Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The Daily Caller headline said, Russia’s Putin Says Global Warming Is ‘A Fraud.” What Putin is doing and saying is nothing new. He always knew that the IPCC climate was wrong he simply changed his political position as the situation dictated. Soviet and latterly Russian climatologists are far better than most in the west. I know Chinese climatologists are their equals because I worked with both.
Experience
I worked with several Soviet climatologists during the Cold War. It began when I wrote a chapter in a book titled Climate Since AD 1500. The editor had chapter authors review other chapters. One that I was assigned titled “Documentary evidence from the USSR” by E. P. Borisenkov reported on the value of the Russian Chronicles. I became very familiar with the work of Mikhail Budyko, who essentially changed the approach from synoptic climatology to energy budget climatology. His work was influential to current climate science. Ironically, the editor was Phil Jones, who gave me my only mention in the leaked emails. In May 2008, he wrote,
“PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage – so wrong it is unbelievable that Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500.”
Michael Mann commented,
p.s. As for Tim Ball, he is so completely discredited (with having lost that lawsuit involving him lying about his academic credentials) that nobody but those truly in denial would even bother reading his tripe. see e.g.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
I do find it an amusing curiosity that he actually has a chapter in Bradley and Jones.
Probably best kept a secret!
The problem is I didn’t lose a lawsuit and the paper that published the false academic credentials, The Calgary Herald, published a correction and apology. Consider the source of Mann’s information. Besides, we now know who published the real garbage?
Different Approaches and Conflicts
During the Cold War, most Soviet science publications were not available until a significant change occurred when Jewish scientists who escaped from the Soviet Union set up translation services in Israel. In approximately 1990 a divergence in climate science emerged between Eastern block countries and the West. The Soviets believed climate was cyclical, the sum of a multitude of cycles. The challenge was to identify them and how they interacted. Cyclical climate events pervaded Russian thinking particularly since the publication of Nikolai Kondratieff’s 1926 article titled “Long Waves in Economic Life.” The concept of climate cycles has flourished in economics and stock market prognostications ever since. Michael Zahorchak’s book “Climate: The Key to Understanding Business Cycles” is a good example. The western view revolved around Chaos Theory that weather was unpredictable beyond a couple of days because of randomness; Lorenz and the butterfly. This created an ongoing contradiction for AGW proponents. If you can’t forecast accurately for a few days, how can you be so certain about 50 and 100-year forecasts?
The fascinating thing about the east-west scientific, intellectual and philosophical difference is that it was interpreted as political and ideological. It wasn’t, and Putin’s position is a manifestation of the difference. What is fascinating is his recognition that the IPCC and Kyoto was a political agenda to suppress development, except that he believes it is only applied to developing countries. In fact, it was designed to promote equal and limited development by weakening developed nations and minimally improving developing nations. All this comes after the developed nations paid for their sins and the money went to the developing nations who suffered. It takes a communist to recognize an attempt at one-world government. Putin is not opposed to this as long as Russia is in control.
Another illustration of the Russian position occurred when Lord May used science societies to promote the IPCC global warming agenda. He began with the UK Royal Society and used their prestigious status to persuade other national societies to manipulate public perception with public statements. Most societies conformed, an issue that is still a contention for many, as Professor Emeritus Hal Lewis’s resignation from the American Physical Society illustrated. One group, the Russian Academy, resisted the propaganda move under the leadership of climatologist Professor Yuri Izrael. At a United Kingdom Met Office (UKMO) conference at Exeter University titled “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change,” Professor Izrael and Andrei Illarionov paid the price for their actions. As Benny Peiser reported,
After two days of relentless barrage of doom and gloom predictions at the Met Office conference on “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” I decided that enough is enough. The unmitigated exposure to prophecies of imminent ice ages, looming hell fire, mass starvation, mega-droughts, global epidemics and mass extinction is an experience I would not recommend to anyone with a thin-skinned disposition (although the news media couldn’t get enough of it). But such was the spectacle of pending disaster that anyone who dared – or was allowed – to question whether the sky is really about to fall on us (and there were at least half a dozen of moderate anti-alarmists present), was branded a “usual suspect”, a slur hurled against Andrei Illarionov (Putin’s economic adviser) by the IPCC’s Martin Parry.
Peiser reported that after Professor Izrael presented his paper
The Russian scientist was immediately and disrespectfully admonished by the chair and former IPCC chief Sir John Houghton for being far too optimistic. Such a moderate proposal was ridiculous since it was “incompatible with IPCC policy”. Clearly, the Met Office meeting was setting the tone for the next IPCC report.
It was deeply upsetting to witness the ill-mannered and discourteous way in which both Professor Izrael and Dr Illarionov were mocked during the debates by many delegates and IPCC officials.
This is the same UKMO that get weather and climate forecasts wrong so often they lost their contract to the fellow public agency the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
Putin’s Climate Representative
Putin was always opposed to Kyoto and the so-called science behind it. He sent his economic advisor Andrey Illarionov on a world tour explaining what was wrong with the science. A copy of his Washington 2004 PowerPoint presentation is available here. After the tour Putin’s political situation changed.
The Kyoto Protocol needed ratification by enough countries that produced 55% of the CO2. When the US refused to participate, Russia was the only country left at the time producing enough CO2 to keep Kyoto going. Illarionov finished his world tour returned to Russia and a month later Putin announced he was going to ratify Kyoto. Illarionov resigned. Some argued that Putin gained more by selling emission credits. Putin explained the realities of his action. His goal was to double Russia’s gross domestic product, and he believed this was more achievable through membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
The fact was that several nations, mostly European, effectively blackmailed Putin by telling him they would not support his application for Russia’s membership in the WTO. Illarionov explained what went on before he left the stage. Putin considered that membership more valuable than the Kyoto deal at the time. Here is that view artfully suggested by a Polish commentator.
Another popular hypothesis links ratification with EU support for Russia’s WTO accession. Although high-ranking officials such as Foreign Affairs Minister Igor Ivanov and Energy Minister Igor Iusofov denied this allegation, President Putin himself hinted at it, when saying: “The EU has met us halfway in talks over the WTO and that cannot but affect positively our position on the Kyoto Protocol.” It is not clear, however, whether Russia’s delay was part of a strategy to bargain with the EU, or whether the Kremlin “just” took advantage of its special position to come closer to WTO membership—which was one of the main aims of Putin’s presidency.
Now it is to Putin’s economic advantage to oppose the Kyoto replacement the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
Will Putin Contribute To The Green Climate Fund?
At the Conference of the Parties (COP)16, they introduced the Green Climate Fund with the World Bank as the interim trustee. In September 2015, the European Union and South Korea committed to making the GCF a major part of the Paris COP.
SONGDO, 17 September 2015 – Meeting on the occasion of their Eighth Bilateral Summit, the heads of the Republic of Korea and the European Union stressed the need to tackle climate change and confirmed their resolve to play their part in concluding a successful universal climate agreement in Paris later this year.
The three leaders affirmed their ambition to “make the Green Climate Fund fully operational and the main operating entity of the financial mechanism” under the UNFCCC for the Post-2020 climate regime.
Despite this, many are not paying.
Friends of the Earth International today demanded that developed nations provide the Green Climate Fund with the resources they pledged to it in 2014, warning that the contributions made so far are alarmingly low.
Thousands will go to Paris with over half of them Non-Government Organization (NGO) people. They will push an agenda that Putin knows is completely unnecessary. As the French mathematical society, SocietedeCalculMathematiqueSA wrote in a recent paper that Putin will know about titled, “The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade.”
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way ̳disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.
Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.
It is built on the false science created by the IPCC to support the political objective of Agenda 21. German Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus explained why too many scientists don’t understand. They never read what the IPCC said.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” ”Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
Russian scientists know what the IPCC said. Because of them Putin knows that the climate science of the IPCC is wrong. He knows it because Soviet and now Russian climatologists practice open science, which is ironic in a political system that is supposed to be controlling. He also knows the IPCC is designed to use climate for political goals because he does it better than most. As the say, it takes a thief to catch a thief. How much money will Putin contribute to the Green Climate Fund?
Never discount Russian works in any effort. They may do things differently. But, they
are good at what they do well. Personal experience..
Do not get in a chess game with a Russian,BTW -Minnesota Fats (pool) had nothing
on them….
Yes, never discount Russian works.
I have a Russian reference book with about 1 thousand closed form solutions for all types of integrals. This was from the 1980’s. It is no longer in print.
During the cold war the “Ruskies” where lacking in digital computer prowess so they made up for it in brain power. The US would simply apply more computing power and iterate to solve any nasty integrals. The “Ruskies” just flat out found a closed form solution for the integral.
Turns out that the mathematical equations behind the “Stealth Airplane” was solved in closed form and published in a Russian Math journal BEFORE the US developed these planes. The Russians had the math correct, but the US had the material science advances to make such a plane. Ferrite based paint is not an easy thing to develop.
Cheers, KevinK.
For applications, accurate numerical solutions is all that is needed. True, such solutions are not as elegant as closed form solutions, however not all integrals have closed-form solutions.
>>During the cold war the “Ruskies” where lacking in digital
>>computer prowess so they made up for it in brain power.
In a former life I employed a chief designer of the Sukhoi 27. He took me to Gromov flight test center at Zhukovski and was shown all the design and test equipment. I remarked on the lack of computers (this was 1992), and he took out his well-worn slide rule from a special side pocket in his pants. And that was it. (There was a vast valve-driven ‘computer’ to do flutter testing, but it took up a large hangar and resembled the WWII Colossus computer from Bletchley Park.) (I should have bought that wooden model, it would be worth a fortune now.)
So the entire Su-27 had been designed with a slide rule and an enormous segmented and fully-articulated wooden model (designed so it could flex in all planes). So all those crazy Cobra flight manoeuvres, that Western fighter aircraft cannot replicate, were designed with a slide rule and hand flown by the pilot. Quite remarkable.
The SU-27s Cobra flight profile:
“Ferrite based paint is not an easy thing to develop.”
Yeah, the stealth F117’s were so difficult to see in the Iraq early bombing campaign that standoff radar jamming was used. The maintenance of those coatings is horrendous and expensive, not to mention the special sheltering required during “weather”. In addition, I always wondered about radar visibility when the bay doors opened to launch payload. The US is now so efficient at producing turkeys like the F-35 that who knows what the actual Air Force capability is.
ralfellis, the maneuver depicted in your post was actually developed and performed by Col John Boyd when he was instructor at the Fighter Weapons School in the late ’50s. He called it “flat-plating” and he originally perfected it in the F-100 Super Saber. Here’s a pertinent quote: “Boyd would demonstrate with one abrupt move why he was considered the best Hun driver in the Air Force. He would seize the stick with both hands, jerk it full aft, and hold it there. This maneuver he called “flat-plating the bird.” The maneuver turned the bottom of the aircraft, the wings, and the bottom of the tail surfaces into one enormous speed brake and slowed the Hun from 400 knots to 150 knots in seconds. It was as if a manhole cover were sailing through the air and suddenly flipped ninety degrees to the airstream.”
Coram, Robert (2002-11-21). Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War (Kindle Locations 1408-1412). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.
The full quote is:
“He would suddenly pull the stick full aft, brace his elbows on either side of the cockpit, so the stick would not move laterally, and stomp the rudder.”
The guy was using the rudder. In which case this is a standard flick-roll. Or perhaps even a Lomcovak, if the gyroscopic forces are great enough in a jet.
But is is quite obviously not a Cobra manoevre. I cannot imagine the F-100 would be anywhere near stable enough to pull off a Cobra. Getting into a Cobra is (almost) child’s play. The problem is holding it there and exiting the manoevre, while remaining stable and with flyable controls. And then to do that at low level at an air display, with no altitude to recover if it flicks or slides.
No F-100 could do that.
Ralph
In addition I recall that the last thing a pilot wanted in the F-100 was a spin which was nearly unrecoverable because of the relatively low power of the J-57 engine (the bird would barely qualify for Mach 1). This engine was also a straight jet (versus fan) which was prone to inlet distortion stall in a spin, especially with the ~21′ intake.
Cool. Now we see no aid for coal fired power stations et al. It’s a long game they are playing. They aim to beat not only the developed nations, but also the developing nations. I don’t understand why people can’t see this. Developing nations are falling into a foolish trap. Billions in debt for solar supplies. Wind turbines?
