by Tilak Doshi
Given how rigid the official orthodoxy is when it comes to the public health ‘crises’, the ‘climate emergency’ and the supposed moral defects of Western civilization, it’s no surprise that the slur words of choice today are “anti-vaxxer”, “racist”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, “far right” and, not least, “climate denier”.
The “climate denier” epithet is used to shut down rational debate on climate change with specious claims about “settled science”. As the physicist Steve Koonin says: “I find it particularly abhorrent to have a call for open scientific discussion [on climate change] equated with Holocaust denial, especially since the Nazis killed more than two hundred of my relatives in Eastern Europe.”
The scurrilous epithet resurfaced last week in an article in the Guardian entitled – cue shock, horror – “Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of U.S. Congress.”
How much longer will this heresy be tolerated?
In an interview on GB News with Andrew Doyle, British environmentalist Jim Dale demanded the criminalisation of climate denialism. He said that “climate deniers” are “dangerous” for society and their scepticism about Net Zero “pollutes the discourse”. Mr. Dale demurred in spelling out just exactly what sanctions should be applied to “illegal” opinions about climate change, stating that it would be up to politicians like Sir Keir Starmer.
That interview took place three months ago, and Starmer is now Prime Minister. Having moved from his previous role as the Director of Public Prosecutions to Parliament and then to the highest political office in the U.K., his response to last week’s riots has been to push for quick and harsh sentences, threatening freedom of speech.
Sky News reported on Thursday that a woman was arrested over a social media post on the Southport stabbing attack that killed three little girls and injured several others. Evidently, her media post was considered “dangerous” as she publicly shared a mistaken description of the perpetrator of the Southport killings. The question of her intentions did not seem to be an issue in that arrest, although she still hasn’t been charged.
The U.S. Supreme Court holds that the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech is crossed when the words in question are “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and they’re “likely to incite or produce such action”. Both those tests have to be met for the words to lose their protected status under the First Amendment, something known as the Brandenburg test. In the U.K., the land of the Magna Carta, recent court cases suggest that no such test is necessary for criminal conviction for “stirring up violence” online or indeed even for believing in “forms of toxic ideology which has [sic] the potential to threaten public safety and security”. The blurring of the line between “criminal thought” and criminal conduct is a sad reflection of jurisprudence in the U.K.
One day before the arrest of the woman who posted inaccurate information about the Southport killer, the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales, Stephen Parkinson, warned: “We do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media to look for this material, and then follow up with arrests… You may be committing a crime if you repost, repeat or amplify a message which is false.” UK Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told a reporter in response to a question about Elon Musk supposedly “whipping up hatred” on X: “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.”
The purpose of blaming the riots on social media, of course, is that it deflects from the real issue: a great many Britons disapprove of the government’s complicity in the scale of the mass immigration of the past two decades. That ‘thoughtcrime’ has fueled the riots in the country is reflected in the deluge of mainstream media headlines singing from the same hymn sheet:
- Reuters: “Misinformation fuels riots”
- BBC News: “Social media misinformation ‘fanned riot flames’ in North East”
- CNBC: “Online disinformation sparked a wave of far-right violence”
- Sky News: “Southport attack misinformation fuels far-right discourse on social media”
- CNN: “U.K. riots show how social media can fuel real-life harm. It’s only getting worse”
- Time: “Misinformation Stoked Anti-Migrant Riots”
In an Orwellian world where the carrying of machetes on the streets of British cities may more easily escape prosecution than the “far right thuggery” of “keyboard warriors”, Mr. Dale’s wish to criminalise “misinformation” about climate change may come true.
Dis- or misinformation is whatever the state says it is. The moral crusade is the war over disinformation with little discussion of underlying policy issues. Policy choices supportive of a Net Zero fossil fuel-free electric grid by 2030 are non-partisan “givens” – with little debate in or out of parliament – as the Covid lockdowns were when they were imposed. Thus it is no surprise that the Counter Disinformation Unit which targeted dissent during Covid has been rebooted by the Starmer government as the National Security Online Information Team to monitor social media in the wake of the riots.
Will the reborn secretive Covid-era spy agency start ‘flagging’ social media posts that question Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State at the oxymoronically named Department of Energy Security and Net Zero? Never mind that a fossil fuel-free electricity grid in Britain by 2030 – the interim goal enroute to a fully Net Zero Britain by 2050 – “is as likely as the second coming of Christ”, as David Starkey said in a recent interview.
Removal of climate contrarian posts on social media will be one thing. But will it eventually become a prosecutable offense in the UK to point out the tension between Net Zero and energy security, or to assert that Net Zero policy targets constitute an onslaught on people’s standards of living and a denial of reality? Will some future Britain sport an unelected Climate Change Committee sitting in judgement, Star Chambers-like, over climate deniers that congregate in secretive forums at 55 Tufton Street, that bastion of libertarian and right wing organizations?
Dr. Tilak K. Doshi is an economist, a former contributor to Forbes, and a member of the CO2 Coalition.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“”“anti-vaxxer”, “racist”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, “far right” and, not least, “climate denier”.””
Now you’re in trouble. You missed out the sacred… you know, the ones who without modern synthetic hormones and “affirming surgery” could never exist as anything other than a cross-dresser with a wig. Oh well.
Jim Dale is a complete and total crank, would you really call Bill Nye a science guy? As for two-tier (Keir) he changes position on everything.
“”All of Labour’s U-Turns So Far””
https://order-order.com/2024/08/12/all-of-labours-u-turns-so-far/
“”Dis- or misinformation is whatever the state says it is. “”
One of the first acts of the Starmer regime was to axe a certain act that was due to go on to the statute books…
“”Labour has been blasted over the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s decision to axe the Free Speech Act – a bill that encourages debate and free expression in our increasingly left-wing universities. Today Phillipson announced:
“The Free Speech Act introduced last year is not fit for purpose and risked imposing serious burdens on our world class universities. This legislation could expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses. That is why I have quickly ordered this legislation to be stopped.” “
https://order-order.com/2024/07/26/labour-slammed-over-axing-free-speech-act/
You can see where this is going. Full on woke ahead. Which makes Elon Musk’s contributions more than welcome. You won’t find the media talking to our own Free Speech Union, no, they get blanked; permanently. So get ready with the arrest warrants…
“”Elon Musk Should Be Arrested for Inciting Violence, Former Twitter Executive Argues””
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elon-musk-should-be-arrested-for-inciting-violence-former-twitter-executive-argues/ar-AA1oNcIU
And for maximum gaslighting effect:
“”The culture wars are dead. At least, that’s what Lisa Nandy thinks. In her first speech as our new Culture Secretary, delivered to staff at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Nandy declared that Britons have “found multiple ways to divide ourselves from one another”, and that she instead planned to serve the country by “celebrating and championing the diversity and rich inheritance of our communities and the people in them”.””
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/theatre/what-to-see/lisa-nandy-culture-wars-rada/
Identity politics has, er, divided us. More identity politics will obviously cure that…
“a cross-dresser with a wig”
Well, I’m an angry wardrobe … but sometimes, I’m an occasional table !!
We should not expect anything rational from a government driven by hatred of its own country and ‘led’ by a many who can’t even be truthful about his own father. Utterly vile.
Someone on youtube uncovered a clip of him from 2012 or thereabouts saying no-one has a right not to be offended. Something else he’s flipped on, then.
Science denial is dangerous, and there are a lot of examples. Like the periodic measles outbreaks that almost always result in a few deaths. The fact is that most people are mostly illiterate in these matters and the new media has almost no limits so the situation is getting worse. And this is not just simple stupidity. Climate science denial has a very well documented support from industry. As far as I can see, this is unique in this sense, all the rest are just idiocy.
Science denial is dangerous
As Barry Marshall showed busting the “ulcer consensus”
Are you still on board with Phlogiston theory?
Why should I? FYI modern scientific method has its roots in the Enlightenment but it was in formation up to the second part of the 19th century. So please spare me from this kinda bs.
Climate science as you recognise it is dependent on models, models that are a laughing stock.
Disagreement is part and parcel of science – right?
No. Eg. the “hockey stick” you love ranting about is not a modelling result. I guess you don’t even know that. This is the saddest thing here, debating so unprepared people…
No. So far they are pretty accurate. This is an impressive track record.. No wonder they say “settled”.
Get yourself together.
The hockey stick is a statistical FARCE.
The models are not remotely accurate… except against garbage urban data specifically manipulated to match the models.
Get yourself a brain. !
The climate crisis only exists in alarmist models. It has no scientific credibility. As for the Hockey stick, it has its own issues and was discredited from its earliest conception. Only a few cling to it like it’s some kind of religious symbol of their faith.
This “few” is the scientific community, mind you. All I can see here is just slander and stuff from very unprepared people. You need much more than that.
The modern scientific method has its roots in Thales of Miletus, with Galileo providing the modern re-emergence.
The Enlightenment was the time science and reason found their way generally into society, finally putting an end to religious wars and the persecution of heretics (with some back-sliding).
No. The mathematization of Natural Science that is the basis of this started during the era of Newton but the more systematic approach comes much later. Remember, Newton still believed in angelic intervention in Orbital Mechanics.
Bullshit, it started with the ancient Greeks.
No. The origin of science is in the conscious use of observations to validate or refute explanations. That began with Thales of Miletus 2500 years ago.
“Remember, Newton still believed in angelic intervention in Orbital Mechanics.”
Yeah, stupid ol’ Newton. He invented differential calculus so he could solve the equations of orbital mechanics. He invented integral calculus so he could prove that the mass of a spherical body acts like it’s concentrated at the center of a sphere. He invented the Newton Method so he could solve Kepler’s trigonometric equation. Not to mention the three laws of motion, the law of gravity, predicting that light was a particle, and much more. And he was religious–poor guy.
Again, not just religious. Nowadays people treat religion and science as two different, non-interacting spheres. This is more or less the consequence of the scientific method. Science is the territory of systematic observations and mathematical models. You don’t have a space for divine intervention. Newton actually thought that orbital perturbations were corrected by angels.
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Yeah. But judging from your question you are clueless.
