Guest Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball
Scientists lost the scientific script somewhere in the 20th century. The major loss involved the fact that correlation is not cause and effect. It was lost for several reasons:
- Failure to know or consistently apply scientific methods;
- Lack of ethics as the end justifies the means;
- Methods and process are not taught or emphasized;
- People are more willing to bypass or ignore everything for funding;
- Too many are willing to subjugate or exploit research for a political agenda;
- Achieving results to advance a career is more important;
- A person gets caught up in Groupthink as they go along to get along;
- and scientists are unwilling to look to themselves to stop the rot.
All of these reasons were on display in the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
An example of the problem of correlation occurred recently on TV screen when a medical doctor was asked about the research evidence for a claim about the relationship between two phenomena. The interviewer clearly wanted to know about the cause/effect proof. The doctor replied that there was an “association” between them. Did the doctor know that this is just another word for correlation and that it must not be substituted for cause and effect? Who knows? All I know is the news is replete with claims of correlations implying cause and effect. It is undermining the credibility of science.
When teaching climatology, it is imperative to warn of the dangers of correlation and auto-correlation. My favorite example is that doctors cause cancer because almost everyone with cancer visited a doctor. Others like the claim that diet drinks cause obesity because more obese people drink diet drinks than any other group. So much of statistics applied to weather data for climate reconstructions involves basic techniques such as the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient that produce the Pearson’s r value. This r value was central to the debate about the validity of the ‘hockey stick’ as Steve McIntyre explained. It is also imperative to teach that when reconstructing past climates more than two independent proxy sources are required to have any confidence in the results and that a minimum of two station records are necessary to determine relative homogeneity.
The trouble is that in climate science malfeasance and abandonment of proper science is more pervasive. Over the year’s media and others challenged me arguing that by questioning anthropogenic global warming (AGW) I gave comfort to the polluters. Initially it concerned me, then several years ago I shifted my concerns about opposing because I realized that the greater threat was in lying and misleading, especially by scientists. Once the public realizes they are lied to, the polluters have much better ammunition. Aesop (620 – 564 BCE) explained the dangers of ‘crying wolf’. Science, and especially climate science, reached that point several years ago, but it is still not fully revealed.
The media is replete with scientists speculating and reaching cause and effect conclusions when there is only a correlation. But this is only a minor part of the overall malaise in science and nowhere is it more apparent than in climate science. It is seven years since Climategate, but the evidence of wrongdoing existed at least 21 years ago with the “Chapter 8” fiasco in the 1995 IPCC Report. It is 50 years since bad science appeared in climatology and, sadly, it continues, but few know the history.
I was as opposed to the threats of doom associated with global cooling in the 1970s because it was bad science as I am today about warming. Compare the similarities of impending doom in Lowell Ponte’s 1976 book The Cooling with what alarmists are saying today.
“It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”
Change the seventh-word “cooling” to warming and it is the same hysteria designed to panic people and prevent logic, but 180 degrees removed. One promoter of the book wrote,
“The dramatic importance of climate changes to the worlds future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive worldwide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immediate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte’s provocative work is a good place to start.”
These words of warning exploited the false threat of cooling were written by Stephen Schneider, the person who became the major spokesperson of global warming just a few years later. The IPCC dedicated the Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment Report to him. They wrote,
“Steve Schneider, born in New York, trained as a plasma physicist, embraced scholarship in the field of climate science almost 40 years ago and continued his relentless efforts creating new knowledge in the field and informing policymakers and the public at large on the growing problem of climate change and solutions for dealing with it. At all times Steve Schneider remained intrepid and forthright in expressing his views. His convictions were driven by the strength of his outstanding scientific expertise.”
“Lead Author, Coordinating Lead Author and Expert Reviewer for various Assessment Reports and a member of the Core Writing Team for the Synthesis Report of the Fourth Assessment Report (FAR). His life and accomplishments have inspired and motivated members of the Core Writing Team of this Report.”