Go India, China and Russia! Enough of this sh!t.
Example among very many of the long game.
Abengoa is engaged in solar energy and bioenergy devices and other products.
Lord Stern of Brentford was the man who came out with the UK’s depressing climate change report. Then he invested where he saw the depression. That is the long game I am talking about. Pea, thimble and all that.
Stern runs the NS Economics Limited (sole owner, jointly with wife; the company’s main business is the Member’s speaking engagements. He likes to speak and get paid to talk about climate alarmism. I wonder why he keeps telling us that ‘climate change’ is much worse than he thought while investing in climate schemes. It surely wouldn’t have anything to standing to gain from one’s own alarmism would it?
Lord Stern:
“I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
The main difference between western and eastern science, is that in the west, we are not “allowed” to rely on empiry, by itself, as being verification of a theory. We need to proove the reason why it works. This is why Russian oil and gas exploration is highly successful. Whereas western companies are not using surface geochemical and microbiological methods for finding subsurface oil and gas accumulaions (because they don’t know how and why the methods work), the Russians employ them, and then drill targets determined by these indications – and, more often than not – find commercial resources….
Pure bull feathers …. Russia is a successful oil producer and oil finder because it has some really big sedimentary basins and is a really big country. No black box sorcery or hocus pocus mucus pukus magic is necessary.
I’m sick of reading nonsense on finding oil from nitwits who never found a barrel of the stuff in their lives but read some batshit crazy article.
Amen to stewart pid Russia has some oil, no doubt, and contemporary Russian petroleum geologists find it just the same way the rest of us do. For starters, they know their source rock and don’t expect oil to appear out of the basement from some mantle source. From that source, they follow it to the traps. Just wait until they get set up to frack the source rocks directly!
“I’m sick of reading nonsense on finding oil from nitwits who never found a barrel of the stuff in their lives but read some batshit crazy article..” – steward “pid”
==================
“Martin Hovland MSc PhD FGS, has been working for the Norwegian energy company Statoil ASA from 1976 to 2012 as senior engineer and …”
http://martinhovland.weebly.com/biography.html
= = = = = = = = = =
“The capital fact to note is that petroleum was born in the depths of the earth, and it is only there that we must seek its origin.”
–Dmitri Ivanovitch Mendeléev, 1877
= = = = = = = = = =
“The constraints imposed on chemical evolution by the second law of thermodynamics are briefly reviewed, and the effective prohibition of transformation, in the regime of temperatures and pressures characteristic of the near-surface crust of the Earth, of biological molecules into hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane is recognized.
[…]
“The high-pressure genesis of petroleum hydrocarbons has been demonstrated using only the reagents solid iron oxide, FeO, and marble, CaCO3, 99.9% pure and wet with triple-distilled water”
—The evolution of multicomponent systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum
–J. F. Kenney , Vladimir A. Kutcherov, Nikolai A. Bendeliani, and Vladimir A. Alekseev
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.long
= = = = = = = = = =
Especially if you were Viktor Korchnoi playing Anatoly Karpov……
Reckon that during the Soviet era, Russian scientists were hampered by excessive secrecy and red tape. Even Western science magazines were only available to those who had been cleared by security services. If that had not been the case they might well have become world leaders in science.
The discovery of the RD-170 and RD-180 rocket engines came as a shock to NASA, who previously had imagined that Russian space flights had used a cluster of small and primitive V2-derivative engines. Wrong.Their engines were a better design than those on the Shuttle.
The full quote is:
“He would suddenly pull the stick full aft, brace his elbows on either side of the cockpit, so the stick would not move laterally, and stomp the rudder.”
The guy was using the rudder. In which case this is a standard flick-roll. Or perhaps even a Lomcovak, if the gyroscopic forces are great enough in a jet.
But is is quite obviously not a Cobra manoevre. I cannot imagine the F-100 would be anywhere near stable enough to pull off a Cobra. Getting into a Cobra is (almost) child’s play. The problem is holding it there and exiting the manoevre, while remaining stable and with flyable controls. And then to do that at low level at an air display, with no altitude to recover if it flicks or slides.
No F-100 could do that.
Ralph
ralfellis, it appears Boyd used the rudder input to maneuver the aircraft into a firing position quickly because the flat-plating technique had his guns pointed at the sky instead of his opponent. Here’s another quote from the same book: “Then Boyd, still holding the stick full aft and not moving it a quarter inch in either direction, would stomp hard on the rudder and corkscrew the aircraft violently around in a tight roll. The maneuver spit the student out in front and left Boyd on the student’s six. He had set the hook and there was no escape. It happened so fast that students never knew what happened. One minute they were in a perfect kill position, tight on Boyd’s tail, pipper locked on his cockpit, and about to shout, ‘Guns! Guns! Guns!’ into the radio. All they needed was sixteen frames of guncamera film, the equivalent of a half-second burst, to have a kill. But, as one student remembered, ‘All at once he did a double outside rat’s ass and a two-tone trick fuck and I was a movie star. He had me in his gun camera.’ Now it was Boyd behind the student, barking, ‘Guns! Guns! Guns!’ Then there was raucous laughter and, ‘You just got hosed.'”[1]
Because of the very serious problem with adverse yaw on the F-100 especially in the landing configuration, Boyd taught his students that to survive they had to learn how to use the rudder to good effect. Several pilots flying the F-105 Thud (Thunderchief) during Vietnam credited their survival in combat to utilizing the flat-plating maneuver they had learned unter the tutelage of John Boyd: “In early 1965, shortly before the Air Force began the longest bombing campaign in its history, Boyd went to Vietnam and briefed F-105 pilots, telling them if a MiG got on their tail and they could not outrun it, they should dump energy immediately by flat-plating the bird. F-105 pilots were highly skeptical. The Thud— the pilots’ name for the F-105— was not a bird that took kindly to such maneuvers . . . On April 4, 1965, forty-eight F-105s attacked the Thanh Hoa Bridge in North Vietnam. They attacked in flights of four. One flight was holding over the initial point ten miles south of the bridge when it was bounced by four MiGs. The F-105s fled. One pilot could not shake a pursuing MiG and in desperation flat-plated his bird and caused his pursuer to overshoot. Later the pilot told debriefers he had never done the maneuver before.”[2]
However, as you have pointed out, the maneuver as developed and practiced by Boyd could not have been nearly as dramatic nor as compact as that performed by modern fighters with computer controlled surfaces and vectored thrust nozzles on the engines. Many of Boyd’s ideas which were rejected at the time were later shown to be extremely important to the art of aerial combat. Coram’s book is close to hagiography, but he does a good job of bringing many of Boyd’s accomplishments to light. A more even handed analysis of Boyd’s accomplishments can be found in Grant Hammond’s book, “The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security.”
[1]Coram, Robert (2002-11-21). Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War (Kindle Locations 1412-1419). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.
[2]Ibid., 2724-27, 2914-17.
I wonder what was the problem with scientific credentials. The link gives Ball’s qualifications as:
Credentials:
Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), University of London, England.
M.A., University of Manitoba.
B.A., University of Winnipeg.
Hmmm, I thought a London University Doctor of Science was a D.Sc.
Probably a distinction without a difference. When I got my PhD from MIT long ago, it was pretty much just a checkbox on a form as to what you got.
DSc in UK is awarded after science publication record of ten or more ,years and one has to apply for it. In the US, it is mostly an honorary degree.
It’s hard to hide 40 years of failed climate predictions and 20 years of no temperature increases. Telling countries that they’ve been sinful by being successful and now they must hand over their success to failed countries won’t work. Shaming only goes so far….especially when it’s done with deceit. Regardless of the outcome at Paris you can bet the Warmist Cult will trumpet success to keep the narrative alive. I don’t hear of any new countries jumping on the AGW band wagon and only about those getting off so there is hope.
Oh the shining lights in the eyes of the believers who think the money pried out of the evil working class in western nations will make a better tomorrow in a backwater third world country. Built upon by green energy and a central planning committee, if only they had the chance. The money will go to some corrupt dictatorship and the people who support it.
As an American, I made pretty decent money. Went to a new housing development in Princeton. My ex wife and I were the only Americans there, everybody else was foreign, including the sales staff. The houses were beyond our economic reach. It wasn’t beyond the reach of a woman from Haiti whipping out her checkbook, declaring the houses were cheap, and paying cash on the spot. All from one of the poorest countries on earth as many of the people were.
They want to make a difference, improve the government’s in those place, stop supporting illusions.
Putin will not contribute a penny to any climate fund. He is not a fool.
He is a bully and a fascist, and generally unlikeable, but he sure makes the European leadership look like a bunch of Nerds.
The world has turned upside down in my lifetime. As an Australian I never thought I would hold the leaders of the West in such contempt, while somehow on balance preferring and respecting the Russian Militarists.
My wife is russian…..she doesn’t like Putin….but she says he has a high favorability ratings of about 75 % with the russian people. IE her mom and brother like him. He might be a bully….Russians need someone like Ivan the terrible to rule. He’s hardly a fascist……looks like you get your info from MSM about Putin……..don’t you know by now the only thing you can trust about MSM is sports and the weather ( sometimes)
“……..don’t you know by now the only thing you can trust about MSM is sports and the weather ( sometimes)”
I don’t even trust the Date, have to check for myself !
jamie just so you know Jannie is not alone in the victims of American education to conflate fascism with totalitarianism
Its hard to gauge exactly where putin is on the scale but fascist would be fine for him. As to some of the other ignorant comments… fascist can be totalitarians or authoritarians both of those terms more describe the process they reached or hold power NOT how they wield that power on topics. Also as to the commie remark you clearly don’t know much about fascism… if you knew basic history would would know its very common place for commies to become fascists. The brownshirts(and later national socialist party) were a x-commie group that moved more toward the center and jumped on the “third way” idea aka fascism. They are hardly the only ones doing that. China would also be classed as fascist currently. Most countries currently in the world could be classed as fascist depending on how strict or general you define it as. No countries can be classed as capitalist currently though.
Putin is a pretty tough guy, and according to a friend who had a villa in Spain near him, an impolite boorish bully with a lot of bodyguards around him. But a realist.
I respect him in spite of himself and a lot better than most western leaders.
Wayne, I agree…
http://moonbattery.com/Heroes.jpg
@jamie, I only trust the MSM about sports until the games are over, as far as the weather?
No, he’s a hard fascist. Really. Ivan was just a terrible murderer.
OTOH all this goes back to times of Mongol power and ruthless khans. The area between Moldova and Mongolia still suffers from ruthlessness, nepotism and powerty.
attempt to clear the views:
fascism is the follower of futurism.
– futurist is Who Declares himself a futurist.
– fascist is Who Declares himself a fascist.
– dictator is Who Acts like a dictator.
– despot mostly Is Declared a despot, e.g. by literats and media.
– tyrann in the classic pollei Was Elected as tyrann by the citizens.
Regards – Hans
A Fascist??? Really?? Me thinks people like you live a life of blissful ignorance. Check your words carefully. What is a Fascist?? How did they evolve out of ” ??? ” Communist Party??
regards
“A Fascist??? Really?? Me thinks people like you live a life of blissful ignorance.”
The word “fascism” used to describe an economic system rather than just as an insult has easy to understand roots and meaning. Benito Mussolini of Italy said that the word “corporatism” might be better since fascism is a merger of corporate interests and government. A union. Many today like the term “crony-capitalist” even better. The large corporations and the powerful departments of government are sometimes hard to tell apart. Google up the term “regulatory capture”.
Fascism is essentially a flavor of collectivism just as communism is, or just as “democratic socialism” is. People get into long and pointless arguments over which phrase best describes country X when it is simple collectivism that best describes most of the west along with Russia and China. There may be a difference of degree but not really of kind.
Putin’s Russia may be a more free society than the US Empire. At least it is to the poor 90 year old lady that the TSA made strip to the waist in an airport. http://ahtribune.com/us/51-tsa-strip-search.html
>>The word “fascism” used to describe an economic system.
Nonsense.
The term ‘fascist’ comes from the Roman fasces – the symbol of Roman power and order. It is a symbol whose origins have been lost to the mists of time, but represents the authority of the state, and the rule of law and order. Nations without a fasces are anarchistic, but with the fasces they have order, stability and wealth. But some states provide more law and order than others.