I actually studied orbital mechanics. It’s interesting how leftists project.
Good on you. What’s your point? Reminder: this is a conversation about the modern scientific method. Galilei, Kepler, and most importantly, Newton started the mathematization of Physics. The Enlightenment is when they consciously base everything on rational thought, and that was another very important step. Etc. Newton didn’t separate the religious and the scientific. https://gwern.net/newton “According to Newton, the solar system is not stable and must be adjusted by angels“.
This is just illustration that when you deniers say “but Galilei” w/r/t settled science, that’s completely meaningless. In reality we can’t speak about the modern scientific method before the second half of the 19th century.
The conversation is about how ignorant you are. You even claim to know nothing about science. It’s really silly nonsense.
Again, this problem of yours with comprehension…
????????????????
Good illustration about your lack of comprehension. I’ve never claimed I know nothing about science. I only claimed I wasn’t s climate scientist. That’s a very different claim.
I only comprehend that you are ignorant of actual facts.
You had problems comprehending the example with Newton, the irrelevance or Lavoisier, and quite a few other very simple sentences. Nothing impressive so far.
Your diversion to Newton and Lavoisier is typical deflection.
Well, no. But even if that were true, you joined the conversation first by reflecting on them.
????
I had a conversation about the scientific method with others. You joined in when we talked about Newton. You obviously didn’t understand what I said (ie. Newton didn’t maintain a clear distinction between the scientific and religious). The same with Lavoisier. When you realized this, you started to talk about “deflecting”. Congratulations.
“please spare me from this kinda bs.”
Please spare us from the kinda BS you post in every post you make.!!.
Phl0giston theory denier Antoine Lavoisier was guillotined by the French. Perhaps Kier has something similar in mind for latter day deniers who believe that net zero is a nonsense along with global warming and climate change pseudo science.
Good point.
You deniers are strange. Lavoisier was executed ‘cos he had been a tax farmer. In other words, he was a piece of shxt. So what’s your point here?
Most deniers are just morons like you. The real bad ones are who give the money for this circus.
No deniers here.
You cannot say what we “deny” that you can produce solid scientific evidence for.
Only denier and moron here is YOU..
Every piece of your gibberish is totally wrong, as always.
Lavoisier was guillotined because he was on the wrong side of the French Revolution. It was pure political.
Lavoisier has given the world FAR MORE than you or any of your disgusting AGW-apologists ever will.
And Lagrange said: “It took them only an instant to cut off this head, and one hundred years might not suffice to reproduce its like.” He was exonerated a year and a half later. He’s considered the father of modern chemistry.
Again, what’s your point? He was executed for being a tax farmer. Not for being a chemist.
He was wrongly executed for being in the nobility–they apologized to the widow. The judge that condemned him was executed a few months later. What is your point?
It’s hilarious that you deniers cannot get even simple details right. No, he was executed because he had been a tax farmer, an extremely hated position in the ancient regime. Whether this was wrong or right is another question.
It has nothing to do with his scientific work. He is irrelevant to the topic.
BTW this is irrelevant to the “wrong” or “right” question. That was the Directorium, a very different regime.
Antoine Lavoisier was one of the greatest of researchers. His Elementary Treatise on Chemistry published in 1789, sunned up the world’s new understanding of chemistry, based on 30 years of precise experiment. The French Revolution began the year he published his revolutionary book. Five years later he was still only 51 and at height of his powers of discovery. He was at heart a genuine reformer, wanting to improve the lot of ordinary people as he had improved chemistry. But he had served the old regime as a member of the hated fermee, which collected taxes on behalf of the king. In revenge, the revolutionaries brought him to the guillotine. ‘ The regime has no need of wise men’, they declared. ‘It is need of justice.’ The mathematician Joseph Lagrange (1772) put it differently: ‘It took only a second to sever the head. A century may not be enough time to produce another like it’.
An obvious bigoted left wing Marxist like yourself is blind to reason and a complete morn.
No one has disputed that. He is just irrelevant to the topic.
Again, what’s the connection of this to Lavoisier? BTW the Jacobins executed Lavoisier, and they were neither Marxists nor socialists. If anything they were very similar to you. In Marxist terms they were mostly of the petite bourgeoisie, and as far as I can tell most of you are just that including the intellectual baggage you carry. The French Revolution was a capitalist revolution, it was the radical phase of capitalism, the time when it really was a revolutionary force.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Your Communist trappings are fully exposed. Plus you are Voldemort–the most evil character in Rowling’s books. I would be embarrassed, but Fascists are never embarrassed.
Fascists are surprisingly stupid, that’s my personal observation. You illustrated that perfectly.
Fascists are leftists. I’m a conservative. You are projecting again.
Just carry on with this 😉 go make a complete clown of yourself.
“Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National Socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities–where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.”
–from Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg
There’s nothing in there that a conservative would support.
Yeah, really, I’m convinced 😉 No. Nazis upheld the capitalist structure of production, and they were actually supported by the top strata of German, and more broadly, European capitalism. That was the time of the Great Depression, so they had to introduce some popular measures besides open terror to rule the masses. Actual studies showed that the exploitation (the produced value per the received value) increased. So no, the Nazis were precisely the ones who saved capitalism in an era where revolutionary leftism was a real danger to it.
Funny ‘cos these are typical right winger policies.
“Funny ‘cos these are typical right winger policies.”
No, they are typical left-wing policies.
I like when people expose their inner clown. Reminder to other people, we speak about pagan spirituality and racial quota systems. This guy claims these are typical left-wing policies.
You should stop projecting. You state nonsense and claim it’s my opinion. I said they were Nazis policies–typical leftist policies.
Your inner clown has a field day 😉 So Nazis were typical leftists ‘cos they introduced social policies in the 30s that (check notes) almost all western countries introduced ‘cos they saw the growing unrest. Furthermore, you say that promoting pagan spirituality and racial quotas in universities are typical leftist policies.
Yes.
Thx 😉
Are you for real? Every climate alarmist who I know personally is a blatant science denier and utter fantasist. You sound just like one of them.
Indeed. Science is based on skepticism and falsification. “Climate science” bastardizes the scientific method at best.
Do you not realize that scientific method is disinformation attributed to white male supremacy.
What a world.
Science may be, science denial is just bsing using this as a cover. Keep that in mind.
That you possess a mind has yet to be demonstrated.
“Science denial” is as asinine as Gore’s “settled science.”
That’s not Gore’s. Keep that in mind.
No, but you have adopted it as yours, which makes you just as gormlessly stupid.
Again.. what do we “deny” that you can produce solid scientific evidence for.
Start with the basics.
Produce empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
Al Gore: “We have a consensus.”
If that is not a statement of settled science, then what is?
It’s not Gore’s science. Gore is looking more and more like a diabolic figure in your denier religion. He is completely irrelevant w/r/t science. He just stated a fact.
“He is completely irrelevant w/r/t science.”
As are you.
I like the way you debate 😉
Thanks.
Sadly I know a lot of intelligent and educated people who simply cannot believe that the mass media, the government and all the newspapers and a medium sized blob of the academic community are, in fact, lying to them.
They may disagree about the means of addressing the ‘climate crisis; but they all agree it exists.
In my experience, the less science someone knows, the more likely they are to be climate alarmists. This explains why the government and media are dominated by climate alarmists.
Not always true. Many prominent alarmists are “scientists” of some flavor. What they have in common, though, is a leap of faith to embrace a hypothesis of human-caused, catastrophic warming supposedly validated by climate models without understanding that the models themselves haven’t been validated. They don’t mimick nature. They’re virtual reality.
A friend of mine has a PhD in semiconductor physics and it a really sharp person, yet he is all in on the “carbon pollution” hype. I can only assume he’s never taken the time to look beneath the covers.
That, or they are in on the money grab.
They grab a headline without even reading the article and accept that as truth. Nothing afterwards will dissuade them from their “truth” not even a reversal from the same media that published the original headline.
A journalist from the Lansing State Journal, now nearly 20 years ago, formulated the expression “Scan and Scroll” which is exactly what is going on.
Digital media, especially social media, causes a chain reaction type explosion of duplicated disinformation. When a person reads the same thing over and over again, it becomes engrained in their neural pathways. Repetition is the primary basis for learning.
Since the 60s, at first due to TV advertising, to population has been trained to ADD with an attention span of less than 15 seconds. No one is being taught how to think for themselves.
So, when a person gives up the freedom of figuring things out for himself, the next step is easy. Giving up individual liberty by allowing someone else to make the decisions for him.
I am old school. masculine pronouns are used when referring to neuter nouns.
Gender is not sex. It is a language aid that was repurposed in the 1950s to study social roles.
And I was taught, way back in the 60’s, that gender is an innate characteristic, and sex was a process (‘the exchange of genetic material”) In addition, gender (in biology, not language), was male or female, not man or woman.* There are some exceptions (hermaphrodites), but male and female.
Gender is not “assigned at birth”. It is based on the person’s genes. And, in so far as I know, there is no pharmacological or surgical method that can change one’s genes.
Some say that “gender” is a social construct, whereas it is juts basic biology.
*In language, the genders are masculine, feminine and neuter (for those languages that have three).
I appreciate that gender has been repurposed and is commonly used as a substitute for sex. Yes, from the mid-50s to the early 60s, gender transition to a different use.
Gender is based on characteristics, masculine and feminine and the relative strength of each in the individual.
This is an interesting discussion and it does not appear we have any significant differences.
Just as a historical bit of trivia, in the 1959 Journey to the Center of the Earth movie, Anita Briem (character Hannah Ásgeirsson) made a comment about her sex (not gender).
Prior to the 1950’s study by John Money, gender was rarely used in reference to sex.
Gender is applied to nouns in various languages. People have sex.
Yes.
I’m not an alarmist.
You are a very stupid and rabid AGW-cultist /apologist.
“Science denial is dangerous”
Then STOP DOING IT !!
The climate change scam is NOT based on science… It exists on a constant stream of misinformation.
The Net-Zero and other moronic “fixes” for a non-problem are heading towards a total DISASTER for society.. yes.. the one you live in.
