locale could not have been a US election free zone. The outcome will obviously have great implications for how climate change is approached, but it is not this aspect that is being pursued. Instead we have claim and counterclaim over whether burst water pipes were politically motivated or whether thousands and thousands of votes could magically appear overnight. Only farce relieves the gloom as when Trump’s mouthpiece mistakenly holds a press conference in a garden-centre car park; the centre later apparently selling badges “Make America Rake Again”.

    Like

  125. It is at once informative, entertaining yet a bit pathetic to watch the TDS afflicted go through their stunted intellectual responses to the issues. Instead of dealing with evidence, they arm wave and claim it’s all just deluded cult belief. Perhaps one can find a point to address the issues, but if experience is a guide, don’t hold one’s breath.

    Like

  126. Thank heavens the Pointman is still with us. A breath of sanity. Good grief, Biden is not EVEN the President Elect at this moment in time. Yet we have our utter disgrace of a PM and government ministers congratulating him and Harris and looking forward to working together to further the Covid crisis and climate crisis scams. My life will be complete if, in the New Year, I can just see the smile wiped off of all these fraudsters’ faces. Of course, if they went to jail that would be even better.

    Like

  127. My concern with the comments here is that many people seemed to think that Trump has been/is somehow a positive for countering the climate cult. Trump is a non stop liar and con-artist. Anything associated with him is diminished. The pandemic demonstrated his incompetence and allowed the climate cult to describe him as anti-science which is true enough based on some of his statements. Fortunately the pandemic has pushed the climate “crisis” off the media radar, so by the time the virus is under control, Trump may be out of the spotlight.

    He left the Paris Agreement because it wasn’t fair to the US. It would have been much more useful if he had withdrawn (with allies) for sound policy reasons, ie. the science and the models are still beset by massive uncertainty, the impacts are ill-defined and possibly insignificant, and the policy proposals are wasteful and ineffective. This is the argument we need to have, not conspiracy theories. Now Biden will rejoin Paris, and the rational/sceptical voice has achieved nothing.

    Like

  128. Except for the small, inconvenient fact that the Paris Agreement does disadvantage the US economy and job sector and it does allow Chinese industry to compete unfairly with US manufacturers. Trump is a business man. His reasoning for leaving the Paris Accord was sound. America comes first for Trump. American jobs and the American economy are more important than challenging scientific dogma. However, he was indeed preparing a team to challenge the scientific rationale upon which the Paris Agreement was supposedly based but this was headed off by his advisors to be done during his second term.

    Like

  129. pms keeps claiming, without proof, that President Trump is a “con-artist and fraud”, over and over.
    With no proof, no evidence. Just a mouse like a pebble in a coffee can.
    And the critique he offers as an example of how bad Mr. Trump’s policy on climate is as empty and lacking in thought as well.
    Leaving an unfair horrible faux treaty pile of crap like Paris because it is unfair is as good a reason as any to leave it.
    The craptastic science behind the climate mania, if attacked head on, is a certain losing strategy.
    But let’s see: jingoistic derivative hate-ons, calling about 50% of the nation, and many around the world, delusional, ignoring all evidence in favor of Trump or against Biden and the crooked elections, and a laughable ignorance of American elections.
    What else can pms entertain us with?

    Like

  130. Evidence : Michael Cohen’s testimony to congress under oath to congress; conclusions of Tony Schwartz (the real author of the art of the deal), and David Cay Johnston (financial journalist and tax researcher) who have known him for decades. But hey, if Don says its all fake news thats good enough for you, right?

    ignoring all evidence in favor of Trump? No – its just not compelling or even reasonable to conclude that he is anything other than a dummy and loser. Ignoring evidence against Biden – No just the stuff that’s made up like Hunter’s laptop.

    Like

  131. 50 % of the population delusional

    Well not all of them. My guess is most of them know Trump is a narcissistic racist con-man as described by his niece (more fake news), but they voted for him anyway. Others, intelligent people such as yourself, yes – definitely delusional (maintaining a belief despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument).