And the fasces symbol can be found in many places in the modern world. Anywhere from the symbol of many European police forces (representing the power of law and order again), to the primary design on many European passports.
The fasces is also in the US House of Representatives, either side of the speaker’s chair, as this pic demonstrates. And it is also on the chair of Abraham Lincoln, at the Lincoln Memorial. So is the US a fascist state, because it overtly displays the fasces as a primary symbol of the power of the state? Or is the US merely a nation that maintains law, order, stability and wealth – rather than the anarchy and misery of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran or Syria?
Three types of socialism are apparent, communism is international socialism a system to rule the world, National socialism or fascism a system that believes in taking from others, and then there is the so called liberals in America an insidious type of socialism that rewards failure. Non of these systems are good long term, good luck America, at least Putin is coming out into the real world.
“The term ‘fascist’ comes from the Roman fasces …”
What a load of crap. …
All words come from someplace. The fascist economic system was widely supported all over the western world before WW11 and Germany turned the word into something else. The word in its economic sense still is useful for educated people. For example, the US Empire has been a fascist economic system since FDR’s time. Deal with it. (and read some history)
~ Mark
got to admit ralfellis thats one of the better trolls I’ve seen on this topic. However like many people who can only half-@ss it let me one up you.
A swastika is universally known for thousands of years as a good luck symbol. Its displayed in temples, government buildings and people homes for thousands of years. So you know what you should do when you see someone down on they’re luck… why of course hand them a swastika or use some chalk and draw a swastika on there house.
And you know who’s really feeling down and out recently israel and its support. All that fighting go on so you know what you should do… go to the nearest israel supporting place of worship and just start chalking swastikas everywhere because you want them to get some good luck and you feel bad for them.
>>Temp
>>got to admit ralfellis thats one of the
>>better trolls I’ve seen on this topic.
Actually, it is the true origin of the word. Fascist comes from the Latin fascio meaning ‘bundle’. Now how do you get from a Latin word meaning ‘bundle’ to the following modern meaning ??
Oxford English Dictionary:
“An authoritarian and nationalistic system of government and social organization” “autocratic, intolerant, or oppressive; esp. the advocacy of a particular viewpoint or practice in a manner that seeks to enforce conformity”
As I said before, the ‘bundle’ being referred to is the bundle of rods surrounding an axe, that formed the Roman Fasces – the symbol of law and order in ancient Rome. Thus any authoritarian political system was bound to be tagged with the ‘Fascist’ title, especially one like Mussolini’s that was born in the very region where the Roman Fasces was first used.
And since the Fasces ‘bundle and axe’ symbol overtly refers to authority and the maintenance of law an order, it is still used as a symbol of authority for many police and civil guard forces, including:
The Civil Guard for Spain (look at the door of the car):
http://up.autotitre.com/bcb53983fa.jpg
.
And the USA National Guard:
And why would George Washington use a bundle of rods and an axe as his primary symbol, if this had no significant meaning? Again we see that one of the central symbols of the US State is the Fasces of ancient Rome. Why? Because it represents the authority of the state and the maintenance of law and order. The only difference being that the US State is not quite as authoritarian as ’40s Germany or Italy.
Statue of George Washington.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3396/4630090496_49f61554dc.jpg
Its cute that you are still trying but you have admitted your first post is wrong so and that fascism doesn’t mean what you claim. Yes you can argue that word fasces was the inspiration behind the name but fascism is and will always be an economic system, really fascism is just another rebranding of a very common system. But once again nice try and all.
Temp
Its cute that you are still trying but you have admitted your first post is wrong so and that fascism doesn’t mean what you claim
_____________________________________
Nice try to wriggle out of the fact that you were wrong, but everyone can see through it. Why don’t you just admit to being wrong, we would respect you more for it?
The term ‘fascism’ was derived from the previous Roman use of the word, meaning ‘authority of the state’ and thence ‘authoritarian state’. And that is exactly what Mussolini’s new political regime was — fascist or authoritarian.
Ralph
Thats funny because you confuse what authoritarian is with fascism. While its possible for some fascists to be authoritarian they are 99% totalitarian. Authoritarianism is something like democracy. Fascism is not democracy hate to break it to you.
Jannie October 30, 2015 at 2:29 pm
Putin will not contribute a penny to any climate fund. He is not a fool.
He’s not a fool, but he is pragmatic. If there is a benefit to him for signing that is greater than the cost, he’ll sign. Just as he used Kyoto as a bargaining chip to get into the WTO, he’ll sign up to the current deal as long as he gets something substantial in return. The question is not if he will sign, nor even how much money he will commit, but what his price will be.
He could quietly get a side deal for the US to withdraw from Syria for example. Or he might have his sites set on a bigger chunk of the Ukraine. Or perhaps he wants Poland.
The danger here is not that the believes the climate science. The danger is that he doesn’t. It is just a tool he can turn to his advantage, and he’s already run negotiating circles around the west in both Europe and the middle east with ease, despite being hobbled by a crashing economy.
How does South America manage to stay out of this fray, they are going to hold the next Olympics aren’t they ??
If there is a benefit to him for signing that is greater than the cost, he’ll sign.
========================
Especially if the benefit is “now” and the cost is “future”.
Low world oil prices were clearly engineered by the US with the aid of the Saudi’s to punish Russian for Crimea and the Ukraine. The Saudi’s are hemorrhaging cash as a result but still have ample reserves.
Which places Obama in quite a bind. He wants to punish Putin. But in doing so the low oil prices will increase fossil fuel emissions worldwide. Which contradicts Obama’s and Kerry’s assertions that climate change is the greatest threat.
If climate change is such a threat, why is the US keeping oil prices low? It makes it look like they don’t believe their own words. Clearly if climate change is a worse threat than Putin, the US should be setting oil prices sky high to discourage CO2 production.
The Saudi’s could cut back a bit on production, which would double oil prices. They would ship a bit less oil, but get a whole lot more for each barrel. They would make a whole lot more money as a result, and their cash hemorrhaging would end.
The problem is that every lie has an end. It leads to a contradiction that reveals the lie for what it is. Clearly the US administration believes that Putin is a much bigger problem than Climate Change.
Low world oil prices were clearly engineered by the US with the aid of the Saudi’s to punish Russian for Crimea and the Ukraine. The Saudi’s are hemorrhaging cash as a result but still have ample reserves.
_______
ferdberple,
Low oil prices are a result of fracking on private and state land and in Canada which has increased the world’s oil supply. Obama fought oil development it tooth and nail. Obama could not care less about Ukraine or Crimea. Oil prices decreasing were the last thing Obama wanted.
Obama is not smart enough, as he has amply demonstrated, to engineer anything successfully on the world stage.
+1
World politics is a lifelong study for me. I really do not like Putin, but it is without doubt that he is the only true statesman in power in a major country in the world today. The way he has played the western powers in Europe (and Ukraine) for so long is a triumph, and the way he is playing them in Syria today is masterful. Love him or hate him, it undeniable that he knows how to get what he and his country need, and get the rest of us to pay for it all.
One should keep in mind that any idiot can look powerful and smart when compared to the current crop of idiots thats are leading the west. Its much like rommel was a a monster… until his intel source got cut off and he didn’t have the allied battle plans to work with as part of his planning sessions.
Its like the old saying in a world full of blind people the one-eyed man is king.
I was unaware of this. I have learned as much from reading the comments on WUWT as from reading the stories.
All the intelligence in the world won’t help a leader who willfully ignores it. The other problem is that many/most leaders punish the bearers of bad news. Telling truth to power is often fatal. Putin’s advantage is that he was in the KGB. That makes it much more likely that he will hear the truth.
Hitler forced Rommel to commit suicide because he told that lunatic the truth.
It certainly seems that the ex intelligence officer is a much more effective judge and facilitator of world events than the former community organizer.
You know what? I certainly don’t like communism or going back to the old cold war days, but I sure do have a much deeper respect and admiration for Putin compared to this stupid loser Obama and all his cronies. As a matter of fact, Putin would probably have been a better president for the U.S. than Obama. Every single thing Obama touches or looks at becomes a lie, a cheat, a scandal, screw up, idiotic, disaster for us. He is a racist, manipulative, muslim loving destroyer of the U.S. and the Constitution and it will take years to root out all the destruction he has done… Obama would be a better candidate for Ayatollah of Iran than President of the U.S.
I respect Putin. I respect rattle snakes.
Spoken like a true hedgehog. Even the most evil despots in the history of the world did the occasional good thing; Obama is no different. 🙂
He can’t be an ayatollah. He knows no language other than English. Ayatollahs have to read the Koran in Arabic.
It was shock to see how they thought differently about the civil war in Yougasolva. The group the US championed were considered making a living by kiddnapping, stealing, drug dealing, and terror. Oh yeah, we invited a bunch of them to live here. ( I don’t think they were far from wrong)
It is good as long as Americans are giving them stuff here and on aid. The story of one them goes, got a job, quit after 2 months, went back and was crying for aid… no medicine for his baby. ( maybe it was 2 weeks)
Yugoslavia.
Make sure to define your terms. Fascism as defined (not perjorative) is more akin to the current United States system. Essentially a corporate/government cooperative. The combination of “free” market profits and government control seems to make the system more economically viable than socialism. Libertarians need not apply.
In a sense we might have been lucky that the USSR went socialist rather than fascist; If economically the USSR had not been such a basket case, who knows, it may have made war more likely.
I’m not sure how to categorize the current Russian government. I haven’t kept up. Though I expect it’s kind of a post modern crony capitalism…. Ok, back to your point = fascist….
Taz
Anecdotal via personal and business.
By and large I find them to have disdain for soft westerners. They take tremendous pride in succeeding against all odds. They accept corruption as a human trait to be managed not eliminated. They are less traditionally educated than westerners and are more respectful of truly smart people. Fiercely loyal to their inner circle. Alcohol can be a common problem. They don’t shy from brute force in word and deed.
Again, anecdotal and no doubt biased from my small survey.
the easiest way to define fascism is socialism thats designed to look and feel like capitalism to the masses.
It just goes to show how successful USSR and nazi propaganda was(even today) because people believe fascism is some form of capitalism.
Knute
Certainly you’d know better than me then. I somewhat assume they are Hollywood stereotypes but I love the characterizations: Commander Ivanova – B5 and Marvel’s – Natasha Romanov (black window) . A little resigned, fatalistic and then strong. great stuff.
Taz
Life imitating art … art imitating life. Tough to tell sometimes. I know far less than I think I know. My prejudices cloud most of what I perceive and it’s hard work to sift thru the noise. I probably spend too much time just observing, and enjoy the company of objective observers.
Perhaps because of that I’m drawn to simple pleasures to relax my mind. TV is nonsense. Newspapers/magazines are mostly propaganda. Advertisement is designed to separate me from my wealth. I’m careful about what sources of info I accept as “a fact”.
I’m not a joiner although I will mingle.
I am highly flawed and old by most definitions.
I wonder how I got here from there in terms of life experience.
At times I can clearly see where big trends are taking us. And then, more times than not, it’s obvious I was wrong.
As far as CAGW goes, Russian’s blunt culture appears to see thru the propaganda more easily. Nevertheless, they are generally less interested in a noble cause of integrity and truth but rather accept that it is the fate of man to be easily seduced and taken advantage of. And, despite being aware of that they still fall prey to a abuse. Fascinates me.
Again, I know very little and spend alot of time just observing. Ironically, it’s the opposite of my youth.
And he has completely punked Bambi. He is not a good guy, but he is not a dumb guy, or a foolish guy.
WS
“punked Bambi”
Nice use of a phrase. I never incorporated the term puked in a professional atmosphere. I like it. Penetrates enough to leave a mark on the brain without frightening.
Thanks
Realist heads of state should form a Coalition Against Failed Climate Alarmism, CAFCA.
They have already. It’s called BRICS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS
………. right you are… BRICS. Phase 2
Funny, but some BRICS states pay lip service to climate alarmism, like India and China, despite their carbon footprint large as all outdoors. So their leaders might be reluctant to join KAFKA.
Putin has run rings around the Western leaders, particularly ecoloon John Kerry, making them look ridiculous over Syria.
It would be nice if he could do the same on supposed Global Warming with the Parisites next month.