Yet you still support and regurgitate all the scientific malinformation from the AGW cult.
We have seen that you are “mostly illiterate” about climate and science matters.. but that doesn’t seem to stop you.
What you post IS just simple stupidity.. it is all you have.
Come on little child…….
Tell us what we “deny” that you can provide solid empirical evidence for.
Try to read the last 2 sentences of the comment from nyolci:
Climate science denial has a very well documented support from industry. As far as I can see, this is unique in this sense, all the rest are just idiocy.
So, climate denial is based on “well documented” support, and “all the rest are idiocy.”
Sounds like support for climate denialism to me. Try to read what was written, not what you think was written, and cut the childish insults.
I know exactly what nyolist was trying to say.
Playing with words won’t get you far. You know well what I wanted to say. But I spell it out to you: most of pseudo-science are just idiots and hearsay amplified by social media. Climate science denial is kinda unique ‘cos it has extensive funding.
Playing with words and pseudo-science is all you have.
Climate reality funding is absolutely pittance compared to the massive trough of funding supporting lies and disinformation of the climate scam.
No, it does NOT have extensive funding, that is a baseless LIE.. and I suspect you are well aware of that fact…
ALL climate science is just deceitful, brain-washed morons like you who have zero science credibility, regurgitating fabricated BS mantra.
Climate skepticism has funding, of course, but at a level of about 5% of the alarmist support.
What I deny is the political side of this that strives to terrify people with alarmist rhetoric.
Climate science denial has funding and media support that is completely out of reach of normal scientists.
You apparently don’t know that the “climate denier” title of this post is mocking you silly alarmists. Yet you still use it–what stupid ignorance!
This is just another weird conclusion from you. You’re puzzling (in the wrong sense of the word).
Ha, ha, ha! Simply nonsense.
I’m devastated 😉
Finally!
Climate science denial IS dangerous. Michael Mann is its chief protagonist.
There is more than one.
There are (some) negative aspects to (absolute) “freedom of speech”, but they are as nothing compared to the “dangers” that arise from the alternative … CENSORSHIP.
What sort of people will apply to jobs postings along the lines of :
“State censor : You get to decide what other people can and cannot say (/ think) …” ?
What sort of people will decide to take over those jobs once they notice how much power their occupants have ?
How can you have a “free, open and robust exchange of ideas” when (at least ?) one of the participants can unilaterally declare, at any moment :
“I disagree with (and/or disapprove of) your opinion … off to jail with you …” ?
History has shown that there is only one solution to the “problems” caused by “freedom of speech / expression / opinion”.
That solution is … [ drumroll please ] … more free speech.
.
On the specific area of “science / scientific” disputes, the “correct” reaction to confusion about various claims being made is either
“Show me your empirical data (= measurements made by correctly calibrated scientific instruments)”
and/or
“Please provide references (to articles / papers in ‘serious’ scientific publications) that support your bald assertions“.
Are there any “serious scientific publications” left, or are they all gate keepers controlled by the pal review fraternity?
I did put the word “serious” in “sarcastic / ironic / tongue in cheek mode” quotes.
My position is that all “scientific publications” should be “judged” on a paper-by-paper basis, fallible human beings will always have the occasional “it was so bad that it had to be retracted” problem.
Note also that I personally am a big fan of the IPCC’s Working Group One assessment reports, AKA “The Physical Science Basis” … once you get past the SPMs !
For example in the latest, AR6, WG-I report they freely admit that
(section 1.5.4, page 221), as well as detailing where uncertainties persist, e.g.
(section 11.7.1.4, page 1588) and
(section 11.7.1.5,page 1590).
.
Being “serious”, for once, you can’t tar an entire “publication / journal / media outlet” for one bad paper / article, but doing proper “peer review / fact checking” on each individual paper / article takes more time and effort than most readers are prepared to commit … including me !
Why do you want to have pseudo-scientific agitation? What’s the tangible benefit of that?
This is what I’m talking about. The whole of science is my empirical data and references. These are not my assertions and they are not bald either, for that matter. This is you deniers who are without evidence here, and you are so self immersed you don’t even notice that.
NB : I believe the first sentence is now characterised as “Doing a Fauci”.
Let’s take a concrete example from your OP.
1) Please show how that does not count as “a bald assertion”.
2) Please highlight the “empirical data and references” that support the extracted statement in your OP … or indeed anywhere else.
.
3) Please provide just one concrete example of precisely what you think “we” are “denying without evidence” here.
“Documented” is the keyword here.
I don’t have to. This is the beauty of science. It’s been already done. You just have to read it.
Illustration. See eg. the article about AMOC collapse. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/11/amoc-collapse-depends-entirely-on-modelswill-occur-sometime-between-now-and-infinity/#comments You completely misunderstand the two referenced papers. You want to see in them a thing that is not there. The articles only say you can’t time the collapse. They never say it’s impossible. You deniers are celebrating thinking that’s what they say. Furthermore, you show an otherwise very strange inconsistency in your behavior ‘cos you accept these papers and reject others. Your only criterium seems to be whether they support your wishes.
Which papers / articles have “already done” this the specific subject of “climate science denial receives [major] support from industry” ?
Which papers / articles are you suggesting I “just read” ?
.
1) “Guilt by association” has been a “well documented” logical fallacy for over 2000 years.
URL 1 : http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
URL 2 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
NB : See how easy it is to include supporting references (/ links).
2) I — first-person singular — didn’t post any comments under the AMOC article at WUWT that you linked to.
3) Please enter the term “psychological projection” into your — second-person singular — favourite Internet search engine, and carefully read through the results.
.
“An ‘appeal to authority’ is also a logical fallacy” is one of the key phrases here.
Another keyword is “fair”, which can be characterised by :
“Fair is when you (singular) inverse the roles in your mind, and you still consider the result to be ‘fair’.”
Let me provide you with a [ Note to moderators : deliberately extreme ] counter-example inverting our roles.
Me : It is “well documented” that nyolci is a fascist authoritarian.
nyolci : WTF ?!? Where did you get that from ???
Me : It is “well documented” that nyolci is a fascist authoritarian.
nyolci : Where is it “well documented” ? Provide references or else I’ll sue your [ multiple bad words deleted ] !
Me : It’s been already done. You just have to read it.
nyolci : No it [ bad word deleted ] hasn’t !
Me : If ***I*** write that it is “well documented” then it is “well documented”.
***I*** don’t need to provide you (plural) with any actual references or links.
You (plural) have to simply accept everything that I write without question … you ignorant peasants …
– – – – – –
Would you consider the above “bald assertion” on my part, and the subsequent “justification”, to be “fair” ?
https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=climate+denial+support
This is not guilt by association. This is guilt by believing what what you want to believe instead of using evidence. I don’t know the fancy name of it.
Who cares? You asked for “lease provide just one concrete example of precisely what you think “we” are “denying without evidence” here.” I answered. Furthermore, you’ve had your share in other places, forgive me if I don’t look for it.
Sometimes I appeal to Einstein in the matters of relativity. Is that a logical fallacy? Experts are called “experts” precisely because they are the authority in their respective fields. Appeal to authority is a fallacy if the matter is just an ex-cathedra assertion w/o evidence from someone. Here this is “documented”, ie. researched, see above.
Yet Einstein was wrong about Quantum Mechanics.
That’s why I appeal to him in the matters of relativity, see above 😉 BTW Einstein thought QM was wrong and he did extensive research in QM to prove it wrong or at least demonstrate its silliness. Ironically his results are still valid in QM and the quantum world does look really weird. Weird but valid. So apart from his dislike towards QM he wasn’t wrong in the strict sense of the word.
Einstein knew more about QM than you do. You should know that Galileo invented the concept of the Principle of Relativity.
😉 I see desperation.
Where?
You couldn’t say anything on topic so you got one keyword (“relativity” out of the Theory of Relativity) and came up something irrelevant (Galilei’s relativity principle) just to say something. This is a clear sign of desperation.
Really ???
Your “evidence” is a link to a generic Google search — not even one to “Google Scholar”, which would be an improvement, if only a slight one — which will be dominated by (mainstream and social) media articles, AKA “opinion pieces”.
How many of the actual scientific papers (10 or more pages in ?) have been retracted ?
How many of them have been superseded, or at least updated, by more recent research ?
Which specific papers are the “most relevant” ones ?
.
It’s called “being only too human”, but it can be both detected and compensated for … to some extent … with practice.
.
Oh dear, I’m now obliged to go all “schoolmarm (/ university lecturer) with a backwards student” on you.
The fallacy part of the “appeal to authority” argument comes in the second part of the following template :
1) Authority A says that proposition P is true.
2) Therefore P must be considered as being “proven true”.
In the phrase “X is true because Einstein said so” the “fallacy” comes from the use of the word “because”, not from the use of the word “Einstein”.
NB : This applies even if person A is indeed an expert in what is usually termed “a relevant domain”, in this case “relativity”.
In science the “correct” conclusion is :
“P is more likely than not to be true, given person A’s expertise in the domain … but some supporting empirical evidence for the specific point(s) being made would be appreciated”.
.
Here is a copy of your OP … the one I first responded to … in its entirety :
Where, exactly, is the supporting “evidence” in that post ?
Which part(s) of that post are not just your opinion(s) ?
Please point to any part of that post that is not “just an ex-cathedra assertion”.
NB : Simply writing that “there are a lot of examples” or something is “very well documented” without providing any concrete examples or documents counts as “just ex-cathedra (/ bald) assertions“.
Oops, I copied the wrong link. BTW what I gave was also instructive, a lot of research papers can be found with a generic search. Here is the scholar link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=climate+denial+funding&btnG=&oq=climate+denial+fu
Obliged and failed 🙂 Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority dismisses the evidence you’ve come up with. This is not the case in the usual pseudo-scientific topics like climate science denial. Your “evidence” is downright missing, or some half understood hearsay from social media, or stuff that has been already debunked etc. These fallacy-listings are just convenient covers you use so that you can freely bs.
See above, you’ve got the documents.
