Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Time for me to post an anti-Trump article from an alt-media website. Exxon's end game.

One of the big problems confronting Tillerson the day he took over the reins was the fact that the very scientists at MIT and Stanford who had been cashing Exxon’s checks for decades to churn out white papers questioning whether fossil fuel emissions were a driving force beyond climate change, had begun to change their tune. In fact, in 2003 MIT’s Global System Model, largely underwritten by Exxon, forecast a 2.4-degree-centigrade rise in global temperatures over the next hundred years. By 2006, those same scientists had more than doubled that estimate. Exxon faced the prospect of being betrayed by their own bought science.

Organizationally, Exxon changes course about as quickly and adroitly as its Valdez tanker did while trying to navigate Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound. But Tillerson is a pragmatist. A Texas boy, Tillerson idealized the Boy Scouts and when he became head of the Exxon behemoth he began handing out merit badges to company executives who met their production quotas. He set to work with an Eagle Scout’s pious determination to quietly recalibrate the company’s position on climate change. It was, in Tillerson’s mind, a concession to reality.
GetoriksII
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by GetoriksII »

In gaining an understanding of the causal processes that led to the Trump presidency, it is essential to understand the concept of 4th generation warfare, hybrid warfare, and memetic warfare. This recent article shows that the popular mind is finally waking up to this:

"Here's Why There's Anime Fan Art Of President Trump All Over Your Facebook"
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ ... .jbKBXd2My
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:Time for me to post an anti-Trump article from an alt-media website. Exxon's end game.
From the article:
IT’s Global System Model, largely underwritten by Exxon, forecast a 2.4-degree-centigrade rise in global temperatures over the next hundred years. By 2006, those same scientists had more than doubled that estimate. Exxon faced the prospect of being betrayed by their own bought science.
A good example of why alt-media and anti-Trump both like to meddle in nonsense, especially when they meet. The statistic is irrelevant since the accepted authority on climate change, the IPCC, maintained several scenarios but even the worst one did not have 4.8 as best estimate, at least in their report in 2007. Actually the most likely was still quite close to 2.4. For that reason alone it's way more likely and reasonable that Exxon would work with the recommendations from IPCC instead of those of a selected group of which the article only speculates would have been "bought". And clearly they weren't according to the same logic of the article and their new figure was an extreme outlier in context of the many other estimates of that time, which makes it more likely that Exxon would take the wider view for the supposed mitigation scenario.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

GetoriksII wrote:In gaining an understanding of the causal processes that led to the Trump presidency, it is essential to understand the concept of 4th generation warfare, hybrid warfare, and memetic warfare. This recent article shows that the popular mind is finally waking up to this:

"Here's Why There's Anime Fan Art Of President Trump All Over Your Facebook"
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ ... .jbKBXd2My
Like all causal processes, they end up being a bit more complicated than the idea of a "patient zero". It's very interesting though, as in the article some psychological states are touched upon
..a mindset where she tried to slowly overcome her loneliness and depression with an intense and vocal expression of xenophobia and nationalism.
I felt great because I thought I had gained knowledge that they did not teach in school and that you could not get by watching TV.
This points to the way older and historical issue of identity and "nationalism as modern religion and meaning giver". Part of that is also the need to define your opposition. So much of current fevers are based on opposition of what is not desired or demonized beyond recognition (being it Bin Laden, Saddam, Putin or ones own president, Trumpland, the establishment, immigrants, progressives, etc) . But it's pretty hard to find agreement in the new national "make it great again" movements about what is so particularly great about what they try to restore or defend. As if opposing the changes itself, pulling the emergency break is somehow bringing idealized history closer to the present? But what it certainly it does is strengthening an identity which is so lacking in post-modern, fractured landscapes. Therefore it's more like a reactionary type of move which in turn fuels the associations with fascism as that showed historically the same reactionary components in times where all the changes started to threaten the fabric of a society, for example elements like "trust', "hope" and such.

That brings me to my own analysis: modern "irrational" political counter-movements as response to an increasing fractured landscape, loss of identity and muddled visions for the future. It's like economy: people flock to the only few providers left: some old religion, cultural consumerism or some "rediscovered" nationalism. Generally it doesn't stop the changes and it always will turn out different than even the futurists and progressives of an age thought it would.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Since Jup brought up the climate I was reminded of the earlier demonstrative falsehood from Quinn which needs to be exposed.
David Quinn wrote:Virtually everyone who is intellectually competent is in opposition to him. No matter what the field - military, science, intelligence, medicine, psychiatry, academic - the most renowned experts in all walks of life are united in their view that Trump is dangerously delusional and unfit for office.
Since quite few intellectually competent people (or else please redefine competent as "mainstream") just submitted a call on "delusional and unfit" Trump to please go one step further on his policy around climate change and abandon the related UN convention, it shows here already one area where it's just not true that in "all fields" competent people oppose Trump. Clearly this is an example of a rather large intellectual lobby supporting and encouraging certain policies of the current president.