“The Parisites” I love it. I really did LOL(hadn’t seen ti before).
I do have to disagree though that Putin made the Western leaders look ridiculous over Syria. They did it all by themselves. /derail
Yes, never interfere with an enemy which is destroying itself.
If Western leaders were merely ecoloons, we would have less of a problem. Western leaders lie to their own people with monotonous regularity and they do so with impunity. In the US, if 1% of the attention which the media focused on the Nixon administration were aimed at the present administration’s Constitutional lapses, then we’d have widespread civil unrest and calls for impeachment from every quarter.
+100
+1
And don’t the eastern leaders lie as well?
And don’t the eastern leaders lie as well?
==============
it is one thing for a leader to lie to the people. it is another for a leader to lie to him/her self. Putin is the first case. the west the second case.
because in the end, being a really good politician in the west is very much like being a really good salesperson. you need to believe in your product, no matter how bad it really is, you must believe it is the best product ever.
In the west, you go to the store, there are two brands of soup on the shelf. One democrat, the other republican. both taste like shzt, but the salespeople swear it is the best shzt you have ever tasted.
eastern leaders have no such need because they are not selling a product. you go to the store, there is only one brand of soup on the shelf, Putin. It doesn’t matter what it taste like.
http://www.ibtimes.com/putin-says-us-has-mush-brains-amid-airstrikes-syria-russian-presidents-fears-over-2139325
Illarionov’s presentations can’t be accessed by a link above, but it is still found at archive.org
H
I can’t locate it. If you find it can you please send a link.
Thanks
TB
You weave a good story. Can’t say enough about the article.
1. Thanks for your short background. Sets the scene.
2. Fine job of countering the ad hom. Short, professional throat punch.
3. Well described Putin’s positioning as well as a fine job of describing the conflicts with his advisors. You avoided judgement and left that to the reader.
4. Fantastic reference to the Mathematical Society. It’s the hammer.
I kept waiting for a short acknowledgement of how the IMF is suspending funding for new coal plants and instead deferring them to the BRICs. That’s a plum prize for them.
All in all I enjoyed the writing type and content.
Fits into the attention span of a busy professional without condescending.
Would hope to see you presenting this in under 10 minutes, post it on You Tube and make it viral.
Ugh .. “type” sb “style”.
And I proofed it once. Guess I’ll have to do it twice from now on.
Sorry folks.
“And I proofed it once. Guess I’ll have to do it twice from now on.”
That will not help. It is a well know fact that hitting the “post comment” button creates errors. These errors can not be seen until after the post has been published. I don’t know which “Murphy’s Law” this is, but it is one of them. (I liked your comment by the way)
“It is a well know fact that hitting the “post comment” button creates errors. These errors can not be seen until after the post has been published.”
– markstoval
🙂 🙂 Hereby added to my list over quotes I like a lot.
Teh horror!
The pane.
The angbish.
The fawl of ciwilisation.
Re: Ball on Putin, 10/30/2015:
The western view revolved around Chaos Theory that weather was unpredictable beyond a couple of days because of randomness; Lorenz and the butterfly. This created an ongoing contradiction for AGW proponents. If you can’t forecast accurately for a few days, how can you be so certain about 50 and 100-year forecasts?
Perhaps, but this is not how IPCC reports the story. The TAR declared that the climate system (meaning the real climate in the natural world) was chaotic, therefore unpredictable. AR4 toned this down considerably, never making the TAR declaration specific, and modifying the TAR Glossary by adding a definition for chaos. As is typical of IPCC’s reports, the science is far stronger in the Glossaries than in the mainbody, which from time to time violates Glossary definitions. (E.g., chaos, equilibrium climate sensitivity, residence time.) The newly minted definition is cagey:
Chaos A dynamical system such as the climate system, governed by nonlinear deterministic equations (see Nonlinearity), may exhibit erratic or chaotic behaviour in the sense that very small changes in the initial state of the system in time lead to large and apparently unpredictable changes in its temporal evolution. Such chaotic behaviour may limit the predictability of nonlinear dynamical systems. AR4, Glossary, p. 942.
The only systems governed by nonlinear [or linear] deterministic equations are computer driven systems. That includes a simulated or emulated climate system, but not the real world climate system. That much is in agreement with today’s science of chaos, loosely called a theory.
As far as IPCC, the owner and operator of the western view on climate, is concerned, the claim that the real world climate system is in any way unpredictable is nothing but an excuse for IPCC scientists’ failure to predict climate.
Predicting climate is really not so difficult, except doing so via numerical weather models modified to work over climate scales while preserving the failed conjecture, once attributed to Arrhenius and Callendar, that variations in atmospheric CO2 are the Cause and climate the Effect.
Several sorts of simple climate models will do the scientific job. One is to say starting 1mya, climate varies within 9ºC, with a couple of sawtooth cycles superimposed, and where Earth is currently about 2º to 3ºC from the peak. At the next level of complexity, a heat flow model works, replacing IPCC’s stubbornly protected radiation balance model adapted from Trenberth’s sample energy budget. It works featuring some of the variables intentionally omitted by IPCC, especially dynamic cloud cover and Henry’s Law, which happen to invalidate the conjecture of AGW in any model.
“..may exhibit erratic or chaotic behaviour in the sense that very small changes in the initial state of the system in time lead to large and apparently unpredictable changes in its temporal evolution.”
That must be the cornerstone of global warming alarmism, the illusion of the certainty of uncertain and dangerous changes occurring. It seems to be born from a very poor postulate of how natural variability functions, obviously an internal one, and such a Gordian Knot.
CHAOS was the organization that Get Smart’s hero, Maxwell Smart, had to infiltrate! 🙂
“The only systems governed by nonlinear [or linear] deterministic equations are computer driven systems.”
I think you will find that 99.9999% of scientists and engineers would disagree with this statement.
And in fact most of the rest of the ones made in your post.
And to call analysis of energy budget including cloud cover ‘simple’ is to assume that the non linear differential equations that govern cloud formation dont exist. Oh I see, you already have…
Re: Leo Smith 10/31/15 0325:
… 99.9999% of scientists and engineers …
Leo Smith’s new “consensus”, as unsupported by fact as IPCC’s consensuses. Besides science is about models with predictive power, not political power. Claim away, Leo.
And to call analysis of energy budget including cloud cover ‘simple’ is to assume that the non linear differential equations that govern cloud formation don’t exist. Oh I see, you already have…
You missed the point entirely, and in defense of your misunderstanding, misquoted me. I suggested two simple models, comparing them each to IPCC’s failing radiative forcing model (e.g., the big hiatus, no matter how many little hiatuses it comprises, validated by ECS measurements coming in at the 5% confidence level).
And I didn’t mention any analysis of energy budget, but instead referred to IPCC’s RF model based on Trenberth’s energy budget. You need to be aware of the fact that T.’s energy budget is not a climate model at all, and back then T. he was careful not to claim that it was. IPCC naively interpreted his budget as the definitive set of initial conditions out of an uncountable number of equally conceivable ICs for its GCMs.
Any rational model will have cloud cover, even the GCMs do. What I referred to was dynamic cloud cover, that is, cloud cover that varies, especially with water vapor. GCMs model water vapor as varying while they erroneously keep cloud cover fixed and parameterized. Cloud cover is the most powerful feedback in all of climate, positive with respect to TSI and negative with respect to surface temperature, and it is not modeled in the GCMs. Cloud cover amplifies solar variations while mitigating warming from any cause.
The last point is about your failing science literacy and that of your millions of imaginary friends. Cloud formation is not governed by equations, much less nonlinear or differential ones. Equations don’t exist in the natural Real World to govern anything. Neither do coordinates, parameters, units, dimensions, symbols, algebra, values, linear properties, probabilities, or chaos. These are all manmade, so are part of science or math, but not the natural Real World. The ability to separate the Real World from models of the Real World is a candidate for the third most basic test of scientific literacy, following the stipulations to be rational and that words have specific meanings.
A bit more complex point of literacy you violate is that scientific models are quite sensitive to scale. Incorporating microscale phenomena into macroscale models is the path to unmanageable complexity and failure, e.g., the GCMs. For climate prediction, the mechanisms of water vapor condensation and microwave absorption are irrelevant, misleading, and distracting. The more complex models for Radiative Transfer and cloud formation are indeed nonlinear, which means that their average results over time or space are not equal to the equations applied to some average atmosphere. How RT and cloud formation might apply to the problem of predicting Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) 30 or more years in the future is guesswork and doomed to fail at the outset.
What one needs to estimate is merely how global average cloud albedo might vary with small changes in surface temperature. And what is the equivalent thermal resistance of the atmosphere to model the greenhouse effect simply with Ohm’s Law equivalent in a heat flow model. The necessary scale requires heat flow, q, plus the global average temperature drop, Delta T, across the atmosphere. It doesn’t entail the small scales of atmospheric layers, of temperature or humidity lapse rates, of cloud formations, or of other regional effects. IPCC doesn’t report that heat flow exists in the GCMs.
chaotic, therefore unpredictable
=================
ocean tides are chaotic, yet highly predictable. the technique is called Astrology. You look at the position on the sun and moon in the sky and record the height of the tide. When the sun and moon return to the same position, at the same time of year, the tide will return to the same position.
Since you can predict the position of the sun and moon in the future, you can predict the tide in the future, without the slightest need to know anything about gravity or what causes the tides.
However, what you cannot do is predict the height of tide from first principles. Even knowing that the tides are caused by gravity, you cannot predict them based on gravity and first principles. That is the nature of chaos.
Thus, by concentrating on the underlying cycles, the Russians have the possibility to predict climate accurately in the future. By concentrating on climate models working from CO2 and first principles, western climate scientists are doomed to failure.
Re: ferdberple 10/31/15 7:02 am:
When you refer ocean tides chaotic and predictable in the same sentence with Astrology, you painted your whole post as facetious. Nevertheless, you did reveal something rather fresh about the science literacy problem.
When you say ocean tides are chaotic, you are either using some unsourced meaning for chaos, or you are saying that ocean tides are (1) governed by equations, (2) deterministic, (3) have initial conditions, and (4) drift away from their initial conditions in some seemingly random and unpredictable fashion. Not one of those four claims is valid.
Then you say that the nature of chaos is revealed because what you cannot do is predict the height of tide from first principles. First, that inserts into your secret definition of chaos the unique property of prediction from first principles. Definitions instead need to be shared by stipulation, appeal to authority, or some other exotic method. Otherwise, the text is irrational. Second, you need to either prove the impossibility of predicting ocean tide a priori, or admit that the failure to predict a priori is an accusation of lack of scientific skill.
And therein lies the fresh rephrasing: inability to predict is a limitation of the state of the art of the science, not a property of the thing in the natural world being modeled. Before Newton, the dynamic behavior of mechanics was (mathematically) chaotic. But it wasn’t the Real World that changed in the 17th Century, it was objective knowledge.
Dear ferdpurple people eater….
“yet highly predictable. the technique is called Astrology”
Are you kidding, or is this a form of sarc?
Reminds me of the old Million dollar space pen joke:
The message says that the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration spent ten years and $12 million developing a pen that writes in zero gravity for use by astronauts. The pen will write upside down, underwater, on almost any surface and is functional at extremely hot and cold temperatures. The Russians, however, filled the need for a space writing instrument by simply using pencils.
They never figured out how to safely sharpen those pencils in microgravity, though. Plus, the story of the 12 million dollar pen is at least partly apocryphal.
To the critics: The analogy with astrology is a good one; astrologers mostly don’t believe that planets affect people. They use them as indicators of the timing of influences. (and I won’t even go into whether that works or not..) Like a VU or PPM meter indicating the level of sound. However, bending the pointer of the meter would not make the sound louder. It is an indicator, not the causative principle.
@Tim Ball
The headline is a bit misleading. Yes, Putin did criticize the Kyoto initiatives back in 2003. So did George Bush and many, many others. This was before the climate meme flipped the other way, and now virtually all world leaders, including Putin, give it full lip service.
So Putin did not recently say (as the headline implies) that GW is a fraud. At least not since Bush was in office.