How many genders does science say there are? How does science explain you can’t gather in public because of respiratory illness but you can participate in mass demonstrations for social justice?
Who the fcuk cares about this?
It doesn’t. No one has claimed that.
little nyolic prefers to live in a little far-left, woke fantasy world.
The only place he/she/it can pretend to be what it wants to be.
The nameless nyolci gives us a peek under his/her/its kimono, and it’s not pretty.
That mental image is going to haunt me for weeks.
Voldemort. My name is Voldemort.
Your name is garbage and stupidity.. That is what you “self-identify” as.
So you identify with the most evil character in the Harry Potter books? You need some real help.
Exactly. See? You’re still afraid of speaking my name. You shxt your cute panties. 😉
What name? You’re hiding behind a pseudonym.
My name. 😉
It’s an idiot name. I’m glad you cling to it.
I’m kinda scared to ask whether you know that Voldemort was almost never called by name, they used euphemisms. So what I said was reaction to the “nameless” adjective, and it was evidently a joke.
Then please go away–so that we can never call you by name!! Heh!
What a stupid position you’ve assumed. I’ve read the books. Apparently you have not.
What a strange argument In a debate…
Then why do you behave like you don’t know their content?
“Then why do you behave like you don’t know their content?”
What amazes me is that Rowling writes about the evils of absolute power, but then supports absolute power–like you.
The last movie didn’t follow the book exactly. The book was more definitive.
I think we can firmly conclude now that you like to go much further in your conclusions than what your premises allow, the latter being a pun on “nameless”. I have to warn you that in science you have to have evidence for your assertions.
“. . . in science you have to have evidence for your assertions.”
You fail to notice that your comments are sufficient evidence. I needn’t say more.
Okay, so let’s sum up your train of thought. One fokkwit called me nameless for reasons unclear to me. Most people are using nicks here just as I, so I’m just as nameless or named as most people here. Okay, this adjective reminded me to the Harry P thingie about how they called the chief protagonist. Mine is not even a good joke and if you had pointed out that I would’ve had to agree. But you somehow treated a mediocre joke as… what exactly? Here comes this gem:
This conclusion is marvelous. BTW I don’t know what Rowling supports and I don’t think in her books she showed any consistent views apart from vague generalities. The books were written in 10 years or so with a clear change in tone as they progressed. But if we want to get a message out of them that would be much more in the direction of the strength of friendship vs the strength of fear. She quite consistently contrasted these. As far as I remember this was exclusively what she consciously expressed. I can’t remember her analyzing absolute power or the like. The takeaway from this is that you got even this wrong.
>> Science denial is dangerous
Absolutely! I agree in the strongest terms, this is how OI became a skeptic!
And should always be investigated with most gravity!
A few days ago R. Pielke listed 5 Climate science scandals, do you claim that they are fully considered in mainstream press and politics or even discussed in science?
Andy May and Marcel Crok do a very good job countering Phoma Destructiva’s comment showing that climate skepticism is very much alive and justified
What do you say about paleo-stuies without discussing the selection bias of the proxies?
Is selection bias real? What is any study worth omitting a critical source of uncertainty?
That is denial of science right there!
How about climate attribution studies? R. McKitrick´s critique on one fundamental attribution method still stands (he thinks it can be extended to all currently used methods)
Isn´t it highly unscientific to publish an attribution study without addressing this critique?
That is denial of science again right there!
For the uncertainty of climate models the transition to CMIP6 shows about 25% difference for the CO”-sensitivity compared to models from CMIP5 which is generally attributed to a better cloud parametrization, doesn´t that blow up the error bars for CMIP5 models in retrospect?
Where is the reevaluation of projections for all statements based on CMIP5?
Denial can only carry you that far!
Climate alarmists have a very long track record of denying science!
No, you’re just a normal moron.
Yes. And these are nothingburgers.
No, and I think M and M are the ones who knowingly lie. You just believe ‘cos you want to believe.
In the scientific literature. Furthermore, most of you most of the time don’t really understand these things (but repeat nonetheless).
Poor child-minded gormless waffler.
Your mind is infected by a virus from an alternate universe where science has no meaning.
“Climate science denial” is entirely the province of AGW alarmists. AGW is an artful pseudo-science.
Critical Global Warming Theory: assume what should be demonstrated, grant the assumptions the weight of evidence, and every study is confirmatory. The same symptoms that diagnose the dumbth mind-virus widely affecting modern academics.
Alarmists introduce rubbish and call it science. They have ruined climate physics.
It is the AGW alarmists, folks such as you, nyolci, who are the climate science deniers. Anti-science climate thugs.
The tens of thousands of UK excess winter fuel poverty deaths be on your head.
Really? And then how come you don’t have one single scientific paper?
“. . . you don’t have one single scientific paper?”
Show us yours. Then we can evaluate your research abilities. You haven’t shown much ability here.
I don’t see any papers in your answer–just a lot of nonsense words.
I warned you there were none…
Oh, this is the real problem. Your ability to comprehend.
So there’s nothing. I thought so.
I’m not a climate scientist and I don’t have publications in climate science. I have publications in EE.
Really. So what? What’s EE? Please enlighten us!
Electrical engineering.
The science that you read do you understand it? How much physics do you know? Are you a physicist? A mechanical engineer? A chemical engineer? A historian? A polymath?
Just to be clear–I’m an electrical engineer. My specialty is digital electronics.
Good on you.
“Good on you”
I’m also a retired Navy pilot.
Yes.
Electrical engineer.
I think you missed out on basic engineering knowledge.
And you’re wrong 😉 A familiar state of affairs.
Huh?
Being wrong must be familiar to you.
“Being wrong must be familiar to you.”
It’s a rare event.
Then why I can see it so often? 🙂 Look, Jim, a little bit of help: don’t deny it outright, it looks weak.
“Electrical engineer.”
You don’t seem to know much about EE. What’s your specialty?
Wrong again 😉 You have an apparent urge to come up with unsupported conclusions.
Actually, my conclusions are bases on facts. It’s the engineer in me!
What facts? 🙂
Exactly.
It’s called stolen valor. You’re claiming to be a EE, and show no traits that you are an engineer. Again, what’s your specialty?
How do I show no traits? 🙂 Please entertain me. You actually had a more specific assertion, “You don’t seem to know much about EE“. What are those things you’d seen here that made you think I didn’t know much about specifically EE?
All engineers take statics. What’s required for a system to be static?
You’ve promised facts. All I see is just fishing 🙂 Or you are talking about the AMOC collapse debate the other day? There I spoke about unstable equilibrium, and one fcukwit there mixed up stable/unstable with static/dynamic. I just pointed out that these were different notions. Anyway, I have seen no facts from you so far.
And an engineer could answer that question blindfolded.
Okay, so you have nothing and you were indeed fishing. And I can see here a pattern, this is not the first time when you had far reaching conclusions based on flimsy (or in this case, non-existent) evidence. When you inevitably get caught you try to sneak out with some bs or deflection. Here the desperation was clear on your side. We didn’t have anything specific in our conversation to engineering not to mention EE so you were caught in the open when I asked you to identify it.
By the way, my “specialty” was system identification. My master’s thesis (MSc EE) was about a thing called “octave analysis”, I basically built an experimental spectrum analyzer. I really loved that. I didn’t finish my PhD for multiple reasons unrelated to my research. I hated the whole thing though. My only publications (nothing far reaching…) were from that time, and the irony of the situation is that they weren’t really specific to EE, more like applied maths and programming. That was the direction of the world even 30+ years ago…
Now let’s talk about you. My guess is that you are very young, either still an undergrad student or just finished. Far reaching, unsupported conclusions is a juvenile trait. One funnily telling sign was that you didn’t know what EE stood for. Also confusion about the philosophy of science (Newton, religion) is another telling sing.
“Okay, so you have nothing and you were indeed fishing.”
You didn’t answer an easy question about statics. So what great evidence makes you think I’m young? You have none obviously. It’s just the way you treat subjects that engineers deal with all the time that makes me suspicious. The answer to my question (that you can’t or won’t answer) is for a system to be static, all the force vectors must cancel (add to zero), and all the moment vectors must cancel (add to zero).
“One funnily telling sign was that you didn’t know what EE stood for.”
I know what EE stands for as I have a BSEE degree. I’m also a member of IEEE. Since I questioned your engineering knowledge, I didn’t know what you were referring to. I have another question for you: how do you find the true length of a line?
“Also confusion about the philosophy of science (Newton, religion) is another telling sing.”
I don’t think you’d like to hear me sing.
I don’t have to, and this is just you imposing arbitrary stuff. But here it is: no acceleration in the system. Can you understand that this questioning of yours is just bsing and deflecting? ‘Cos you claimed to know something that was based on the things I had written (here? lately?), and of course you couldn’t show me a thing. So you are just bsing.
Yeah, I’m talking about this. What’s that? Can you provide at least an example?
See above, a shorter but equivalent answer.
Then why did you ask?
That was much before that, now you’re trying to sneak that into it. Not a good practice, you are obviously not good in these ripostes.
Again, show me at least one example that “made you suspicious”. You try to impose another arbitrary stuff just to avoid answering the real question.
BTW this is an extremely stupid question. Do you know that “line” may mean a lot of things even in this context? You know it’s a good engineering practice to be as precise as the circumstances allow you. And now you come up with a question that looks like coming from a medieval tale.
Bsing about misspelling things (here: “sign”) won’t get you far.
Oh, I think this really a tricky question a la medieval tales 🙂 If you talk about measuring, you can’t know the true length. Well, bsing about trivial matters and terminology won’t get you far, and exposes you as someone who cannot be taken seriously. BTW you’re more and more resembling to two famous idiots here, the Gormans, a gay couple. The age is approx the same, at least one of them has a BSEE, they have serious problems with comprehending really simple things, and they have a tendency for bsing with teaser question. One gem of theirs is “flux in a point”. They claim to be in metrology but mix up the temporal shape of a slowly changing measurand with the measurement distribution of a measuring device. Etc. Don’t be like them.