Then there's this public support of various notable scholars and writers for Trump's plans. More generally here's a list in Wikipedia of campaign endorsement. So no matter the field, you'll find not broad but still a rather well defined intellectual support for various policies on area's of national security, trade, immigration, climate and economy while not declaring the man "unfit".

To claim otherwise is like stating the sky is virtually always overcast in England. It's just not true.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Glostik91 »

Where can I read Kevin's statements about Trump, Breitbart, and all of this? Wait, hold on, I have to go get some more popcorn. brb
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The statistic is irrelevant since the accepted authority on climate change, the IPCC, maintained several scenarios but even the worst one did not have 4.8 as best estimate, at least in their report in 2007.
The IPCC is a politicised and hamstrung organisation where a single member out of an audience of 200 or so scientists employed by governments the world over can veto acceptance of the papers presented. That isn't honest science. It is a diplomatic process designed to fabricate the most optimistic climate change scenarios.
Actually the most likely was still quite close to 2.4.
Question: what is the exponential function? Models of huge, complex and adaptive systems are not meant to predict the state of the system as a whole. That is precisely why so many of them are created.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_model

At this point, it is likely the system of warming has become self-amplifying and human input is trivial. The Arctic ice at an increasing rate thins, delays in reaching peak volume and quickens to arrive at lowest volume through each year; exponential growth kicks in as sunlight absorption, temperature of the surrounding and underlying water, as well as the amount of methane released due to ice-free surface, also increase commensurately.

_https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_change.html

_http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0147.1 [only abstract viewable]

Detailed information about IPCC's models as well as the "storyline" associated with each from their website:

_https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/w ... ns-of.html
For that reason alone it's way more likely and reasonable that Exxon would work with the recommendations from IPCC instead of those of a selected group of which the article only speculates would have been "bought". And clearly they weren't according to the same logic of the article and their new figure was an extreme outlier in context of the many other estimates of that time, which makes it more likely that Exxon would take the wider view for the supposed mitigation scenario.
Exxon didn't "work with the recommendations of IPCC". That is a baseless claim unless you prove otherwise.
Since quite few intellectually competent people (or else please redefine competent as "mainstream") just []url=https://cloudup.com/iHcBpTDmCNu?chromel ... play=false]submitted[/url] a call on "delusional and unfit" Trump to please go one step further on his policy around climate change and abandon the related UN convention, it shows here already one area where it's just not true that in "all fields" competent people oppose Trump. Clearly this is an example of a rather large intellectual lobby supporting and encouraging certain policies of the current president.
How many of the signatories are scientists? Out of the scientists, how many are climate scientists? Out of those, how many have published peer reviewed papers in that field in recent years? I honestly don't know, but my guess is that Lindzen being the creator is the only prominent climate scientist in that group. Compare with this 2010 letter by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences:

_http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/328/5979/689.full.pdf

Not to mention that your letter contains only claims, not explanations, citations or references. Mine does.

So flee, mischievous Rhine nixie! Neptune's judgement cometh, and that right soon. Flee south to the Black Forest where Abnoba nightly prowls with her besotted retinue of undead Standartenfuehrers.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Jupiviv, I was not discussing the IPCC at all beyond the most likely scenario that Exxon based itself on their report, which is based on the work of many more scientists than the group mentioned in the article. Your opinion on IPCC or the validity of models the research they represent is noted but not relevant here.
Exxon didn't "work with the recommendations of IPCC". That is a baseless claim unless you prove otherwise.
It's sane to assume Exxon was more interested in IPCC reporting than the research of one select group of scientists they used to sponsor. To assert, like the article did, that the research of that one group was somehow more relevant or important to Exxon policy is not logical at all. And the article does not provide evidence for it either. So unless one remains ignorant on the role and significance of the IPCC around the world in terms of science and polities, the logic is there to evaluate.
How many of the signatories are scientists? Out of the scientists, how many are climate scientists? Out of those, how many have published peer reviewed papers in that field in recent years? I honestly don't know, but my guess is that Lindzen being the creator is the only prominent climate scientist in that group.
How many do you require to accept that not virtually everyone who is "intellectually competent" or even acknowledged experts in their field accept the claimed consensus on climate?
Not to mention that your letter contains only claims, not explanations, citations or references. Mine does.
The topic is not climate science. Are you always so easily distracted like a mental squirrel? This is about the possibility of any intellectual, academic support for policies suggested by the Trump campaign. Not about the content.