On the contrary, Putin just spoke at the UN on the 28th of this month and proposed to create a new “forum” to study and take action against the problems caused by изменением климата (“by climate change”).
http://lifenews.ru/news/162533
Putin said: “We propose to establish under the auspices of the UN special forum where comprehensive look at the problems associated with the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, climate change. Russia is ready to become one of the organizers of the forum”
Note that this article is in Russian on the Internet and available to Russian citizens, contradicting the NYTImes claim that such news is blacked out in Russia. (Don’t recall seeing this piece in the English MSM though.)
Putin may well be a skeptic in his heart. But that has no bearing on the Realpolitik in Putin’s empire, where his words don’t necessarily have to match his actions. In other words, don’t expect Russian to make any reductions in GHG emissions in the near future. In fact you can expect increases.
But you will hear nothing but “politically correct” lip service when he addresses the world. His words will not reveal any of his skepticism about the climate (if such really exists).
Putin will be looking for the best deal he can get which will cripple western economies and allow russia to florish.
Correct. ‘Give them more rope when they are hanging themselves’ is what we should apply to this case.
Putin doesn’t have to lift a finger. Our dear leaders have already done it for him. At least he loves his country and people, whereas ours are to damn corrupt and selfish. They already took the US out of A.
Putin may be in partial agreement with another Russia saying; “communism is just a long road to capitalism”
This is the best book extending Kondratieff’s work.
http://www.amazon.com/Baby-Boomers-Generation-Social-Cycles/dp/1896330002
This is the another extension:
http://www.amazon.com/Demographics-Stock-Market-Crash-2015-ebook/dp/B00VDI6VD8/
First time I’ve been censored on WUWT!
Congrats!
With regards to you, I hope this heralds a trend.
Yup. Censorship is Good.
David Walton,
Can’t see what was deleted. But no, censorship is not good. This site may snip comments that violate its house rules. But WUWT doesn’t ‘censor’. That’s why it’s so much more popular than alarmist blogs, which censor heavily.
Were you actually “censored” or just informed of blog policy ??
I said that the USA was morphing into the USSR…complete with Lysenko type ‘science’.
I said that Obama was the USA’s Gorbachev.
I said ‘how did this happen’?
Big Crime.
Your comment was not censored.
You are currently commenting here …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/30/vladimir-putin-climate-and-political-realist/#comment-2060153
… but the comment you thought was censored was actually posted in a slightly older (but similarly themed) article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/30/russian-president-climate-change-is-fraud/#comment-2059720
:-]
Charles Nelson…
I saw that comment on the other thread that had the same Putin photo at the top. I believe you’re looking for your comment in the wrong thread.
I also saw your posting, in the “other” Putin article.
“Russian scientists know what the IPCC said. Because of them Putin knows that the climate science of the IPCC is wrong.”
Anybody out there know what the Russian word for bullshit is?
Well, in Polish it’s “goovna” . . . 😉
OhBhamma?
How many of you have read any of the technical sections of the IPCC reports and compared them to the Summary for Policy Makers? I think some of the technical sections have some good points and they talk about uncertainty. Some of the technical sections suffer from bias and the given terms of reference. Natural warming was outside the box; therefore not up for discussion. Slowly that is changing. But you won’t get that out of the SPM.
” I think some of the technical sections have some good points and they talk about uncertainty. ”
there are no good points regarding uncertainty, only uncertain points! Which are meaningless in all instances.
GiR
Yup, from the very beginning there was no certainty. There was conjecture that there was a 10% chance that man was messing up the climate. That 10% chance was enough to scare people because people are hypersensitive to risk thats imposed outside their control. Zoooooming forward a few decades, we now have the institutionalization of that risk aversion in convoluted ways.
Obama saw it as a way to galvanize the young electorate. At that point, it really picked up steam.
the Russian word for bullshit is
=======
Obama
Well, that lie of M.E.Mann (Penn State Univ) plus the ‘I’m a nobel prize winner’ lie plus several other lies are very strong evidence that Mann:
1) is a serial liar
2) is a surreal liar
3) has cereal for brains
John
Serial like Al Gore?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=south+park+gore+serial&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=BD7F57831BFA148EBBE7BD7F57831BFA148EBBE7
Just got my copy of the long awaited “A Disgrace to the Profession” This book certainly confirms your 3 points above. Cannot wait for Volume 2!
Regards
Climate Heretic
Good article.
I noticed a name typo. It should be Klaus-Eckart Puls (not Plus).
Happy Halloween.
Yes I noticed one as well,
‘Friends of the Earth International’,should read ‘Fiends of the Earth International’.
Q) “How much money will Putin contribute to the Green Climate Fund?”
A) Zero! But China & Russia will start their own “Green Climate Fund” and back stuff that actually works like LFTR/Molten salt reactors.
“Green Funds” are like foreign aid. Say for example, Canada gives away 1 million in foreign aid. That money comes with the stipulation that it be used to buy Canadian products. So some trackers dealership in Saskatchewan that gave 100 thousand to someone’s re-election campaign gets an order for 1 million dollars worth of tractors, at a much higher markup than they would be sold to local farmers.
The politician gets money to get reelected. The tractor dealership gets a big healthy profit. The foreign country gets tractors. Every working Canadian is out of pocket 10 cents, which they barely notice and is too small to complain about.
Now when the “Green Fund” enters the picture, the tractors are painted green with a “biofuel” label stuck on before they are shipped. the politician still gets money to get reelected, the tractor dealership still makes a healthy profit. And working Canadians are still out of pocket 10 cents. But we are making a difference.
Here is the true green tractor:
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/pengzhou-china-farmer-plowing-water-buffalo-14664908.jpg
The “Green Fund” tractor:
http://www.deere.com/common/media/images/product/tractors/utility_tractors/6d_series/6140d/JD485814_GC_210x139.jpg
Ferd,
I think this is more what they have in mind for us:
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2012/09-2/slaves.jpeg
PS. Every time I see that photo of Putin I can’t help but think of Frank Sinatra and “I did it my way”.
Putin and Daniel Craig (the new 007) could be twins.
Yeah, but we’ve got our guy…
http://moonbattery.com/graphics/putin_versus_obama.jpg
Oh, wait…
Nice picture of Putin and a leopard, and a nice picture of Obama and … Is that Cameron? Abbot? Turnbull?
@db those pics are really hard on keyboards, thanks for the laugh!
Is that a poodle?
Leo Smith
Is that a poodle?
=========
It may be Al Gore!
😉
“Is that a poodle?”
Yes (we own two), way too politically correct as dogs, but they don’t shed….
“Is that a poodle?”
I suggest that the pooch in the president’s paws is not a Poodle, but rather a Maltese.
Re: “To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”
Ditto
Slightly O/T: I was just banned from Ars Technica for… politely quoting the NOAA.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/us-congressman-subpoenas-noaa-climate-scientists-over-study/
These people are just not rational anymore.
Better late than never, i suppose.
(Translation: You’ve just now figured them out?)
So many of the commenters there are proud of their ignorance, announcing exactly where they stopped reading- they do, however, offer their spin on the accepted agenda. Ars offers their spin by posting in a side bar a link to an article touting the new and “improved” temperature record. Just another worthless, co-opted, pseudo, pop science site where readers go to find out what is cool.
,,, anymore?
Welcome to the club. I got banned for quoting the error bars in C14 dating.
That’s even funnier.
Thanks for the Heads Up
Regards
Climate Heretic
Thanks for the smile. I’m familiar with the feeling. When I linked to Mearns and Andrews website on “Zeroing in on the true values on climate sensitivity” and compared that to what Richard Feynman described when he wrote about cargo cult science, it was too much for them too.
I wish Feynman was still alive.
Putin’s facism to Obama’s socialism, Same but different. The world has turned upside down.
Obama wants to deliver the US to an Orwellian 1984 reality. Putin wants to simply restore a post WW2 USSR respect and hegemony over Eastern Europe. Both ignore the Chinese threat and a hungry population that could top 2 billion by 2040.
We can do better than Obama. We must.
Can’t see how that will happen. Like europe you now have, and will have in the future, many poor migrants to whom the communists will grant the vote so that they can vote for them.
In the EU and UK they want them to vote to stay in the eu. If they don’t they will be thrown out (that’s the story line)
I think Putin is aiming more for a Catherine the Great Russia, with a warm water port, and improved relations with Europe.
Unfortunately Europe has lost its way.
“it was designed to promote equal and limited development by weakening developed nations and minimally improving developing nations.”
Actually there is no intention to even minimally improve developing nations, as the funds will undoubtedly go to those governments, just like foreign aid, and serve to encourage those governments to neglect their people, just like foreign aid. The need to extract money from their citizens is eliminate, and the governments’ needs being served by the funding. Indeed, it would behoove them to further impoverish their people so that they would have a valid reason to beg for even more funding the next year, rather than the threat of less funding because they had improved their countries.
I have never seen this put so simply.
Of course!! That is exactly what has been happening for decades.
And that is exactly why it is so easy to sign up the developing world to the climate scam.
The money will go on marble interiors and BMW’s.
Hate to defend him, but Putin makes a good point — there are climate solutions that make a lot of sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_mirror_(geoengineering)
This could keep us out of the next Ice Age (or rather in the current interglacial) if we get some unexpected event that would push us into it again, and evenutally it could help power interplanetary colonization.
Also, the audience doesn’t laugh at Putin like the White House sycophants laugh at Obama.
Enough with the Putin love-in.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/i-would-not-mix-his-messianic-views-with-intelligence-exiled-russian-garry-kasparov-throws-the-book-at-putin
oops! Meant for the other thread.
C
I think it’s a wise practice to observe what successful people/groups do. It’s hard when we don’t like what they stand for, but I find that if you can suspend that emotion long enough to observe the things they do well, I often gain great insight. I also find this esp true when they are opposite of me.
Ain’t saying it’s easy, but am saying it is worthwhile esp if you want to do battle with them.
I learned the above from someone I don’t like to this day, but they did teach be a valuable skill.
Throwing it out there.
Have to give the Russians an “A” for ruthless effectiveness:
In October 1985,the Islamic Liberation Organization kidnapped four Soviet diplomats one of the hostages being killed. Through KGB operatives, they identified relatives of the perpetrators involved in the crisis, and began to take the relatives of these militants as hostages. Some of the relatives were dismembered, and their body parts sent to the militants. The warning was clear: more would follow unless the remaining hostages were released immediately. The show of force worked, and for a period of 20 years no Soviet or Russian officials were taken captive,
“Enough with the Putin love-in.”
As one who fully believes in the non-aggression principle, I find all leaders to be criminals. But having said that disclaimer, I also know some criminals are far worse than others. Putin has not launched wars of choice against other small and weak nations as has Obama. Russia does not have bases within a few miles of the USA boarders as the US Empire does so close to Russia. Russian politicians have not called for “teaching the USA a lesson” like some of our neo-cons have called for against Russia. Russia is not sending war ships to within 12 miles of the Chinese shores like the US navy is doing.
All in all, I find Putin to be doing the best he can in a very hard job. He is trying to hold together the traditional western society in Russia. Hell Fire — he even supports the Christian Church! SOB!
I would take Putin as president here over Obama any day.
All government is a self-legalising protection racket. That is not the point.
The point is how effective they are at actually protecting.
Watch out! Here come de Putin!
http://33.media.tumblr.com/e1397e5233c053317baad019d98e61dd/tumblr_n94ob6RJeM1qgd0ejo1_400.gif
And Putin’s opinion:
http://americandigest.org/sidelines/putinnegotiate.jpg
Mark,
IMO, Putin has invaded small and weak nations, since the Ukraine is weak and Georgia small. Syria is both at this point.
Mark, I couldn’t agree with you more. Russia has a president who loves her and her people, America has a poser who despises her and especially her people. I don’t understand the hate-fest against Putin. AFAIK, he’s never attacked America and whatever he’s done to protect Russia and its interests is just as justifyable as what America does – probably moreso because Putin isn’t looking to defend an illegitimate empire or create one. And if Putin joins these get-rich-quick-schemes-designed-to-make-the-rich-richer-and-fill-politicians-pockets to advance his nation instead of destroy it, well then, more power to him.