I actually have an engineering degree. For some reason you’re faking it. I suspected you weren’t an engineer because some of your statements didn’t jive with typical engineering concepts. So I asked a question about statics. You had no clue and accused me of fishing.. Engineering students get statics in their first year. I then asked a question about a graphics technique. Again, you had no clue. The answer is: take an elevation parallel to the line in question, and it will be true length in the elevation. An engineer would understand that explanation. So you are an engineering fraud. I don’t know what training or schooling you’ve had, but it wasn’t in engineering.
You’ve been bsing without one single example.
This is called fishing. I asked for what you thought was evidence. You obviously had none, so you started these questions. You should’ve provided already existing examples. Furthermore I actually answered your questions. You move your imaginary goalposts further. This is the other reasons why asking these kind of questions is a no-no in a situation like this.
It’s not even true, you’re again wrong. I studied EE in another country, another language, with a (then) very differently organized curriculum.
Kinda surprised. We didn’t learn graphics techniques in EE. This was not an art school. BTW if you are referring to engineering diagrams, you should know that there may be a wildly different terminology in different languages.
Wattafock, is this supposed to be an elementary geometry exercise? Or still engineering diagrams? I still don’t get what it is without any context. If you can measure the “true length” in the elevation, why can you never get it in the original place? What kinda line is this? What does elevation mean in this context? In summary, this was just an arbitrary bs teaser question you used so that you can declare me whatever you wanted to declare me.
But hey, this is a question to you, fellow engineer. You should be able to answer it out of hand. Why is your sentence quoted below wrong in the strict sense of the word? Because it’s wrong, and I’m not talking about the “metric for metric” part which is just botched English. As an engineer with your precision, you should know.
Go for it.
Oh, I have an actual problem for you. This is about the inverse square law, and the Gormans’ answer was ridiculously bad and it was even bad on their own terms. This is about the strength of surface radiation at the height of 20km. Conditions are ideal, the Earth is assumed to be an ideal sphere, surface is at the same temperature, no atmosphere. So what is the strength of the surface radiation at the distance of 2e4 m from the surface? This should be easy to you.
I’m not a radiation expert. I suppose you can apply the Wien Displacement law or the Stefan-Bolztmann law. But I don’t really care.
Just as I suspected, you immediately failed a simple parametric calculation despite being such an engineering giant… A little bit of help:
None of these is needed (BTW you should’ve known that). But if you want to, you can assume values (or use parameters) without restriction, just spell them out. Eg. surface radiation is 400 W/m2. Or just use the “energy imbalance” (I can see the denier rage), that’s 0.6 W/m2.
And what’s up with your garbled W/m2 sentence with the “global warming metrics“? That’s even easier. Much easier, you just have to fix it.
Oh, you try to sneak out, as always. Hey, I cite a classic here: “an engineer could answer that question blindfolded.“
Not really. I asked simple questions that a first year engineering student would learn. Since you claim to be a EE, then you know how to perform time convolution using Fourier and Laplace transforms.
“And what’s up with your garbled W/m2 sentence . . . .”
Simple, KT1997.
“Oh, you try to sneak out . . . .”
Because you’re a troll, I can “sneak out” anytime.
“Hey, I cite a classic here: “an engineer could answer that question blindfolded.“
I asked a simple question about statics–you failed to answer. You didn’t even acknowledge the question. I asked a simple question about graphics–you failed to answer. In fact, you ridiculed any knowledge of graphics. So this leads to three possible conclusions (although there may be more): (1) Maybe it was too long ago. I learned these things back in ’67 and ’68 time frame. You should at least recall something about it. (2) You were never taught these typical engineering concepts. In that case, you should ask for a refund. (3) You really aren’t a trained engineer. Why you’d want to pretend to be one is really puzzling.
And you are a troll.
Well, you’re surely trying 🙂 I see desperation again.
🙂 it’s just multiplication in the dual domain. So I’m eagerly waiting for your answer
Wrong. W/m2 is not power but power flux, this is the problem (if “energy” imbalance is a problem).
I actually answered it later. I had problems with this bs approach of yours. But now it’s time for you to answer questions 🙂
No I didn’t. I ridiculed the way you thought it was relevant to EE.
So, could you please answer the question about radiation at last? Without further sneaking attempts?
“I see desperation again.”
You wish.
“it’s just multiplication in the dual domain.”
Finally an answer! Yes, that’s correct.
“. . . power flux . . . .”
Okay. That’s correct.”
“I actually answered it later.”
If you did, I never saw it. My apologies.
“I ridiculed the way you thought it was relevant to EE.”
It was relevant to engineering.
“So, could you please answer the question about radiation at last?”
Why? You never answered my questions. Why should I answer your questions? And I never took a class on radiation, but I bet I could figure it out–if I wanted to.
Hm, I see how you just papered over your error…
That’s what you pretend 🙂
Yeah, really /s
You’ve just acknowledged that I answered your question about the F and L transformations. Try to be consistent. It doesn’t reflect on you well if you are inconsistent. Especially if you contradict yourself in a short post. Especially if you’re an engineer.
‘Cos it’s an extremely simple calculation and you’re apparently unable to answer it. My guess is that you don’t understand the context but you don’t want to ask so you are doing the usual sneaking.
Kinda shocked. How is that possible for an engineer not to be knowledgeable in these relatively basic concepts of Physics? If these basics are missing, how can you handle stuff that are built upon them? Even such elementary EE stuff like the P-N junction. That needs quantum mechanical approach and radiation is just the “warming up” to that.
Little bit of help: you don’t even have to know much about radiation apart from that it’s a flux to solve this extremely simple problem.
Well, now it’s getting into the “face saving” phase, so the “want to” is turning into a “have to”… 🙂
Thanks for confirming my suspicion. You’re a troll pretending to be an engineer. Your comments don’t even follow a logical sequence.
🙂 So you indeed can’t answer this question. Okay, I help you. If we use for the radius of the Earth the value of 6000 km, then the power flux at 20 km will be x*6000^2/6020^2 where x is the flux at the surface. This is it. I wonder whether you are able to get it or you go full Gorman.
“Science denial is dangerous”.
Is your real name Fauci?
He said, “I am the science.”
No.
And he was right. And it’s sad that you don’t get it. Even in this simple matter.
Do you still wear two mask?
Why should I? Pandemic is over, there’s no medical need to it. This mask thing seem to be some kinda religious item to you. Furthermore, you’ve just reinforced the notion that one flavor of science denial is going hand in hand with other flavors. You know, you’re bsing about climate, and suddenly you’ve just been caught fauciing, too. What else do you have? A little bit of creationism? Flat earth?
You still need some major deep-seated mental help though..
Pity they don’t have places like Arkham, where you would feel happy and like you belonged.
“ Flat earth?”
That is very much a “climate change/global warming scam” ideology.
“creationism?”
Its the AGW-agenda-apologists that think the world started either in 1979 or at the LIA.
The real science DENIAL is all on the side of AGW-scam your brain-washed ignorance supports.
Flat earth? Look, there are two lines of attack from you deniers. One is that the statistical methods employed in reconstruction are somehow inappropriate. The other is the bsing about modelling. But flat earth? You know you can’t attack with downright bs. At least a minimal sophistication is needed. I think you are a burden even for the denier community.
Huh? You should go back to school and learn how to compose sentences that actually say something.
Look at any of those energy imbalance graphics. 1) They are all flat earth. 2) They do not deal with energy. W/m^2 is not energy.
Note for the MODS of WUWT.
It would be nice, if it could be easily done, to include the “time stamp” of the particular comment someone is relying to with the name in the “Rely to …”?
If it’s not easy to do, no problem. You have your hands full already!
PS Thanks for what you do!
‘Cos they look flat in a diagram produced for the public?
250,000 GJ is energy, and this is the heat the Earth absorbs every second. (To all the deniers here, this bsing about W/m2 is not energy: this is the most ridiculous line of argument, and exposes you as completely frivolous.)
I guess you need to read more papers. Watts per square meter is the usual power metric for global warming metrics.
Apart from your strange wording, you’re right. Sparta Nova has problems with this, tell him. Or her.
You must be channeling from Commie Harris. You’re making no sense.
What does Harris have to do with W/m2? BTW she is no commie, and in fact she is hardly different from Trump.
Price controls–that’s full Communism. Taxing unrealized gain–more Communism. Open borders–definitely not Trump.
Nothing is specifically communist or even leftist in this list. Nixon, who was definitely not a commie, had more radical policies than this. And price controls were commonplace in the middle ages, introduced by monarchs, who hardly were Marxists-Leninist hardliners. You evidently don’t know much about Communism or Marxism, taxing has marginal role in that, and it had a marginal role in the Eastern Bloc. Open borders, in this current form, is especially reactionary and, consequently, bipartisan. American capitalism needs those poor souls to have cheap labor and to keep labor cheap. Again, if you really think Trump and Harris are different, you’re delusional. BTW the older conservatives understand this; you must be quite young. Anyway, Harris now has some vague promises in social policies. These are not even as radical as the current norm in capitalist Western Europe.
“. . . you must be quite young.”
I’m a Vietnam era vet, but I never served in combat. And unlike Tampon Tim, I didn’t falsely claim to be in a war zone.
The rest of your nonsense isn’t worth responding to.
Oh, my god. I based my conclusion on some evidence, see above in another post, but then I was wrong, sorry.
You were again caught here, and you can’t respond, that’s the real problem. If you’re a Vietnam era vet you must be familiar of the age when policies considered radically leftist today were commonplace from conservatives like Nixon, right? You surely remember that. Okay, Nixon didn’t have much of a choice, people were more radicalized that time, and they had to mach the Eastern Bloc anyway in welfare.
By the way, didn’t the GI Bill have a role in your education? You know that commie law.
“. . . from conservatives like Nixon, right?”
Not exactly. Nixon wasn’t really a conservative. He governed as a progressive: went off the gold standard, expanded government with new agencies (EPA), enacted price controls that failed a few months later, opened up China. Where and when have price controls worked? They didn’t work in ancient Rome. They didn’t work in the Soviet Union. They didn’t work with Nixon. And they aren’t working in Venezuela.
“By the way, didn’t the GI Bill have a role in your education?”