The IPCC brought him back to help write the deceitful FAR Synthesis Report because of the disasters exposed by Climategate and the collapse of the Kyoto Protocol. He explained why he was the perfect person for the job in a 1989 Discovery magazine article.
“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
No, we don’t have to decide. There is no ethical dilemma, there can only be honesty and the truth. As Thomas Jefferson explained,
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”
Of course, it is a struggle as George Washington said,
“Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”
Look at Schneider’s opening words about truth. He then sets aside the essential basis of science and his conscience, for a political agenda.
The IPCC was never about science. People directly involved in the process say so. They are people that Schneider likely communicated with in preparing the FAR Synthesis Report. As the IPCC dedication states,
“Steve Schneider’s knowledge was a rare synthesis of several disciplines which are an essential part of the diversity inherent in climate science.”
Here is what former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015 said.
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,”
Schneider likely knew, or should have known about Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, who said.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,”
There were other comments available from the start. For example, there was Senator Timothy Wirth’s 1993 remark.
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”
The problem is there is no intellectual or scientific consistency in Schneider’s swing from promoting the threat of global cooling and just a few years later promoting warming. The shift in thinking in the 1970s saw climatology, and statistics as generally applied to society, expand from determining the average to considering simple linear trends. Cooling trend proponents, including Schneider, assumed that the trend would continue. He had to know as founder and editor of Climatic Change that climate varies considerably all the time, and current variations were well within natural variability. In 1997, I submitted a book review at his request. He converted it into an editorial essay that appeared in Volume 35, 361-365. It spoke to the problems and limitations of climate science. As I wrote, but apparently Schneider overlooked,
“Even cursory study of the climate record indicates that dramatic changes are the norm.”
Day by day the public are fed a steady diet of correlations linking an endless series of unsubstantiated events. Many of them trigger policy, political or financial opportunism, and a multitude of regulations giving control of people to politicians and faceless bureaucrats. Consider this example.
“A new study suggests that low-salt diets might actually be dangerous for your health and that high salt intake is only detrimental to those with high blood pressure.”
The media is full of stories like this that contradict previous firmly–held views that influenced medicine, business, government, and people’s daily lives. No wonder people are losing faith in science. Dutch researchers are already examining the possible consequence of iodized salt reduction and the return of goiter.
It is possible governments are cutting funding partly because of growing concern about such corruption and credibility of science. Some scientists are fighting back. One group are campaigning with the slogan
“Science is again threatened with cuts: help us tell the government that science is vital.”
Maybe these scientists are confronted with the challenge posed by Joseph Krutch.
“Though many have tried, no one has ever yet explained away the decisive fact that science, which can do so much, cannot decide what it ought to do.”
In the current situation the decision is obvious – look to yourselves. It is scientists who, for a variety of reasons all of them unacceptable, abandoned the rigors science demands. As Thomas Huxley said,
Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly whatever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.
The enemy, as always, is within, but so is the solution.
I think one thing that goes on is that in the computer age, far too many researchers spend way too much time at computer terminals looking at numbers that are ever more disconnected from the physical world we are trying to understand. As an example, after enough days of looking at modeling results to 5 decimal places, it is easy to forget that the inputs were +/- 10% and start to believe that your small tweaks of inputs and/or parameters really reflect reality. As William Gray once said (paraphrased), “a lot of climatologists need to go outside and look around them once in a while.”
“Dr Ball is not saying all scientists are liars. You’re jumping to conclusions there.”
Did not say that A.D., said Ball opening statement was a lie.
Kit P – your words: “The gist of the essay is that all scientist have an agenda that prevents them from telling the truth written by someone with an agenda. Simple put everyone’s a liar but him.”
So my words: “Dr Ball is not saying all scientists are liars. You’re jumping to conclusions there.,” are quite fitting.
You returned: “Did not say that A.D.,” when clearly you did.
I notice you comment to someone way down the page and not via reply – how do you expect a person to answer you, or is that the whole point?
Don’t worry, I’ll leave you to it. You Must Not Be Challenged. I’ll make a note of that… if I can find my pen.