@ Goombayah Oct 31, 2015 2:31pm
Wow. You need to brush up on world events
America instigated a coup in the Ukraine and installed neo-nazis.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/new-video-evidence-americas-coup-ukraine-means.html
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2014/03/cheney-appointee-victoria-nulands-neocon-ukrainian-adventures
And you don’t find it the least bit curious that soon after the coup Biden’s son took a position at a Ukrainian oil firm?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/05/bidens-son-gets-ukrainian-oil-company-gig/
Icouldahad,
How exactly is a pro-Russian Rada member’s making unfounded assertions about the State Department-Microsoft TechCamp program “evidence”? TechCamps have been held in more than 40 countries, with attendees from over 110 nations. Do you seriously believe that Scandinavian countries and India, for example, would welcome a CIA front organization?
Sorry to burst your bubble inflated by Loony Leftwing blog maunderings, but the 800,000 Ukrainians who protested the fraudulently-“elected” regime’s actions were not gathered in Kiev by the CIA.
Besides which, what does any of this have to do with the fact that Putin invaded the Ukraine, just as he did Georgia? If the people of the Crimea prefer to join Russia, that’s fine with me, but if Putin thought he could win a plebiscite in the Donbas, he’d allow the UN to oversee one there.
icouldahad
October 31, 2015 at 4:09 pm
Wow!
You need to stop being duped by Russian Internet troll boiler rooms!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/18/woman-who-sued-pro-putin-russian-troll-factory-gets-one-rouble-in-damages
You can’t be serious quoting Kasparov? Really? As great as he was at chess he is that bad at politics. He blames Putin for “destroying Syria” for goodness sake. I’m no fanboy of Vlad as I have seen what happens to reporters in Russia who dig too deeply but to quote Kasparov on Putin is like asking the Wahabi opinion of Shias.
Quoting from a Russian dissident in exile?,maybe you should throw in a few anti-Putin quotes from ‘ISIS’ complete with expletives.
Since when does a critic of Putin become ” a Russian dissident in exile”?
Oh! That’s right. Putin waxes nostalgic for his days as a Soviet KGB thug.
I have only briefly reviewed Andrey Illarionov’s presentations. When the cAGW hype dies, the green movement will rue the day that it aligned itself with it since irrepairable harm will befall the reputation of the green movement and there will be a backlash against environmental issues. Andrey Illarionov is correct when he states:
“CONCLUSION 10:Mandatory limitations on CO2 emissions do not make environment better. On the contrary, they distract public attention and divert limited resources from addressing real problems of environment pollution.”
richard verney commented: “… When the cAGW hype dies, the green movement will rue the day that it aligned itself with it …”
I don’t think it would phase them in the slightest. They are a total ‘means to an end’ ideology and it will only be a speed bump, quickly forgotten, and they will be on to a new boogeyman. The fact that the AGW and income redistribution narrative compliments their ideology was by design. They are perfect useful idiots.
Speed bump? What speed bump? Quickly forgotten isn’t fast enough. It’ll be like it never happened. Or ” we were right all along”… no matter what. How do you get a noble prize for predicting something that didn’t happen? See any places under 4 meters of water? See any of those more frequent, powerful hurricanes? See the Arctic completely melted? See the thermal expansion of the ocean driving the 4 meter rise in sea level? The faithful are still waiting out in the field. Any day now, in 100 years. Let’s do it for the children. Ahhh. … your children won’t know what snow is. ( sarc if you didn’t get it)
RV
If you have a link to the presentation that would be great. Trouble locating it.
Tnx
“The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with what it actually is.”
The critical difference between Putin and most of our politicians is evidence.
Putin starts from the facts and then plays politics.
Ours ignore the facts, play endless politics and then try to dodge the blame when reality happens.
Now politics has been defined as the art of the possible, but the possibility of Unicorn Farts fuelling our economy is not high.
Neither is the possibility that people who hate and desire another, will sit down in peace and love.
Now when the “global economy” implodes, will it be reasonable to blame our leaders?
Or when the current Jihadi Walk succeeds in infesting most western countries, will these same leaders accept any fault?
We will be selecting our own Putins soon enough.
As far as climate science is concerned, leaders starts from politics and then play with the facts such as cherry picking, temperature adjustments, etc.
With regards to Putin contributing to the Green Climate Fund and the new protocol in Paris or Paris Protocol my prediction is Russia will contribute and strongly support the Paris Protocol as those are very effective and strong weapons to destroy the west and at the same time playing Mr Nice guy. The main question is how much Putin could get and in what form he could get from the other world leaders for his contribution and support? The unequal bargain used to be sold to the public in western countries as “peace in our time” but now it is “climate change in our time”.
Thank-you, Dr. Ball. I finished reading the white paper published by S.C.M. this morning and found it to be very approachable and straight forward in its analysis.
Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev bet climate modeler James Annan $10,000 that the globe would be cooler during 2012-2017 compared to 1998-2003.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
The bet was based on NCDC data, but unfortunately for the Russians, NCDC’s Tom Karl and friends “adjusted” the data this year to eliminate the global warming pause; the Russians should refuse to pay.
Don B,
The Russians may well win the bet anyway. But to be fair and honest about it, they should specify the average of the RSS and UAH satellite measurements, not on NCDC’s adjusted ‘data’. As we saw in the Climategate emails, the alarmist scientists are not above “correcting” the record.
Huh, it must be global conspiracy then….
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png
And we had an integrated global network of temperature measuring devices in 1890? Yeah right…
130 years of flat-line trend as the world industrialized. Yet AGW predicted an accelerating trend.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”
50 years ago, when the world was colder, we could barely feed 3 billion people. today with a warmer climate and CO2 fertilizer we feed more than 7 billion.
food production has more than doubled in 50 years. and all we hear is that warming spells disaster. only if more people means disaster.
Take Mother Earth out on a date. Would you rather she was:
1. Cold and dry
2. Warm and wet
I love anomaly graphs but no one seems to quote the value of zero as a temperature,
could you please state the temperature of zero in the graph.
Thanks.
So then it’s a global conspiracy? I knew it!
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png
Barry,
I notice that there is no change in global warming between times when CO2 was low, and when CO2 was high. Thanx for verifying that global warming is natural.
Japan Meterological Agency however do not themselves collect this information. As they helpfull explian elsewhere on their website in a section titled – “Global Warming information”
In Japan Meteorological Agency, the impact assessment of global warming, the promotion of study of mitigation and adaptation of global warming, with the aim of contributing to such dissemination and awareness of scientific knowledge on global warming, and global warming from the 1996 fiscal year We published the results of a Predictive model as “global warming prediction information”. – translated from Japanese by Google. ….. http://www.data.jma.go.jp/cpdinfo/GWP/index.html
They do provide a helpful download PDF which gives their sources of data, and lo and behold there are the names of “the usual suspects ” – no wonder The JMA agrees with NOAA, NASA, IPCC & etc, because they are using their data ! ….. http://www.data.jma.go.jp/cpdinfo/GWP/Vol8/pdf/08.pdf
Yes, and good job too, Barry, for pointing out that the rate seems to be steady at about .5 degrees per century. Thanks for pointing out what’s been said at WUWT for years.
The 0.7 c per century falsifies the CAGW alarmist claims and exactly backs up what Putin said. The rate has not changed at all so even if it continued, 0.7 c increase during the 21st century is not the amount of warming the alarmists claimed would be danger to humans. It is considerably less and if same warming and cooling cycles occurred like shown here it would be even cooler than 0.7 c per century. This is because 2 natural cooling cycles will fit in the 21st century this time, whereas the last century only had one.
What happened during that flat period between 1950 and 1980 ?
Barry:
You say
Please explain why warmunists imagine so many claims of conspiracies where none exist.
Your assertion of a claimed conspiracy here is but one example. Others include;
Big Oil conspires to fund AGW skeptics,
and
The frequent ‘adjustments’ of climate data to fit with what the adjusters think they should show does not provide this effect but is a conspiracy imagined by AGW skeptics,
and
etc..
I would be very grateful for an explanation because I genuinely do want to know why warmunists imagine so many claims of conspiracies where none exist.
Richard
richardscourtney commented: “…I would be very grateful for an explanation because I genuinely do want to know why warmunists imagine so many claims of conspiracies where none exist.”
It’s a defense mechanism to shame and silence the accuser when the truth is damaging to the accused….. except by refusing to divulge data the Warmist Cult actually validates the so called conspiracy theory in the minds of the public.
Where’s the flat period from 2015 to 1997? That is the current plateau in the global temperature record?
Regards
Climate Heretic
It’s a global conspiracy to hide the temperature of 0.0
Richardscourtney, many on this blog claim the data has been “cooked.” You show them the data, and they claim it’s been falsified. Here I show data from Japan, indicating they are in on the conspiracy, too. Also, see latest news about Exxon scientists.
Barry:
I asked you
And you have replied by asserting imagined claims of two conspiracies which do not exist.
Your reply says in total
There is no “conspiracy” that climate so-called scientists alter global climate data sets of of data from decades ago. They do it almost every month as a method to make the data fit with what they think it should be. They don’t conspire – and don’t need to conspire – to do it. The effect is this and it prevents publication of climate data analyses.
I don’t have a clue what you mean by “latest news about Exxon” scientists. But I do know that Exxon scientists have accurately reported climate data and have not not altered it.
I repeat my request for you to please explain why warmunists imagine so many claims of conspiracies where none exist. I genuinely do want to know.
Richard
In fact, why would the Russians send anyone to the Paris climate confab? The cards are stacked against fossil fuel producers.
From a purely political and economic perspective one would expect Putin to be all in (at least outwardly) in supporting the AGW scam, even though he KNOWS it is total BS.
Look, a very significant percentage of Russia’s income (revenue) comes from selling oil and gas. If the rest of the world cuts back on hydrocarbon production, it will drive up the price of oil and gas and this will be an economic boon for Russia and Putin.
Wind and solar are a joke in terms of being reliable sources of energy.
The Western nations, in their total stupidity, have given up on nuclear generating stations, despite the fact that the modern designs are much safer and simpler than those circa 1970s (e.g., Fukushima, 3 Mile Island, etc) , and have totally rejected the recycling spent nuclear fuel despite the success that France has achieved in recycling.
(Note that the Chinese are building nuclear generating stations like crazy) .
Putin is not an idiot.
If he can help drive up the price of oil and gas, you can expect him to be cheer-leading that effort. And you can also expect him to disregard and ignore (or “secretly” violate) any limitations on Russian oil and gas production imposed by the morons who rule over the USA and Europe.
Food for thought: the “green” political parties in Europe most likely receive some of their funding from the Russians. The greens have successfully persuaded the Germans to shutter all their nukes. The result has been the Germans (and much of western Europe) are reliant on Russian oil and gas.
The European green energy policy can best be described as the Putin Energy Plan for Europe.
Food for thought: the “green” political parties in Europe most likely receive some of their funding from the Russians. The greens have successfully persuaded the Germans to shutter all their nukes.
@ John Tyler:
Not only in the EU, here in Canada they have spend millions supporting the Greens against pipe lines every where ( even existing ones), especially the ones that are supposed to send natural gas to Asia from BC and Alberta. The 2 new governments both at the provincial levels (Alberta NDP) and Federal level (Trudeau’s Libs a majority btw ) are already causing massive lay offs in the “oil patch” in just the past few days. I know this a right wing site but the numbers cohttps://blu176.mail.live.com/?tid=cmO30sPqt-5RGZ_9idZ1yJdw2&fid=flinboxmpute,
Try this link the above one got mangled.
https://blu176.mail.live.com/?tid=cmO30sPqt-5RGZ_9idZ1yJdw2&fid=flinbox
A
“I know this a right wing site”
It’s too bad that WUWT is pigeonholed as such. If this is the general opinion, it will limit the site in the long run. That view becomes a hurdle for the listener who is not “right wing”.
Asybot;
“I know this is a rightwing site”
Seems to fly pretty straight to me.
Truth requires balance, Mr Watts does a remarkable job of allowing all kinds of comments.
Other than your knowing, do you have any evidence to support your belief?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
It would be interesting to see the history of adjustments.
Barry,
From your link:
Trend = 0.7º/century.
Why the panic?
Yes, you can draw a straight line through a set of data points. Congratulations on doing so. However, you never ever (basically) continue the projection of the straight line beyond the end points of the data, this includes polynomial fits as well.
The correct graph (trend line) is a sawtooth + sinusoidal one. The time range for this trend is around 450,000BP. Extrapolating this trend indicates a cooling period, beginning from about 10,000 yrs ago. The start of the Holocene period.