No. I worked my way through college–you know, before government got involved and made it too expensive. I never took advantage of the GI Bill–I was lucky enough to have my employer pay for my MS degree. My flight training was government paid, but I think I earned it–like those who take advantage of the GI Bill.
“. . . you must be familiar of the age when policies considered radically leftist today were commonplace from conservatives . . . .”
No, I’m not. You should stop smoking that stuff.
‘Cos he couldn’t do otherwise. This is it. They couldn’t afford to have the Soviets have the upper hand in the welfare game.
I’m kinda confused. You claimed you had a BSEE, and you would’ve said you had an MSEE if you really had had that. It’s kinda rare but not impossible tough to have a BSEE and an MS in another field.
“It’s kinda rare but not impossible tough to have a BSEE and an MS in another field.”
You are really full of it. I can’t think of a more stupid statement. I can have a BSEE and an MS in basket weaving. Are you really capable of understanding anything?
I kindly assume that you didn’t read through what I wrote. ‘Cos I actually wrote that what you said about basket weaving was possible. BTW what was it? Just curious.
Ford, who followed Nixon and is obviously an extreme liberal, said that to end inflation you need to wear a pin with the letters: W I N: whip inflation now. How does wearing a pin stop inflation? Inflation is caused by government printing too much money. Blaming citizens is evil. The solution to inflation is getting rid of the stupid politicians causing it. There are some Republicans and all Democrats who are to blame. Blaming grocery stores for causing inflation is more evil–their profit margin is less than 2%.
You’d better know when you have to claim obviously false things (“extreme liberal”) you’re lost.
Well, you’d have to live through those times to understand. I await (probably forever) for you to understand anything.
Wrong, as always, and I’m pretty sure there’s a name for it in the fallacy lists you deniers are so eager to cite. We understand very well things that we haven’t lived through. Eg. think about the Napoleonic wars. Actually the overwhelming majority what we understand is in this category, and it’s not just history what I’m talking about. I don’t think you have ever participated in experiments with a particle accelerator, and you still believe in quarks.
“. . . and you still believe in quarks.”
I guess so.
So, to summarize, living through those times is not really needed, contrary to what you’ve claimed, right?
So now you don’t support the standard model. I’d ask why, but I’d get a stupid answer.
??? How did you arrive to this stupidity? You have a definite talent for conclusions that are either unsupported or (as in this case) the opposite of one writes. Please read first before you answer. Try to comprehend. And then answer.
Yes, it’s a stupid answer. Quarks are integral to the standard model. Why are you talking about believing in quarks?
It is a figure of speech. But I reformulate the sentence to you so that you can comprehend it:
Hope this helps you.
It helps me to believe you’re not making any sense.
So you have nothing to answer. Just as I thought.
Adios.
Giving up now after bsing for days?
Denying that 380ppm of CO2 in air can cause catastrophic runaway global warming with the absolute certainty that we have to waste trillions of dollars/euros/pounds on net zero and shut down industry in so doing, is the duty of all citizens.
You’re not really being clear..
Well, this is not exactly what science tells us but anyway, they say that it’ll be very bad for us. And they are the scientists. If an engineer tells you that this bridge will collapse if you don’t reinforce this and this, and another x number engineers tell you the same, what do you do? Do you start bsing about wasting millions and millions of dollars/euros/pounds for reinforcing it?
For that matter, how much money do you think fossils industry requires annually in investment? The OECD number is around 1 trillion dollars. Per annum. So the business as usual thing is kinda expensive, too.
No one has ever claimed that apart from a few no nothing journos.
Of course misinformation is the cause of most of the problems the UK has suffered in the past several decades years.
Just recently our Government misinformed us about COVID-19, blatantly and unforgivably, with not an apology for getting stuff wrong.in spite of the many ‘deniers’ who told leading politicians they were wrong. We have seen the same with other issues like where for example ‘deniers’ have told the truth about the definition of adult females, which even PM Starmer struggled to get out of his mouth.
That Climate Change is a longer term lie is extremely worrying for anybody who cares about politicians doing the right things for the right reasons and not the wrong things because an agenda requires them to do it. Let PM Starmer find an expert who can publicly explain and prove to us in detail how carbon dioxide has managed to push up global temperatures since c1850. The fact is there is no such expert on the planet period and so why are these irresponsible politicians still lying to us about climate change? Do they want to continue to harm us by increasing insecurity as they did with COVID-19?
On covid, our government continues to push “vaccines” that are more harmful than good, and similar mRNA technology is being developed by edict, without any serious testing.
Immigration appears to be part of the Cloward-Piven, intentionally meant to overwhelm the “system.”
Society and science appears to be devolving to a point where asking whether an infant is a boy or girl could be an arrestable offence.
Gender is not “assigned at birth.” Sex is determined at the moment of conception and is recorded at birth based on physical examination.
Claiming sex or gender is assigned is totally intended to make it appear arbitrary.
More specifically, it is whatever the Party (or the Times, or…) says it is. Just like everything else.
See also: «How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?» Or, if you prefer old style — «when the Pope says that black is white, and white black…»
Yes, there are those who think that gender is merely a “social construct”.
Yes.
Sex is diagnosed at birth by the doctor. This process correctly identifies the baby’s sex in all but a few (< 1 out of 1000) live births.
It is recorded at birth based on physical examination. That examination can be loosely called a diagnosis.
Yes, it’s simple: penis-male; vulva-female. There are a very few that don’t fall into that designation. We shouldn’t destroy everything because of that fact.
______________________________________
“Climate Change” is “The Big Lie”
The Big Lie is a lie so colossal that nobody
would believe that someone could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
“Climate Change” fits that definition perfectly.
Never mind that a fossil fuel-free electricity grid in Britain by 2030 – the interim goal enroute to a fully Net Zero Britain by 2050 – “is as likely as the second coming of Christ”, as David Starkey said in a recent interview.
Achieving a fossil fuel-free electricity grid by 2030 is impossible to achieve. But what makes the second coming of Christ as likely? If you deny the existence of God then you may think that the second coming of Christ is unlikely but that doesn’t make it unlikely. What goes on in the head of David Starkey does not deternine reality.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
I always liked James Hansen’s quote:
“Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
“it’s no surprise that the slur words of choice today are “anti-vaxxer”, “racist”, “homophobe”, “Islamophobe”, “far right” and, not least, “climate denier”.” and don’t forget ‘anti-semite’
And terf, Whatever that is. Trans European Railway Franchise…??
trans-exclusionary radical female
In other words a woman who beliefs she is what she is.
And there I thought you are only clueless when talking about energy topics.
An actual woman who is proud to be a woman.
As opposed to a confused, low-intellect gender-undefined luser.. that hates even being human.
… and who is totally clueless about EVERY topic.
It’s “…radical feminist”. As in, the lesbians who do not appreciate “imma lesbian trapped in a man’s body” joke that forgot it was a joke.
So Google was again wrong. Thanks for the clarification.
I remember a couple of decades reading (or hearing?) a story about a Rutgers Professor who claimed that all intercourse was rape … except between her and her husband because he was a “male lesbian”.
From the article: “The U.S. Supreme Court holds that the legal threshold from protected to unprotected speech is crossed when the words in question are “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and they’re “likely to incite or produce such action”. Both those tests have to be met for the words to lose their protected status under the First Amendment, something known as the Brandenburg test. In the U.K., the land of the Magna Carta, recent court cases suggest that no such test is necessary for criminal conviction for “stirring up violence” online or indeed even for believing in “forms of toxic ideology which has [sic] the potential to threaten public safety and security”
So does this mean the UK police are going to start rounding up Radical Islamists and putting them in jail?
Judge for yourself…
“”On the school tennis court, they read aloud from it [the qu’ran] then walked back inside the school, where another kid knocked it out of their hands and on to the floor. For this, the four students were suspended, following a quick investigation. The police – naturally – were then called in. At the meeting on Friday, a policeman, introduced as chief inspector Andy Thornton, confirmed that the students’ treatment of the book has been recorded as a ‘hate incident’.
…
While rumours swirled that the book had been burnt and spat on – in truth, it was barely damaged – the autistic boy at the centre of it all began to receive death threats. Yes, death threats – which, unlike disrespecting holy books, are actually (and legitimately) a criminal matter in the United Kingdom. But the students who issued these threats are off the hook.
…
This mother was effectively begging for her son’s safety, while the school and police were apparently more concerned about protecting religious bigots’ hurt feelings. “”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/02/27/when-a-wakefield-boy-brought-a-koran-to-school/
Then there is the Batley schoolteacher – in hiding for three years now, and probably always will be.
islamism gets a free pass every time.
I hope this doesn’t come to the U.S.
https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/24516089.sutton-man-61-chanted-who-f-allah-jailed/
If two-tier policing really doesn’t exist then they certainly should be doing so. Clips on youtube of the rampaging crazed muslim mob in Birmingham the other week are positively alarming. Another youtube clip showing a muslim bloke going absolutely mental, screaming ‘I’m going to f-ing kill you’ within a few feet of police, with grinning co-religionists around him, also caught the eye – no snatch squad there to pluck him out of the crowd to bang him up for incitement. So perhaps two-tier policing isn’t just a figment of the imagination… The police also, if genuine about applying the law equally to all, ought to be looking into the antics of Hopenothate, but I’ll believe that when I see it.
The problem with the police is that some real dross has floated to the top. This has happened across many public-facing bodies, even the military aren’t immune.
What we have is “Critical theory policing”
Naturally, that is two tier – black and white.
Critical Zebra Theory
The truth is that British Police are terrified of Muslims, and run away from them like little bunnyrabbits.
Or Extinction Rebellion or Just Stop Oil?
In the UK, rights are granted by government. What the government gives, it can take away.
I don’t think your first sentence is correct. The basis of a common law legal system is being able to do anything that isn’t prohibited in law. We don’t have a codified-type legal system in which rights need to be granted.
https://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2020/january-february/common-law-vs-napoleonic-code
But whichever system, yes, the government can take rights away.