Did you also notice that there was no reply link?
The reply link is in the comment above it (as I used here). It keeps the comments in-thread and grouped together. I did not know you did not know. My apologies.
I’m afraid Dr Ball (as are many others) is wrong by saying correlation is NOT causation as I have pointed out to him on more than one occasion in the past. Absent chance (or factors indistinguishable from chance), only causation can result in correlation.
I’ll refer to the Wikipedia page on the subject.
For any two correlated events, A and B, the following relationships are possible:
A causes B; (direct causation)
B causes A; (reverse causation)
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional or cyclic causation);
A causes C which causes B (indirect causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.
———
Note this list only allows causation or ‘coincidence’, that is chance, to result in correlation. In order to support the claim that correlation is not causation, you need to identify a way in which correlation can occur without involving causation or chance. I look forward to hearing what it is.
Philip is wrong in so many ways. One of my jobs in the nuclear industry was to perform root cause analysis.
If a reactor shuts down, the root cause must be identified and corrected before the reactor is started back up.
For example, ,Frank was a reactor operator with a reputation for being over the top. Frank was performing a surveillance test on main steam isolation valves when the reactor scrammed. A correlation with Frank’s personality led people to blame Frank and call the problem operator error.
I was observing the surveillance test and Frank did not make a mistake. I also has a reputation, for quoting the federal penalty for making a material false statement. I do not care how many managers are in a meeting, my observation trumped their opinion of Frank. The tone of the meeting had not risen to the level of a fist fight in the parking lot when one of the engineers left and came back a few minutes later. Turns out the procedure was wrong. The procedure used a non-safety related limit switch provided for indication. The safety related limit switch had failed to reset. It took some yelling but someone finally took the time to do their job.
That was a simple example but for every problem there is an infinite number of associated factors. I can tell that you are anti-coal if you ‘link’ air pollution to heart attacks.
Phill, it doesn’t give me any pleasure to say you’re wrong, but that’s completely wrong. I did statisitcal design of experiment for of 20 years. It’s completely false to claim correlation is equal to causation.
A very simple example for you would be (as I mentioned in another post downstream) the correlation between global temperature and rising pork belly prices. In general, inflation causes pork belly prices to rise, but not temperature. This doesn’t mean we won’t see them rise together for a long time.
This is really a fundamental problem when deceitful people get involved with presenting a crisis to a largely uneducated population. All I need to do is find something you’re doing I want to stop, or use to extort money for (use of fossil fuels) and claim it’s caused by something else that’s rising (CO2). As long as my claim is blindly accepted and there’s some arguable basis for it (a lab experiment run by Arrenhius 200 years ago) you belong to me. That’s how it’d done out on the playground of political manipulation during recess if you get my drift.
I hate to say it, but you need to be much more skeptical of claims made, and also more cynical of human nature. You should also not use Wikipedia as a statistics reference. I suggest Box, Hunter and Hunter “Statistics for Experimenters”.
Too much immersion in green propaganda while in school and college. Over exposure and absorption of the lessons taught by liberal radical professors who see/saw western civilization as the cause and not the cure of the world’s problems.
It led too many old and budding scientists to assume a messianic mantle of “saving the world” which when they found wasn’t in that great a danger decided that at some point it would be and so must prepare now. To do that required them to “fudge” their figures and models to produce the results they wanted.
Once again, liberalism destroys the good with the bad and refuses to critique itself and all the death and destruction it has wrought but can only see that of the Right.
Sociopaths cannot view themselves honestly and will refuse to accept any criticism.
I believe that that is what has lead most young scientists astray. Their energy and advocacy coupled with their agitation caused many of the older scientists to go along to get along as they had more to lose.
It really isn’t “liberalism” Jake, it’s right out of the Marxist playbook. Really is classic.