Regards
Climate Heretic
PS Yes I know, Proxy data from the Vostok and Greenland ice cores.
The Russians have decided they need more ice breakers, and soon. Perhaps they see something coming that Al Gore does not? Meanwhile, the US keeps kicking the can down the road for replacements of USCGC Polar Sea and USCGC Polar Star, the only two heavy ice breakers we possess. I visit USCG Base Seattle occasionally, and it is sad to see Polar Sea rusting away at the pier.
http://www.barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2015/05/new-icebreakers-open-way-russia-arctic-05-05
Putin is putting himself in the firing line for being assassinated by the dark forces behind the UN. Abbott and Harper were shafted to get Australia and Canada to sign up for the Lysenkoism of global warming/ climate change/ extreme weather or whatever the scare of the day.
Don’t know about Abbott, but it’s clear that Harper shafted himself. He was not a very likeable person; a control freak who micro-managed everything the government did, and was unable to answer a question with an answer (OK all politicians these days are bad at answering questions, but Harper took it to new levels of absurdity). He managed to do essentially nothing on the warming front, while making a commitment to be fossil-fuel-free in 2100. Right, 2100. People just got tired of him, and I think it’s foolish to see a conspiracy behind his removal. Climate was hardly mentioned as an issue in the election – all the parties (except the Green Party) know that Canada’s economy still relies very heavily on oil ans gas production. They do a bit of talking the talk, but I don’t think we’ll see the new Liberal government doing too much walking the walk on climate (maybe that’s wishful thinking, fingers remain crossed, touch wood, etc.).
Sturgis Hooper
My sister, my older sister, actually dated Vladimir Putin (she called him Vlad the Bad). He’s the only man who ever survived it. Or, kept his money.
TJ
Theory
Your sister is responsible for honing his pragmatism.
Experimental data required
A significant data set of your sisters past suitors and a measurement of their behavorial patterns. Please submit the raw data for appropriate smoothing and messaging.
Causation need not be proven, correlation will suffice.
Since it has already been predetermined that we can’t change your sister’s behavoir or make her pay, you’ll have to pony up the money for disparate impact.
Warning : This is make believe. This is not to be taken out of context or misused without its entire proceeings, including the warning.
Jenkins on NOAA’s massaged data:
VIDEO: 2mins59secs: 30 Oct: WSJ: Opinion Journal: Rigging Climate-Change Data?
Business World Columnist Holman Jenkins Jr. on the House investigation into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s climate data.
http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-rigging-climate-change-data/9314B300-F9A2-44CD-8762-242A0C294926.html
Putin no doubt knows who the CAGW winners are:
July 2015: Research and Markets: Clean Technology Market in Developing Countries 2015-2019
Key vendors
– Novozymes
– Siemens Water Technologies
– Suez Environment
– Suzlon Energy
– Syntec Biofuels
– Toyota Motors
– Trina Solar
– Vestas Wind Energy Systems
– Yingli Green Energy Holdings
Other prominent vendors
– AESE
– Alstom
– Dupont
– Enercon
– First Solar
– Gamesa Corp Technologica
– GE Energy
– LanzaTech NZ
– Panasonic
– Rumpke Consolidated Companies
– Solazyme
– SunPower
– Veolia Environnment
– Waste Management
Market driver
– Global warming and climatic changes
– For a full, detailed list, view our report (Single User PDF, 108 pages, USD 3,000)
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/h4zrsd/clean_technology
just to clarify something. the NYT piece on Putin is, in reality, a Reuters piece and is marked as such at top and bottom of the article. here’s the original:
29 Oct: Reuters: Russian media take climate cue from skeptical Putin
By Andrey Kuzmin
(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo; Editing by Bruce Wallace and Kevin Liffey)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/29/us-climatechange-summit-russia-media-idUSKCN0SN1GI20151029
Andrey Kuzmin’s twitter page, with polar bear:
Twitter: Andrey Kuzmin, Reuters metals&mining editor\reporter in Moscow
https://twitter.com/inwakeofquake
like all Reuters’ writers, the usual suspects get quoted or mentioned: Carbon Action Tracker, Greenpeace, WWF:
23 Sept: ThomsonReuters: Andrey Kuzmin: Russia rejects criticism of greenhouse gas plan, will not amend – top Putin adviser
Green groups say Russia’s emissions pledge lacks ambition
http://sustainability.thomsonreuters.com/2015/09/23/russia-rejects-criticism-of-greenhouse-gas-plan-will-not-amend-top-putin-adviser/
STOP electro-volcanic ICE-RISE and a new GLACIAL, by Laser Shielding active craters from magma stimulating space muons (Ebisuzaki, 2011)!!! NASA Study: ‘Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet’!!!… http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
As an aside. But still related to COP21, I just chanced on this BBC Daily Politics segment.
I’m beginning to strongly suspect that Andrew Neil is a closet skeptic.
Some people are waking up. It’s getting harder and harder to baffle them with flim-flam:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p036nfrd
It suits Putin for the EU to overwhelmed by Syrian refugees whilst keeping Assad in power. It will make his plans for Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic States that much easier to complete. Putin is very clever and runs rings round all western leaders.
And an imbecilic propaganda piece on COP21 here from David Shukman.
At this very moment this is being beamed into the minds of the gullible.
A masterclass in how to construct a image of “fearful things” using no facts, no science, no scientists and no interest in the truth. Pure propaganda and rhetoric, zero content.
Perfect halloween material.
Slightly scary to children but for anyone with a developed mind, quite obviously not real.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34684278
What happened to watchdog journalism – when did it die?
It died in the UK circa 1972 when the UK joined up with ‘le grand projet’ of Brussels – actually even before Jan 73, the ogres of the thought police were beginning to silence investigative journalism and reportage. A political system, the sclerosis of consensus politics and being prepared for entry into the what was then ‘the common market’ was shackling a free press and for propagandizing the great British public.
TPTB, its elite had seen – frightening images were being beamed into our homes during the late Sixties – they could see examples of open, frank reportage from Vietnam and that sort of reporting had to be suppressed.
Free Britons used to scoff and laugh at Tass and Pravda the old Russian Soviet news outlets but we inevitably succumbed, here in the west presently, the big problem is – the public is unaware and actually believes – that, al-beeb its programming and news reportage – is factual, unbiased and accurately truthful……
Can you believe it?
Tim, you say:
Quote:
The fascinating thing about the east-west scientific, intellectual and philosophical difference is that it was interpreted as political and ideological. It wasn’t.
And then you say:
Quote:
His goal was to double Russia’s gross domestic product, and he believed this was more achievable through membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).
That makes the Western AGW scam deeply political, based firmly in the dark arts of political duplicity.
I think what you mean is that AGW is not a ‘left vs right’ political divide. I might agree with you on that. But it is most certainly a ‘fantasist vs pragmatist’ political divide. Every devout AGWist I have met also believes that all nations, cutures, religions and people are all the same, and they all have a deep well of honesty and goodness within them. Not one of them has the experience and wisdom of a street-wise urchin, who will recognise good from bad by the age of three or four.
R
http://www.google.com/url?q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson_(columnist)&sa=U&ved=0CBQQFjAAahUKEwi8nerot-zIAhXLFx4KHW6tC7k&usg=AFQjCNFaIIMSoTG64rnWbsXXq7knbOu2LQ
Jack Anderson died ten years ago. He was the most famous muckracker I have ever known.
All this talk of Fascism.
Crikey, from my point of view all I can relate, the men and women who close down debate – telling us that, “the science is settled” but laughably who are solely reliant on computer modelled bunkum……….premised on a supposition and very much given to shouting down reasonable men like Professors Lindzen and Willie Soon – tell me, honestly………. whose acting like the Fascists?
Then, there’s that joker Obama, his Fascistic tendencies, along with the Fascists of the climate alarmism – the UN and Brussels they are, micromanaging monsters and that sort of megalomania begets Fascism.
Putin, is a pragmatist and a very hard man, he’s not lovable but unlike Bambam – at least Putin commands respect.
Admittedly – not that it is much better here in the UK but you have to worry about a political system and electorate which allowed Obama two terms in office and is now weighing up the possibilities of a White House enthronement for a meddlesome, hand wringing liberal, endlessly incompetent wife of an ex president – whose beholden to the Internationalist order – corporatism and the Statism of big government.
Where have all the good guys gone to?
From reference article: [quote] Putin’s former senior economic adviser, who’s now a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.
“We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited,” Illarionov said. “It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.” [quote]
Illarionov sounds pretty much like what most of us on this site have written.
Now you guys can go back to trivial nonsense like slide rules and fascism … Geez Louise.
French mathematicians say “The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade” October 30, 2015
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/french-mathematicians-say-the-battle-against-global-warming-an-absurd-costly-and-pointless-crusade/
Reminds me of Monty Python and the holy Grail. The holy Grail in this case being CO2. The French of course have the usual contempt for believers. I hope the French give the global warming crowd the same treatment that was given to the believers at the end of the movie.
Putin is a hard-core Leninist/KGBist, but at least he’s correct about CAGW.
Russia may play the Climate Game, but it’s all a ruse as a way to seek advantage. They plan to boost coal production, for example.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2014/04/22/russia-reveals-plans-to-boost-flagging-coal-industry/
Since the title included “political realist” I think this post, showing US political candidates’ stand on the issue appropriate:
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/10/26/the-presidential-candidates-on-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1474669
I don’t suppose most of them had a chance anyway, but I’ve crossed Jindal, Graham, Kasich, Pataki, and Bush off my list of potential candidates to support.
I know; let’s have the Obama Justice Department do a RICO investigation of Vladimir Putin!
Don’t forget that Putin in the first place is a Russian nationalist.
I got nuthin:
a photon by any other name is just as bright
Calling CO2 pollution distracts from attending to possible real atmospheric pollutants from coal such as particulates, NOX and sulfur (as the Chinese are experiencing, especially with the smog in Beijing. The US uses precipitators to remove the real pollutants).
Engineering science demonstrates CO2 has no effect on climate. Identification of the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com (97% match since before 1900).
Evidence that CO2 has no effect on climate is also documented in a peer reviewed paper at Energy & Environment, Volume 26, No. 5, 2015, 841-845.
He knows climate science is a propagandist/communist farce because he is an expert at propaganda and communism.
Thanks, Dr. Ball. An excellent article.
Leadership is exemplified by straight speaking, especially against an overwhelming paradigm. Kudos to President Putin for being the first world leader to follow the skeptical path we have all chosen. As for the term ‘climate change’ a more accurate phrase in ‘nothing new under the sun’. We can adapt as circumstances develop, not mitigate against falsehood.
It’s ironic that Russian scientists still have to endure the ignominy of being accused of being among “the usual suspects” and deviating from the party line.
“It was deeply upsetting to witness the ill-mannered and discourteous way in which both Professor Izrael and Dr Illarionov were mocked during the debates by many delegates and IPCC officials”
The difference between now and the days of Lysenko is that this now happens at a British university.
The global warming is a purely political movement. “We are going to regulate every aspect of human life.” It isn’t even close to a “science.” It is simply a totalitarian’s wet dream. Just watch this video starting around 45 minutes.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=44m53s
This video clip starting at 49 minutes clearly highlights the propaganda nature of Global Warming.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=49m26s
in France, the game is over
http://tvmag.lefigaro.fr/le-scan-tele/polemiques/2015/11/01/28003-20151101ARTFIG00037-philippe-verdier-annonce-avoir-ete-licencie-par-france-televisions.php?m_i=LhgLbBqXWyd6jCmvFjaXC94j2mTD5X9JFPm0eNQrZTvL%2BHTvn9_VayHCJebdfUqvlh1BVTewjanIDz5B5dkFKCD9khgdb2yih2NGlcLp&a2=20151101155949&a3=763-1638363-882669
I am not charlie
Putin will say or do whatever is in Putin’s personal best interest. The above article suits his purpose in this case but he will go to whichever side of this issue is beneficial to him. Sad, though, that in this case the exKGB killer lands on the moral high ground while Obama, our liar in chief, is way down in the valley.