In the U.S. the government is not supposed to be able to take away the natural human rights as described by our Constitution. The Leftists among us (including within the government) are constantly chipping away at such rights in order to control us. Fight Back!
The you probably don’t want to vote for Commie Harris.
There’s an old joke about the different types of legal systems.
In Great Britain, the US, and countries related to them: everything is legal except that which is illegal.
In many countries: everything is illegal except that which is legal.
Then in countries like Italy: everything is legal especially that which is illegal.
And in the old Soviet Union: everything is illegal especially that which is legal.
As opposed to the greener grass where exactly?
“Rights” are meaningful only when there are enforceable. Anywhere. When not, they are but a dangerous delusion. Reliance on anything that works in the interests of “more equal” classes (and even their pets), but not against them is a dangerous delusion. A good example is that silly American “civil disobedience” thing, see how well it worked for George Wallace, or Julian Assange, or Aaron Swartz.
Not according to the Beeb (direct link) :
“Anti-Muslim rhetoric” = “any criticism of Islam, including the most radical Wahabi / Salafi versions”
“Anti-establishment rhetoric” = “any criticism of TPTB (The Powers That Be) in the UK”
Of course not, that would be islamophobia.
Some beasts always were more equal than the rest. Compare with description of good old UK by good old Shafiz Ullah Khan: «Then those shameless ones of the council stand up before the judges wiping their mouths and making oath. They say: ‘Before God we are free from blame. Did we say, “Heave that stone out of that road and kill that one and no other”?‘ So they are not made shorter by the head because they said only: ‘Here are stones and yonder is such a fellow obeying the Law which is no law because we do not desire it.’»
Two sides of the same coin. If some are innocent even when obviously guilty, others may have it the other way around. Like with that poor dude who was forced to pay alimony and indefinite support of a child even after the latter was proven not his via DNA analysis.
I sure am glad I live in the United States where we can speak freely.
At least for now.
An initiative like the one the UK totalitarians are imposing would never fly in the United States. We believe in speaking our minds and some damn politiican is not going to stop us.
What websites do the UK police monitor? Maybe I’ll give them a visit and make a comment.
It is already happening. Pay attention, look around, you can see it.
Parents protest at a school board meeting are labelled by the FBI as domestic terrorists, as are Catholics and other groups.
This may change if Trump wins in November. If he loses, all bets are off, and the future will be bleak indeed.
It will certainly be bleak for Trump. At the moment he is running for president…. if he loses, he will be running from jail.
Well, John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson, because he was locking up his political enemies. The people got rid of him–not the courts–not Congress.
Except Biden is no longer running. So are you now saying Kamala is running Donald through the courts? I say not.
Donald says she is. He’s angry at Kamala for using Lawfare against him.
Trump says he could have put Hillary in jail when he was president (and he should have) but he said he just didn’t think it was a good idea to lock up the wife of a former President of the United States.
Obviously, radical Democrats don’t share this attitude with Trump. They want to lock Trump up to prevent him from becoming president.
Trump is leading in the polls and leading very big in some categories. And now Kamala has come out promoting communist price controls on American businesses, so I expect her poll numbers are going to get worse as time goes along. I think it is inevitable considering Kamala has no viable agenda, and can’t speak coherently wthout a tele-prompter, so it’s only downhill for her
from here, imo.
Even some in the Leftwing Media are questioning Kamala not talking to reporters. It’s been 28 days since Kamala was appointed the Democrat candidate and she has not given even one interview or press conference. We know why she is avoiding them. In such a forum, she will do great harm to her bid for president.
Trump has started doing hour+- long press conferences every few days where he allows the antagonistic Leftwing Media to throw any question they want at him.
Just the sort of policy you-know-who salivates over, he thinks he should be able to dictate how other people live.
Ahhh the hypocrite master strikes again. She is not the one saying she will keep interest rates down irrespective of what the reserve bank wants. Or that she will impose huge tariffs on imported goods even though that will means the buyer pays and inflation will rise. Trump is about as far from the true republican Reagan type economics as anyone could be. Gone are the days of support your allies and let the free market reign.
“Donald says she is.”
Yes but we know from experience that is exactly what Donald would say.
“Trump says he could have put Hillary in jail when he was president”
I don’t think so but maybe. He’d got what he wanted and she had done nothing to him…. so he moved on.
“Obviously, radical Democrats don’t share this attitude with Trump. They want to lock Trump up to prevent him from becoming president.”
Or they want to see the law upheld.
“Even some in the Leftwing Media are questioning Kamala not talking to reporters. It’s been 28 days since Kamala was appointed the Democrat candidate and she has not given even one interview or press conference.”
Different issue. But when you are winning, best to keep to the winning plan. I think voters are overjoyed to have someone smile and who is younger at this stage. But the time will come when she has to front up. The question will be how will she go toe to toe with the master bully Trump? I seriously have no idea, nor it seems do many commentators.
“Trump has started doing hour+- long press conferences every few days where he allows the antagonistic Leftwing Media to throw any question they want at him.”
Maybe he shouldn’t. He has said some crazy stuff lately. Like Kamala’s crowd was AI. Kamala was not always black. Hmmmm.
“He’d got what he wanted and she had done nothing to him…. so he moved on.”
Hillary was just as guilty of treason as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, when it comes to corrupting the U.S. Justice system for political purposes.
Hillary’s Russian Collusion hoax got it all started.
Hillary deserves to spend some time in jail. She’s lucky that revenge was not on Trump’s mind.
If the tables were turned, Hillary wouldn’t hesitate to try to put Trump in Jail. She is certainly cheering on the current effort by the Biden administration.
That’s a new one on me. You think Obama is guilty of treason? What for?
lol.. you have just admitted you think Hillary and Biden are guilty of treason.
Finally waking up to reality, are you ? !!
“Or they want to see the law upheld.”
What law? Stating that Mar-a-Lago is only $18 million is nonsense. It is at least $1 billion. Where are the victims? None of the banks complained–they all want to do additional business with Trump. Charging Trump with a law where the statue of limitations has expired is corrupt. Trying to enforce Federal law in a state court is outside of their jurisdiction. Bragg has never specified the exact law that was violated–we still don’t know. Not allowing an expert witness to testify for the defense is a violation of equal process. Telling the jury to not be unanimous violates the Constitution. Placing a gag order on Trump violates the Constitution. Using evidence during the time of Trump’s presidency violates the latest Supreme Court ruling.
So we are dealing with corrupt and evil politicians and judges. Treason would be the easy charge these anti-Trump entities..
“Bragg has never specified the exact law that was violated–we still don’t know. “
Bollocks. Donald Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. That’s an exact law.
“Placing a gag order on Trump violates the Constitution.”
Utter garbage. A judge can gag anyone they want to if they feel they are endangering others, of corrupting the legal process.
You live in a fantasy world.
And this was the weakest of the cases. The others have far more damning evidence.
“That’s an exact law.”
State the exact law that was violated. The state law that was violated is past the statue of limitations. And you can’t combine state and federal laws in a state court.
“A judge can gag anyone they want . . . .”
He’s violating the First Amendment.
“You live in a fantasy world.”
I don’t suffer from TDS. Neither do I suffer from projection.
“And this was the weakest of the cases. The others have far more damning evidence.”
You mean the Florida case that was dismissed? (So both NY cases were weak–your words.)
The judge is 100% within his rights to gag anyone they cosider may make statements that are likely to incite violence or civil unrest. Here’s a clue for you…. that’s why we have gag orders. If they were in contravention of the 1st amendment, they wouldn’t be used, but they are regularly.
Yawn and the law(s) he broke….
The indictment charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, in violation of New York Penal Law §175.10.[93][94] Each count is related to a specific business document, each having a date ranging from February 14 through December 5, 2017:[95]
11 for invoices from Michael Cohen9 for general ledger entries for Donald J. Trump9 for checks from Donald J. Trump3 for general ledger entries for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust2 for checks from the Donald J. Trump Revocable TrustThe allegedly falsified documents are related to Trump’s payment to Stormy Daniels as hush money. The payments were listed in the business records as a legal expense payable to Michael Cohen, whereas the indictment alleges that they were actually to reimburse Cohen for the earlier, allegedly illicit, payment to Daniels.[96][97]
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York state law that requires that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”.
So there is your law. You could have done this yourself.
And yes I suffer proudly from what you mindlessly call TDS. I call it concern for the future wellbeing of us all. The man is a scoundrel and a conman. He looks after himself first and has no morals. Many credible people who have worked with and for him are fearful of what a second term will bring and so am I.
Those are great Democrat talking points. It is a misdemeanor under NY law. You’re wrong about that. It’s past the statue of limitations, so that violates equal protection. And if I write a check to my lawyer, and write “legal expense” in my checkbook–it’s a felony. You’re speaking nonsense.
Plus, under oath Cohen said Trump didn’t know what he was doing, and he said he stole from the Trump organization.
” It is a misdemeanor under NY law. ”
You could not be more wrong. Here is the whole paragraph I got explaining the case. Read the bolded part.
Falsifying business records in the first degree is a felony under New York state law that requires that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”. This is in contrast to falsifying business records in the second degree, which is a misdemeanor that does not have that requirement.[
So sorry old boy. The Don was guilty and will be sentenced accordingly soon. And I think you will find the Florida case will be appealed and won(assuming The Don doesn’t stop it.)
I wouldn’t read anything you posted. Because it’s probably nonsense. Democrats/leftists are so anti freedom, individual rights, and property rights.
So you are just another here who thinks ignorance is a virtue. If you keep your head in the sand you can keep believing the nonsense the orange guy feeds you. How clever.
You are projecting again. Ignorance is your point of view.
NDAs re not illegal. The SD NDA was not illegal.
You miss the point. Elevating falsified business records from misdemeanor to felony only occurs when there is another crime being covered up. Bragg never specified that crime. The jury was told they did not have to agree on whatever crime was being covered up.
The checks, 12 of the allegations, had no annotations except to, from, amount, and date. Tell me how those are falsified?
The checks, 9 of the 12 were drawn on a personal account. Tell me who those are business records?