This is just a rehash of commonly used memes, climate science is doing just fine. I can assure that all reputable climate scientist know the distinction between correlation and causation. Like many disciplines, randomized, replicated experiments cannot be applied but that does not mean that a strong cause-effect relationship cannot be inferred. There has never been a true randomized experiment on the link between smoking and lung cancer but I doubt any reasonable person would question the causal relationship. Why? Because there are other approaches that can be used to infer cause-effect (though none are indisputable).
In the absence of randomized experiments, other methods can be used to infer cause-effect relationships. A plausible causal linkage is the first step. Again, does anyone here doubt that: 1. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, and, 2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Another way that a causal linkage can be inferred in the absence of randomized experiments is demonstrating a strong dose-response relationship. The association between CO2 concentration and global temperatures has been documented in 100s of scientific papers. I could go on but the evidence is clear. If you take an unbiased look at climate science, it measures up as well or better than most scientific disciplines.
Regarding smoking: There have been direct experiments performed on animals. From PETA’s website:
“In tests that many people don’t realize are still being conducted, animals are forced to breathe cigarette smoke for up to six hours straight, every day, for as long as three years. Animals naturally avoid breathing cigarette smoke, so lab rats are forced into tiny canisters, and cigarette smoke is pumped directly into their noses. In the past, dogs and monkeys have had tubes attached to holes in their necks or have had masks strapped to their faces to force smoke into their lungs. In other commonly conducted tests, mice and rats have cigarette tar applied directly to their bare skin to induce the growth of skin tumors.”
Now that thar is funny.
“There ….but I doubt any reasonable person would question the causal relationship.”
Watch me! You can not ‘cause’ lung cancer. If you said smoking in bed ‘caused’ a fire that killed the smoker, then I would say there is a causal factor.
Being precise with terminology is more than just semantics. There are precise ways discussing ‘risk’ factors that I would avoid without getting out a text book.
There is a correlation between seat belts and airbags and lung cancer. If you do not die in a traffic accident, you are at risk of cancer. My gripe with the fear mongers is they do not provide the age adjusted cancer rates.
The leading factor associated with cancer is getting old which sure beats the alternative.
Is it a problem? I certainly think that the death of a child is a tragedy. I do not think old people dying is a problem. It is normal. Recently, my doctor asked when I had colon cancer screening. I was 50 and it was after my brother had it. First, the procedure has significant risk because of anestia. Second, at my age the treatment is more likely to kill me.
The point here is that dealing with problems requires a rational non-emotional approach. Fear-mongering associated with cancer and AGW is a clue that the approach will fail.
Luke writes: ” The association between CO2 concentration and global temperatures has been documented in 100s of scientific papers.”
No. It has not. I’d be happy to review any examples you can mention. That’s why “the pause” is so important; it violates causality. At a time when CO2 went up dramatically (over 30% I believe), temperature in the lower troposphere didn’t change significantly. Of course it changed, but it varied randomly. r squared was not significantly different from 0.
That appears to be the disconnect in your understanding. I honestly would like to look at just a couple of the better examples you have demonstrating cause.
PS: for Luke.
On of my favorite ways to describe this is by explaining I can show a correlation between gas process and GMT, the price of pork bellies and the price of ladies underwear. over the past 50 years. While I haven’t done it, I expect if I ran a principal component analysis, I might well find one of those to be a more powerful predictor than CO2.
I suppose I should actually try it some time. It might be fun.
gas prices…
BTW Luke, another interesting factoid on lung cancer; at the same time the incidence of lung cancer went down, do did the indidence of above ground nuclear testing. Coincidence?
To Phillip Bradley: Do you then not believe in chance?
To Luke: Do you also not believe in chance? The best test of causality is to remove or otherwise interfere with the putative cause. This has been done in the case of cigarettes and the incidence of lung cancer has been observed to drop, but not to zero. This indicates that cigarettes are causal to lung cancer, but not the sole cause.
When interventional experiments cannot be done as in climatology, oceanography or astronomy, models are created and tested, usually by making some prediction about some phenomenon associated with the behaviour of the model, e.g., time of high tide or eclipse of the sun. If the prediction fails, the model is wrong. This is what has happened in the case of climate models based on CO2 as the sole controller of climate. The failure of the predictive worth of the models also suggests that reducing CO2 probably would not lower temperature.