    Like

  132. Ignorance of American politics. Let me make a testable prediction then. The Green New Deal will remain on the shelf irrespective of whether the Democrats win control of the Senate or not.

    Like

  133. pms,
    So four years of demonstrably false charges against the President don’t count.
    So sworn affidavit after sworn affidavit of election vote corruption is nothing.
    So Pennsylvania going back to toss up doesn’t count.
    So Biden being told to never concede is great but is delusional conspiracy for Trump.
    So Gore was a hero to litigate in 2000 over one state, but it is hurting democracy to question multiple states that have violated their own election laws.
    And the testimony if a convicted perjurer counts for what, exactly?
    But what is most interesting is how anxious the anti-Trump extremists are to not discuss the election, but rather to silence all questions.
    To that most Americans say, “nutz”.
    As to the so-called GND, if one understood American politics one would know about how to eat an elephant.

    Like

  134. So, the Attorney General allows the process to begin on the investigation of ‘significant fraud’ and the head of the Election Crime board immediately resigns citing the fact that he’s not happy with the change in rules enabling a more pre-emptive and urgent approach to investigations in light of the necessity to provide ‘the American people with confidence in the electoral process’. Why would he do that?

    Like

  135. There is only one standard to judge all others. One need only ask “what would democrats do?”. With a proven record of “by any means necessary”, anything less than that is being generous.

    Like

  136. Hunterson … continue with the delusions. The crybaby in chief has lost the election, and has no one to blame but himself. Notice other elections (eg. New Zealand, and my home state of Queensland Australia) – leaders being returned with increased margins or landslide. Difference = competence in managing the pandemic. I’m sure plenty of rational republicans realize now they should have impeached Trump, and would now be celebrating a Pence landslide and retaking the House.

    Like

  137. US Secretary of State Pompeo has just confirmed there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration. Lefties are going absolutely crazy. What does he know that we don’t?

    Like

  138. pm,
    President Trump just won NC.
    What is it with TDS and the fear of Republicans excercising the same legal rights democrats rely on? The impeachment…you mean the one where the democrat party obstructed justice to divert from Biden’s corruption?
    The impeachment that the Biden hard drive proves the President was correct, not to mention lawfully using his authority?
    pm, you’re not merely wrong, you’re irrelevant.
    Only stoners or TDS gullible idiots think the election is already over.
    Whatever you’re smoking, you should think of keeping it for the weekend ..

    Like

  139. Biden’s corruption? I guess you see the Trump family as a model of transparency without conflicts of interest. The hard drive? you mean the one that 4 Seasons Rudy took to the NY Post because Fox wouldn’t touch it. Do you believe in QAnon also?
    TDS – Trump and supporters denying reality of election loss

    Like

  140. BTS,
    Motive is not an issue with TDS. It is a set of behaviors.
    pm,
    Wait you ‘splain it away with blaming Rduy?
    And the IT shop owner a year ago was in on it, and the Biden’s biz partner was in on it, and the prostitutes and crack dealers were in on it..
    The test, by the way of political corruption is this:
    Did the politician leave office richer than his or her salary and disclosed assets- inheritance etc.- would have justified?
    But thanks for playing…next!

    Like

  141. LOL – Lew discovers PR.

    Lead author Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Cognitive Psychology at the University of Bristol, said: “Our analysis presents empirical evidence consistent with the theory that whenever the media report something threatening or politically uncomfortable for President Trump, his account increasingly tweets about unrelated topics representing his political strengths. This systematic diversion of attention away from a topic potentially damaging to him was shown to significantly reduce negative media coverage the next day.”

    https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2020/november/trump-twitter.html

    Liked by 1 person

  142. Indeed, Barry. If there’s been one constant in the Trump presidency, it’s for the media to find a reason why everything is bad.

    I well recall the early stages of covid. Banning flights from china was deemed racist and xenophobic and it was proposed that Trump being a germaphobe was causing him to overreact. To oppose his plans, democrats like Pelosi were telling people to go party in Chinatown…

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.