Clearly a sign of global warming…
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5134d70a69bedd2d1f00003b-1200/vladimir-putin.jpg
Control yourself, Barry. ☺
Unless I missed it, that nag wasn’t running in the Breeder’s Cup, yesterday 🙂
Interesting article…. And since you brought into discussion the Cold War issue, I think that it’s time to also discuss about the naval war during the two World Wars and it’s influence over ocean and over climate. Don’t you think so?
Leo Smith asked:
October 31, 2015 at 3:27 am
“Is that a poodle?”
Steve P replied:
October 31, 2015 at 5:35 pm
“I suggest that the pooch in the president’s paws is not a Poodle, but rather a Maltese.”
In support of my finely honed ability to tell one dog breed from another, I found this:
http://patriotupdate.com/the-obamas-adopt-a-maltese-and-name-him/
http://libertyallianc.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/obama_hypoallergenic_dog_healthbolt-400×400.jpg
Regarding: “If you can’t forecast accurately for a few days, how can you be so certain about 50 and 100-year forecasts?” My analog to this is a switching amplier, where one of its parameters (something affecting DC offset or gain) can be changed and its input signal is audio frequency random noise that maybe has gone through some audio frequency filters, some of them resonant. The analog to a weather forecast is a microsecond-by-microsecond forecast of the states of the output transistors. The analog to a climate forecast is a forecast for the duty cycle of the output transistors, or the AC RMS output voltage, over the first few seconds after one of the amplifier’s parameters is changed.
The man who put on the Sochi Olympics would be a fraud expert.
It’s essentially impossible to have a meaningful discussion on climate with someone who believes “the science is settled”
It’s also difficult to have a meaningful discussion on politics with people who use the words “socialist” and “liberal” as terms of abuse, terms that are also assumed to be self-explanatory designations of evil intent, moral emptiness and membership of a global conspiracy.
Had to say that. Sorry WUWT, a tiny minority of posts to your excellent site don’t contribute anything useful to discussions.
Socialism. I grew up in the post-world war 2 UK, where the 1945 Labour government had nationalised what I always assumed was well over half of the economy. It may not have been perfect, but it wasn’t a bad place to live at all. Perhaps its biggest problem was that nationalised industries were being run by the same twerps who had run them when they were private. But then, private-sector businesses were mostly run by the same twerps too, the kind of people who wouldn’t have recognised an innovation if it jumped up and bit them in the nuts. That was the problem with the UK in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. IMHO, Thatcher’s cure was worse than the disease. Crony capitalism in its most complete incarnation, where nothing and nobody has any value unless they contribute to enriching the already rich.
Putin. His government uses polonium 218 to silence its critics. He has just allied himself with Assad, the guy who drops barrel bombs and poison gas on his own people. Just because he’s on the right side of the climate debate, does not make Putin a nice person. Just because he appears to be strong and Obama comes across as vacillating at best on the world stage, does not make his strategy the right one.
Smart Rock
November 1, 2015 at 7:22 pm
“He has just allied himself with Assad…”
Let’s stop right there for a quick review of history:
Relations between Syria and the Soviet Union (USSR), which had taken an interest in the Middle East, were initiated by a secret agreement signed on February 10, 1946 […] The 1946 Russo-Syrian agreement prescribed diplomatic and political support from the USSR in the international arena and Soviet military help for the foundation of the Syrian national army. During the Cold War (1947–1991), Syria served as an ally to the Soviet Union in opposition to the western powers, and a stronger political bond grew.
–Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Syria_relations
Counter to your claim that Putin “has just allied himself with Assad,” there is in fact a long-standing relationship between Syria and (Soviet) Russia.
You also wrote:
“… the guy who drops barrel bombs and poison gas on his own people.”
Yes, Brian Williams made those same allegations several times. We’re to believe that when the UN inspectors came to check out a previously reported chemical weapons attack, Assad’s forces chose that auspicious moment to make another. Of course, Assad is not only evil, but also incredibly stupid: Hey! UN Inspectors in town…let’s give it the gas!
It’s comic book logic, but the credulous crowd swallows it hook, line, and sinker.
“Hersh Vindicated? Turkish Whistleblowers Corroborate Story on False Flag Sarin Attack in Syria
It supports Seymour Hersh’s reporting that the notorious sarin gas attack at Ghouta was a false flag orchestrated by Turkish intelligence in order to cross President Obama’s chemical weapons “red line” and draw the United States into the Syria war to topple Assad.
If so, President Obama deserves credit for “holding the line” against the attack despite the grumbling and incitement of the Syria hawks at home and abroad.
[…]
Taking the floor first, Erdem stated that the Adana Chief Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation into allegations that sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen. An indictment followed regarding the accusations targeting the government.
“The MKE [Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation] is also an actor that is mentioned in the investigation file. Here is the indictment. All the details about how sarin was procured in Turkey and delivered to the terrorists, along with audio recordings, are inside the file,” Erdem said while waving the file.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/hersh-vindicated-turkish-whistleblowers-corroborate-story-on-false-flag-sarin-attack-in-syria/
‘Still waiting for the MSM to report this story.
Steve P:
You may desire to defend Assad and Syria, but misrepresenting others to achieve that does not provide credibility to your case.
Your rebuttal of the opinion of ‘Smart Rock’ is without merit. It relies on your use of a semantic trick.
Smart Rock said of Putin, “He has just allied himself with Assad…”.
You have interpreted the word “just” as meaning ‘recently’ and have refuted Smart Rock by asserting a relationship of Russia (i.e. the Soviet Union) with Syria since 1946.
But in context it seems that Smart Rock was using “just” to mean ‘merely’ so his sentence actually means, “{Putin} has {merely} allied himself with Assad…”.
This interpretation agrees with the usage of “just” that Smart Rock applied in the subsequent two sentences in his same paragraph which says in total
Richard
richardscourtney
November 2, 2015 at 12:48 am
You wrote, in bold:
“But in context it seems that Smart Rock was using “just” to mean ‘merely’ so his sentence actually means, “{Putin} has {merely} allied himself with Assad…”.
I admire your ability to presume to know what Smart Rock meant, but setting aside for the moment your special talent, your take on Smart Rock’s statement makes no sense to me in the context of his post.
Putin has “merely” allied himself with Assad. What, pray tell, is that supposed to mean? However you spin it, the clear implication of Smart Rock’s comment is that this alliance is something that Putin himself did, rather than a continuation of a long-standing relationship between the two countries.
My history lesson was meant for those who would understand Smart Rock’s use of the word “just” to mean “recently,” and who may lack your special ability to know what Smart Rock really meant.
To avoid misunderstanding, writers should use precise language so there is no need for disambiguation.
You began your post with this, also in bold:
“You may desire to defend Assad and Syria, but misrepresenting others to achieve that does not provide credibility to your case.”
My desire is to defend the truth. There was no misrepresentation.
Now, perhaps you would care to share with us your thoughts on the explosive news of a possible Turkish-led false flag chemical weapons attack at Ghouta meant to implicate Assad, and draw the US further into the Syrian conflict.
–sp–
Richard,
It is you playing Humpty-Dumpty semantics on this occasion. The most obvious interpretation for the word “just” in Smart Rock’s comment is “in the immediate past, or “recently“, e.g.:,
“Richard just [recently] threw a hissy fit for no good reason!”
With SmartRock regurgitating all the faith-based western propaganda about “barrel bombs” and “poison gas”, portraying the secular and moderate, gently-spoken Dr. Assad as some kind of war criminal for defending his country from foreign-funded lung-eating “moderate” jihadi insurgent “rebels” (or whatever we choose to call them today), it makes little sense to interpret the word “just” as “merely,” despite your suggestion that we should.
Khwarizmi:
I refer you to my rebuttal of the excuse from Steve P that I posted here.
Richard
Steve P:
I revile your attempt to distort the words of Smart Rock.
And I don’t understand why you say you “admire {my} ability to presume to know what Smart Rock meant” when anybody can see Smart Rock used the word “just” in three successive sentences.
Anybody can see the word “just” only has one meaning that applies to its application in all those three successive sentences. Your distortion of his meaning relies on your assuming he did not use it in the same way in the first of those three sentences as he did in the other two.
Simply, you attacked Smart Rock for something he did not say. Such treatment of ‘lefties’ is typical on WUWT threads and is (perhaps intentionally) divisive of opposition to the AGW-scare.
Richard
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Richard just aligned himself to a ridiculous interpretation of a word, just for the sake of an argument.
I just used two instances of the same word in the same sentence, but each instance has a different meaning.
Khwarizmi:
Please don’t be deliberately silly.
Yes, words can have several meanings. And, therefore, context is used to inform which meaning is intended.
As I said, “anybody can see Smart Rock used the word “just” in three successive sentences. And anybody can see the word “just” only has one meaning that applies to its application in all those three successive sentences. ”
If Smart Rock intended the word to have different meanings in his three successive sentences then it would be normal for him to have used different words: he did not.
I repeat that Steve P attacked Smart Rock for something he did not say according to its context. You are supporting that attack. And, as I also said, such treatment of ‘lefties’ is typical on WUWT threads and is (perhaps intentionally) divisive of opposition to the AGW-scare.
Richard
Smart Rock
November 1, 2015 at 7:22 pm
“He has just allied himself with Assad…”
However one chooses to interpret the word “just” in the comment under discussion – either as “merely” or “recently” – one is nevertheless left with the mistaken notion the the Russian-Syrian alliance is somehow Putin’s work, when the record shows that the Russian (Soviet) relationship with Syria goes back to 1946, before Putin was even born.
Steve P:
Whatever.
Richard
One can say, today’s science, or a tycoon-science, or politicized science, or is false doctrine. Climate change on the planet depend on the interaction between the sun and the planets. All the planets acting on the sun, and the sun returns various “weapons” to maintain a balance of mutual relations. Climate change on Earth, largely depend on the 4 planets that cause the appearance of sunspot cycle of about 11.2 years. These are the indicators rather than causes.
To make a general study of these changes, it is necessary to have guidance on what causes climate change and how and then to elaborate on powerful computers that must be able to at least 2 terabyte of possible calculations per second. In addition there is a lot of cycles and sub-cycles which are necessary to create and tabular and graphical summaries by time events and other characteristics that are the basis of these phenomena.
I therefore urge the Obama and Putin to unite and agree on how to solve this problem of civilization together, using a policy of “get rid” of scientific problems.
May enter individually if they want it.
This is more serious than all previous offers which have not been completed.
Inform both the President about this, let them read it.
Since Vlad already benefited from carbon credits in closing old Soviet industrial sites, he is free to tell the truth on the global policy scam at this point. Given his rift with the French right now, he is free to say more. See Obama methods of daily climate fraud messaging from agencies, grantees, and co-opted media outlets to see how a master conducts it.
The yardstick of “realism” is often quite relative relative. Relative to Obama, Putin appears to be a realist. Relative to some scientists, he’s a political poseur. But what Putin can be relied upon for, is the recognition of fraud. His entire career in the KGB and afterwards should make him an expert in that field.
Again, when you combine climate change along with CERN you see a setup of colossal proportion. I always favor free market’s west science over any communal type investigations mounted by the East. But then again the free market is kaput and the way bad science and Sony Bono patent copyrights are going it only appears a return to religious type dark age is impending.
KL
Science for profit vs communal science ? To my mind those appear to be forced choices.
Is there something in between that moderates the flaws of each ? Is it worth attempting ?
Are there examples that excite you ?
Both work to a degree. Though neither do if the stakes are so high that the rights become too overprotected or insured. The future as I see it puts the world at an impasse on either.
Putin’s power and money are based on oil. This makes him take the side of the truth in this particular matter. At the same time, he is a blackmailer, a poisoner, and a military aggressor. Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx may have said that 2 x 2 = 4. This fact alone doesn’t mean that they were decent and wise people. It also doesn’t mean that the multiplication table is wrong. It means only that the worst of the scum sometimes uses the truth when it suits them politically.
If a murderer says that 2 x 2 = 4, it doesn’t mean that the murderer is somehow a better man than he is, or that the multiplication table is wrong. It just means that the truth is more profitable for a murderer today than the lie which is profitable for his competitors.
cac mon ngon tai Viet Nam
So Putin doesn’t believe in dangerous climate change. Perhaps that is why Russia is rapidly building up its nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet. As noted above, Russians do things differently, but they are not stupid.Perhaps they know something about the Arctic that the alarmists don’t ???
This is an excellent and fascinating article. Thank you.