My ‘belief’ or not in chance is irrelevant.
Morley Sutter
Two problems with your logic. First, you set up a straw man. No one is arguing “CO2 as the sole controller of climate”. Climate scientists have acknowledged for decades that many factors affect the climate. Just like smoking is not the sole reason for lung cancer. The fact that people that don’t smoke get lung cancer does not mean that smoking does increase the chances of getting lung cancer. Second, climate models have made predictions that have been confirmed by measurements. The tropospheirc “hotspot” and cooling of the stratosphere have been confirmed with empirical measurements.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007/meta;jsessionid=64C2C1664DDD56D5DF2A4019D94D4F98.c5.iopscience.cld.iop.org
Climate scientists in the CAGW never acknowledged anything other than co2 as the control nob of temperature. They systematically ruled out any other cause. And no, there isn’t any tropical hotspot or the heat hiding in the deep oceans. What’s more, none of the predictions have any bases in reality despite your ” hundreds of documented” papers. The best they could do was to explain away the pause by manipulating the temperature record. Which still doesn’t cover the issue of how they got all the numbers to match when the basic TSI was wrong from the start. ( you remember the satellite that was leaking light and put the w/m^2 from 8 to 10 higher than it should have been)..
…OMG, what planet are you living on ?
Luke says:
…climate science is doing just fine.
Sure it is, moneywise. But it still can’t make accurate predictions.
For example, the tropospheric hotspot never appeared as predicted, despite your false assertion.
Regarding your points 1. and 2. above, you say:
I could go on…
But since you didn’t go on, may I? Thank you:
The next question, which you avoided, is:
“How much does AGW matter?”
Answer: Any putative AGW is still too minuscule to measure. Since AGW is a complete non-problem, no more public tax money should be wasted on “climate studies”. Spending more public funds on something that is too small to measure starves other sceintific fields of needed support.
“Scientists lost the scientific script somewhere in the 20th century.”
At about the same time, government became the major funder of scientific research.
Coincidence?
“The media is full of stories like this that contradict previous firmly–held views that influenced medicine, business, government, and people’s daily lives. No wonder people are losing faith in science. Dutch researchers are already examining the possible consequence of iodized salt reduction and the return of goiter.”
Sodium deficiency includes but is not limited to the following symptoms:
But it is very hard to reach a person who is caught up in trendy collective behavior with the facts about dietary deficiencies. The usual government agencies have also continued to set the daily intake of salt to levels which are too low. As they move to gain more control of food portions, packaging and production, the end result will be malnourishment.
Then they will prescribe psychotropic medications to people who are experiencing the mental impairments brought on by cutting out animal products and iodized salt from their diets.
There is no reason for people to trust so implicitly that the vitamin and mineral pills and supplements are actually useful to the human body.
Get them early get them young-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/greens_make_child_cry/
What is it with these Green terrorisers?
Climate science has made a bad mistake not being honest about their presentation of hypothesis as empirical support, or correlation as cause, but I can’t help also fault higher education. I don’t know how anyone could complete even an A.A. degree in today’s society without understanding those.
Just the other day I challenged a person on the Eco-Watch site to present empirical support for the AGW hypothesis after flatly saying I was unaware of any such support. I asked for even a single example of a repeatable, in vivo, experiment that had been presented in a journal and subsequently validated, explaining that while I’d read quite a bit of literature I certianly hadn’t read all of it and might have missed something.
The fellow cited one of Phil Jones’ CRU papers, “Estimation of Natural and Anthropogenic Contributions to Twentieth Century Temperature Change”. The first line of the abstract says that by employing GCM models the authors were able to simulate the relative contributions.
When I explained the difference between a measurement and an estimate based on computer simulation, the fellow couldn’t seem to understand. I told him the paper he’d cited was a restatement of the AGW hypothesis, not empirical support for it, but it didn’t get through. He ended up calling me an ignorant deni@list who didn’t have even a 2nd grade understanding of science.