The invoices, 11 of the allegations, submitted by Cohen along with at least 1 email asking for status of the payment against the retainer. Seems the retainer annotation was submitted by Cohen.
The ledger, 11 of the allegations. All of the accountants/bookkeepers testified that they received no instructions and just processed the items in accordance with standard accounting practices. How is that intentionally falsifying anything?
I have yet to see any evidence that Trump told Cohen to falsify the invoices.
Verbal contracts are binding, but it is risky given they are nearly impossible to litigate. If Trump told Cohen, his lawyer, to deal with the NDA and that Cohen would be paid afterwards, that is a retainer agreement, albeit a non-standard format.
Given 3 invoices, 2 checks, and 3 ledger entries were against the business account (an accounting error as presented in testimony), the total should have been 8, not 34, and 5 of those are highly questionable.
Hillary: email server – classified documents violations
Hillary: Russiagate – Fake and election interference
Hillary: Steele Dossier – Fake and election interference
Yup. She did nothing wrong.
Harris: Last interview she was Indian (s. Asian version). When the Floyd death occurred, she was black (not Jamaican). Prior to that, she was Indian.
Trump said it did not matter which, but he did not know at any time which she was because she flip-flopped so often. He suggested she should pick on and stick with it.
.
Hillary: email server – classified documents violations
I’m glad you feel it is a crime and people should be held accountable if they mishandle classified documents coz Trump did a whole lot of that. You will be keen to see him in court I’m guessing?
Hillary: Russiagate – Fake and election interference
Hillary: Steele Dossier – Fake and election interference
Sorry? Are you saying the Trump team didn’t have dealings with the Russians, coz if you are, I got a whole lot of information for you…… Just say the word?
Trump was President. The President has complete control of classified documents. He is IT!!! Biden didn’t as VP. Hillary didn’t as Secretary of State, You’re stating nonsense.
The Russian nonsense is nonsense.
Trump wasn’t president when he was leaving the docs around the place. He wasn’t president when he refused to give them back. He wasn’t president when he destroyed them. He wasn’t president when he is heard on tape saying” I could have declassified these when I was president but now I can’t.” So sorry chum…. that’s a fail.
“Trump wasn’t president when he was leaving the docs around the place.”
Obama has a warehouse full of documents. Why isn’t he in jail? Biden had documents while he was a Senator and VP–not a document controller. Why isn’t he in jail?
And it was the FBI that scattered the documents around the place and placed phony classified folders on top.
So do you want me to start listing the connections Trumps team had with the Russians? OK
Paul Manafort either admitted guilt or was convicted of: illegal foreign lobbying on behalf of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians (Manafort had, in fact, been working illegally as an unregistered agent for pro-Russian interests since 2006), money laundering, tax fraud, lying to investigators, and lying under oath before a grand jury concerning his contact with a Russian associate during the 2016 campaign.
Rick Gates pled guilty to one count of conspiracy against the United States, as well as one count of making false statements to the FBI and to the Special Counsel about his status as a foreign agent for Ukraine (he was working together with Manafort on behalf of pro-Russian politicians).
George Papadopoulos was convicted of lying to investigators about his contacts with two Russian nationals and a professor connected to Russia. Papadopoulos lied about having discussions with them regarding the dirt the Russians claimed to have on Hillary Clinton, as well as about Papadopoulos’s attempts to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.
Sing out if you want more. There is loads.
“Sing out if you want more. There is loads.”
You are so full of it..
You betcha. But guess what…. it is all 100% true.
“Richard Pinedo was convicted of selling bank account numbers to Russians who engaged in election interference.
Roger Stone was convicted of five counts of lying to Congress on matters related to the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia and the records he had of them, as well as one count of witness tampering, and one count of obstruction of a proceeding- all related to Russian election interference.
Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his connections to the Russian ambassador.
Sam Patten (Republican lobbyist) pled guilty to failing to register as a foreign agent for various pro-Russia Ukrainian political parties. This included Patten helping Ukrainian oligarchs illegally spend $50,000 in tickets to Trump’s January 2017 inauguration in violation of federal laws that ban inauguration funds from accepting money from foreign entities.”
Want more? Please say you do.
It’s interesting that Democrats who commit the same crimes Republicans are convicted of never get charged.
Well come on then… when did the Dems collude with a major enemy to try and subvert the democratic process? I will wait with my laptop on alert.
Jane Fonda.
And????? What did she do that was so bad?
She’s a traitor. My brother was a POW while she was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That’s clearly treason.
Big call…. might need to explain a little more? But I should mention that last time I looked Jane Fonda wan’t running for president. Just a small thing.
And if your brother was a POW, how do you feel about Trump( a man who dodged the draft several times) saying those who get captured are not real heroes?
I don’t agree with everyone 100%. Trump was wrong to condemn McCain’s military service. But as a politician, McCain was crap. And I dodged the draft by joining the Navy. Does that make me evil? Bush was condemned for going into the reserves. Clinton dodged the draft–in fact, you can buy a Clinton Draft Dodger for your door.
“But as a politician, McCain was crap.”
But as a soldier he endured terrible hardship in support of his country. I think it outrageously inappropriate for Trump, the draft dodger, to say he was not a hero. Trump has no place at all commenting on his military And in my book, you didn’t dodge the draft if you served in the navy. You still served your country that’s good enough for me.
And Clinton and Bush don’t make a habit of commenting on others service… Trump does.
How about Tampon Tim’s stolen valor? The Afghanistan pullout was probably due to Comrade Harris’s efforts–she was the last one in the room with Biden.
Have you noticed that on this anniversary of the Afghanistan withdrawal, Trump laid a wreath to honor those killed that day and your communist President and Vice President are MIA?
Nope hadn’t noticed that. Did Trump say the soldiers were suckers and losers like he did the last time he laid a wreath?
But let’s be honest Jim. If you really want to know what sort of military commitment Trump has, ask the generals who worked for him. You know the one he picked because you know… he only picks the best. Milley, Kelly, Mattis. These experienced men, who he appointed, see Trump as a completely incompetent leader, who should never be near the White House again. How do you explain that Jim? Maybe you can’t, but I can…. he is a completely incompetent leader, who should never be near the White House again.
Milley is a traitor and should have been court martialed.
“These experienced men, who he appointed, see Trump as a completely incompetent . . . .”
Yeah, and they are responsible for the Afghanistan pullout–that was real incompetence.
“he only picks the best.”
They were recommended by insiders, and they are part of the swamp. Why hasn’t Binden-Harris fired anyone? Failure gets a promotion in the Biden-Harris administration. Rowe should be long gone.
“Milley is a traitor and should have been court martialed.” Of course he was.
But…. I forgot to add McMaster. Was he a traitor too? I see he has just come out and said Trump has to take some responsibility for the Afghan stuff up. I’d say given he was on the inside that would be fair. How do you say?
I think you’re grasping at straws–which you want to make illegal.
Not me wrong Simon.
So, when will Harris endorse Trump? She’s adopting all of his policies.
Come Jim…. a couple. And why not repeat policies that make sense? Do we have to always be different? Surely there is enough light between what the two want for you to make a decision. And anyway Donald doesn’t need any more endorsements. He has the sought after endorsement of RFK Junior. That should bring a few sane people over to Trump. I hear Taylor Swift ready to endorse Kamala. Nothing to worry about there…. all those young people wont make any difference…. will they?
The real question is when will you endorse Trump?
Haha. Yes well it will take a rather large blow on the head to make me that silly.
For the AGWC crowd Science! has become their god. Convert or die is their perverted strategy. They’re as fanatical as any radical Islamist.
But that’s just the useful idiots (like the alarmist commenters here) in their ranks. The ones at the top have decided this fake crisis is the way to reorder the entire world into their vision of heaven on earth, which is some Fabian Socialist hell. The useful idiots are almost always the first up against the wall once the revolution seems complete, contrary to the useful idiot’s assumption that they will be rewarded for their “usefulness” to the revolution.
Climate Borg
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
Existence as you know it is over.
Wrong think.
And “misgendering” is now becoming a criminal offense, when it is defined as a micro aggression well within the bounds of merely being impolite.
“Dis- or misinformation is whatever the state says it is.”
and
statements “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” are what the law-makers say they are.
These vague definitions give governments carte blanche to criminalize speech that reveals their foolish — indeed criminal — policies and thereby publicly embarrasses bureaucrats and agencies.
With entrenched bureaucracies the vote is no longer a negative feedback on governmental destructive stupidity. When the dissatisfaction of the citizenry is suppressed, pressure will inevitably build. The ultimate response is unlikely to be civil or restrained.
Those such as UK Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, now ever so secure and confident in his armed authority, may then find that being the enforcer of unjust law may bring him to the focused attention of those he has persecuted.
It’s an AGW skeptic pogrom. Except the skeptics are gaining ground as reality strikes. You never hear the people asking for more renewable energy, only the elites can be heard as it fattens their wallets.
Nyolci says:”…Science denial is dangerous…”
Where do you stand on hydrogen fuel? Where do you stand on “heat” from atmosphere warming solid earth? Where do you stand on thermodynamics?
Anyone who does not enthusiastically endorse Nyolci is “climate profiled” as a moron and a denier.
There can be no pragmatics, no realists, no skeptics, since we all ask questions and challenge the politics.
Isn’t it always? Alexander Zinoviev in his autobiography noted that when he was arrested, NKVD officers evidently had a problem with comprehending the very possibility that some youngsters from Soviet Union could participate in activities explicitly hostile to Soviet Power and personally Stalin on their own initiative, just like that. Basically, it went “So, uh, were you guys convinced by Uncle Sam or John Bull, or what?” “No, we just figured it may be a good idea, on our own.” <Blank stares and confusion> …repeat until jailbreak.
The same sort, no?
For historical accuracy, the tone of this episode was likely very different. They thought it was a small circle, a conspiracy, they were after that. It wasn’t about how impossible his views were supposed to be conceivable.
The woman posted ”in good faith” as best she could. Her post may have been wrong but then, are they going to arrest/lock up, any journalist who gets something wrong. Not like it never happens. They usually get away with an obscure retraction and apology.
Very few retractions and net zero apologies.