So I agree scientists, particularly those in the climate field, need to make it clearer what they’re writing about, but it seems obvious to me Jones said the right things and was completely misrepresented by someone who thought he knew what he was reading. Jones can’t fix that.
USA Today, 6/1, has an interesting comment by F. H. Buckley, “How Machiavelli made Trump into a Virtue.” A couple of the phrases caught my eye.
They (the patriots) “…designed the Constitution to check “cabal, intrigue and faction.”” Sound familiar? How about the peer review, publication and grant processes?
Lobbyists and political donors have created, “..the greatest empire of patronage and influence the world has known.”
“The alarming rise of crony capitalism science and the protest candidates who oppose are in bed with it explain what increasingly looks like a Machiavellian moment. Sander’s improbable rise can be attributed to one (major, of many) thing only: He’s not corrupt.” Unlike the climate science field’s cabal of good-old-boys/girls.
Galileo angered the church powers-that-be for publishing his helio-centric theories in Italian which anyone and everyone could read instead of Latin, the language of the elite and privileged who wanted to keep it their way, geo-centric.
The peer review, publication and grant processes are dominated by a cabal of good-old-boy/girl “scientists” who want to control the conversation and agenda.
My postings are often challenged by assorted foul mouthed trolls over not being “peer reviewed” and “published.” As with Galileo, the internet is my peer reviewer and publisher, not the cabal. Perhaps that’s why Disqus blocks/censors my postings and FB has suspended my commenting abilities until 6/11, complaints from the good-old-boys/girls who put the “cult” in science’s culture.
Btw had the same conflict issues with the same in-crowd throughout my 35-year corporate engineering career.
I think the only more currupt and self-serving branch of science I know of is the pharmaceutical industry. That’s another area you find a close relationship between government and science, and also fabrication and falsification of data, federal agencies looking the other way, etc.
Come to think about it, military aerospace and telecommunications industries have a history of politicizing science also. So the climate clans aren’t really unique.
Nicholas Schroeder says:
Disqus blocks/censors my postings…
It could be worse. Disqus assigns any name to the first person that asks. From then on, that person owns that identity. As a result, someone else now owns the Disqus name ‘dbstealey’ (I wouldn’t be aware of it unless another commenter had pointed it out to me). No doubt other comment platforms are the same.
That identity thief has now posted more than six hundred fake comments under my name pretending to be me, using the Disqus platform. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with what was posted by someone else claiming to be me. Since this is the only site where I’ve ever used ‘dbstealey’, I suspect I know who stole my Disqus identity.
So consider yourself lucky, Nicholas. At least Disqus will eventually give your identity back.
In my case they’ve indicated a way to get this resolved legally. But it requires hiring an attorney, which I won’t spend the money on unless it becomes necessary. But if someone else takes legal action, I’ll share the expense. What they’re doing is harassmment that causes mental anguish, sleepless nights, upset stomach, incontinence, hearing voices, and numerous other afflictions, due directly to the theft of my good name — which I’m documenting for the lawyer if I take the next step. So if any of the other commenters who have had their identities stolen here take action against the impostor pretending to be them, I’ll jump aboard and it will all come out then. According to Disqus, they will produce all records listed in a subpoena.
Watch your identity, folks. There are I.D. thieves out there. I’m not the only one who’s been the victim of an identity thief, and it happens regularly right here. Anyone who see a comment under their name that they didn’t write, note it in Tips & Notes so Anthony can remove it.
But first, make a screencap for evidence. Eventually, the impostor will be outed. Then it’s a contingency case.
Bernie Sanders is merely not venally corrupt personally (at least not visibly so). However, as a totalitarian, he is politically corrupt; as politically corrupt as is possible to be. His utopian world would monopolize all of politics into the hands of only him and his communitarian buddies.
Dear Tim.
Point 5. should be point 1. That is where it all started.