By the way your post is simultaneously defending and condemning the majority of climate scientists. What are you smoking? Trump weed? Or just opposing everything because you can? Wait, that's Trumpism as well :-)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Jupiviv, I was not discussing the IPCC at all beyond the most likely scenario that Exxon based itself on their report, which is based on the work of many more scientists than the group mentioned in the article.
The group in question were likely to have been important climate scientists who attended the IPCC report committees. I agree, however, that the author should have provided citations. Like this one:

_https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/w ... 10-29.html

~2 degrees is the lower bound for the projections. ~4 degrees is the mean or "multi-model average".
It's sane to assume Exxon was more interested in IPCC reporting than the research of one select group of scientists they used to sponsor.
It's not sane because Exxon isn't interested in IPCC reporting. They're interested in selling oil and distorting/ignoring reality in order to continue doing so.
How many of the signatories are scientists? Out of the scientists, how many are climate scientists? Out of those, how many have published peer reviewed papers in that field in recent years? I honestly don't know, but my guess is that Lindzen being the creator is the only prominent climate scientist in that group.
How many do you require to accept that not virtually everyone who is "intellectually competent" or even acknowledged experts in their field accept the claimed consensus on climate?
Experts are only competent in their own field of work. I would say at least a quarter of the signatories in that letter should be prominent climate scientists, and maybe half prominent scientists, for the claim that there is uneven/no consensus on AGW to be valid.
Are you always so easily distracted like a mental squirrel?
Huh? Look! Poll finds voters more trusting of Trump (relatively) than media:

_http://www.theecps.com/

Another poll finds half of Americans think the media is too tough on poor Trumpykins.
By the way your post is simultaneously defending and condemning the majority of climate scientists.
No, I pointed out that the IPCC deliberately focuses on the lowest common denominator of expected change.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: It's all absorbed by self. The pure feminine has made absolute the I and the whole world is now accessory, relative to that.
This is the illusion, is it not? The belief that the I is absolute and the world is a relative accessory to this illusory absolute I? In relation to this thread, perhaps this is what we are seeing now in the world of Trumpism with Trump being the absolute I figurehead.
Pam: In relation to moving beyond the human realm of reasoning and emotion, I believe one who fears doing so fears doing so because he or she is afraid that if they let go of reasoning and its contrast, emotion, that they will fall into 'nothingness' or chaos. Impossible of course, because in all realms, conditions are present.
Diebert: Chaos also has conditions present so ultimately observational, like randomness. But you're right the fear is unjustified. We're already beyond it, we always were. We don't need to move "beyond" anything but that's not how most would conceive of it. And even if they'd try: it would become another thing, like selfish passivity.
'Moving beyond' is not meant to be taken literally, what is meant is more of an 'opening up' to a higher and deeper reality (to paraphrase your term) than reasoning and emotion. You said this in a previous post: "And if not, it's the prime element for the reason we communicate on this forum, this belief in reason to distinct us, our activities, from mindless acts. And that's the reason I'd push the ideal of reason. But the highest ideal would be infinitely wider and deeper" I would be curious to hear more details as to your understanding of this highest ideal.
Diebert: The image I had in mind today was of a very large pyramid, upside down, balancing on its point, its apex pressing a certain spot on the ground, an incredibly tiny spot. That spot is where we are, at best, at the summit, with all our things, relations, the whole universe, our largest thoughts, transcendent feelings and greatest desires: our whole tragic being. But enlightenment concerns the whole of the bottomless pyramid extending from the apex. And yet you're never going to move "beyond" anything. Not really.
If we leave the clumsy phrase 'moving beyond' behind and instead we apply my idea above re 'opening up' to a deeper or higher reality than the sum total of our whole tragic being, what is it that we are opening up to? What you answered above obviously relates to this question. For me, this deeper or higher reality is the unseen totality of causality that is the cause of our pinpoint pyramid-weighted self and that when one opens up to this totality instead of focusing on the weight of the pyramid, the self remains but not the weight of the sense of the tragic.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:~2 degrees is the lower bound for the projections. ~4 degrees is the mean or "multi-model average".
Each scenario contains a multi-model average. The scenario's themselves cannot be averaged. Only one (worst case) scenario has ~4 degrees as average of all models inside that scenario. The B2 scenario with the "Exxon 2006" average of 2.4 just assumes a certain growth of world populations and adaptations. These scenarios have become darker in later reporting but the topic was the unfounded, unsourced claim that Exxon would have deliberately ignored some figure from scientific work making up a tiny fraction of the formal analysis which is actually feeding all global companies and governments around the world. The suggestion from the article therefore is demonstratively highly speculative at best.
It's not sane because Exxon isn't interested in IPCC reporting. They're interested in selling oil and distorting/ignoring reality in order to continue doing so.
Obviously selling oil and any other form of energy now and in the future is their core business. For anything else you need to supply better evidence. Start a climate topic in Worldly Matters if you want to be taught a lesson or two :-)
Experts are only competent in their own field of work. I would say at least a quarter of the signatories in that letter should be prominent climate scientists, and maybe half prominent scientists, for the claim that there is uneven/no consensus on AGW to be valid.
Scientific consensus with those numbers would not work in science. Consensus is not really a scientific principle but always a political one. Anyway, it was not my claim. My challenge was to show that not "virtually everyone competent" would reject Trump and/or his main policies and even actively support or encourage them like in this case. And being competent (excelling in ones field, notable, ranked etc) does not mean one is right and neither does majority or dominance. Note the subtle difference. It's kinda the point of the exercise.
Huh? Look! Poll finds voters more trusting of Trump (relatively) than media:
Actually faith in media (and authority perhaps) has declined seriously and widespread over the decades. The Trump phenomenon arose in that vacuum but has not caused it and neither is the vacuum limited to certain social or political groups.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:~2 degrees is the lower bound for the projections. ~4 degrees is the mean or "multi-model average".
Each scenario contains a multi-model average. The scenario's themselves cannot be averaged. Only one (worst case) scenario has ~4 degrees as average of all models inside that scenario. The B2 scenario with the "Exxon 2006" average of 2.4 just assumes a certain growth of world populations and adaptations.
You're right that they can't be averaged and that ~4 degrees is the mean of the highest scenario. However, in the link posted half of the scenarios have means >2.4C and the scenario with most collations seems to be A2 which projects ~3.2 C. Also, the IPCC in the main report calls all the scenarios "likely" without further qualification. The given "likely range" is 2-4.5C increase over pre-industrial levels. That means (2.4-2)/(4.5-2)*100=16% of probable outcomes will be <2.4C. You have as yet not provided any citations for Exxon accepting 2.4 C as the likely change in temperature, but even were it true it would not indicate that they worked with the IPCC's recommendations as you claim, since they considered 2-4.5 C to be the likely range in the 2007 AR4.
Obviously selling oil and any other form of energy now and in the future is their core business. For anything else you need to supply better evidence. Start a climate topic in Worldly Matters if you want to be taught a lesson or two :-)
They fund climate change denier groups:

_http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/atta ... 8-2014.pdf

Although I'm not sure what "denier" is supposed to mean. It could mean complete denial of AGW or merely valid scepticism about extent and consequences. In the latter case, calling them "deniers" would be intellectually dishonest.
Consensus is not really a scientific principle but always a political one.
Consensus about empirical observation is a scientific principle, hence the peer review process. The issue of whether or not it's implemented incorrectly by emotionally or ideologically biased participants isn't relevant. Anyways, experts in a certain field are better qualified than those in other fields to grant consent to observations pertaining to that field.
My challenge was to show that not "virtually everyone competent" would reject Trump and/or his main policies and even actively support or encourage them like in this case.
I have tried to show that too as you very well know. My disagreement is with the *instance* you provided.
Actually faith in media (and authority perhaps) has declined seriously and widespread over the decades. The Trump phenomenon arose in that vacuum but has not caused it and neither is the vacuum limited to certain social or political groups.
The two polls I posted were both referred to in an article on zerohedge.com. What I found interesting is the obvious, stark separation of trust in Trump vs the MSM. Clearly mainstream media as such no longer exists because previously mainstream media is now alt alt media. Too bad they can't yet bear to accept that.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

GetoriksII wrote:In gaining an understanding of the causal processes that led to the Trump presidency, it is essential to understand the concept of 4th generation warfare, hybrid warfare, and memetic warfare. This recent article shows that the popular mind is finally waking up to this:

"Here's Why There's Anime Fan Art Of President Trump All Over Your Facebook"
https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/ ... .jbKBXd2My
That's a good article, one that fleshed out things a bit more in my mind. Back in August when I first started following the Trump phenomenon, I was immediately struck by the dark undercurrent driving the whole thing - a darkness that embraced the anti-fact, anti-truth, anti-science, anti-humanitarian, anti-media, pro-Russia, pro-nationalism, pro-racial purity, pro-white supremacy side of things. It thus makes sense, in a way, that a significant part of this dystopian movement was driven by a bunch of alienated Japanese males desperately looking around in their bedrooms for an alienating cause that would enable them to save face. The religiosity and romance of race-based fascism can be very appealing to these types.

I had a laugh at this passage:
  • The Nanking massacre is one of the many obsessions of the netto-uyoku, who over the years have become the de facto cultural police on the Japanese internet. The members of Japan’s nationalist troll army hate Koreans and the Chinese, and will usually swarm anything written on social media about Japanese immigration policy. They don’t trust their country’s media and believe that journalists are attempting to erode Japanese values with fake news. They also love their current prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who they see as a leader who is trying to, well, make Japan great again. The netto-uyoku are so well-known by Abe’s right-wing Liberal Democratic Party, in fact, that the Abe administration has a firm monitoring the websites they congregate in and will report anyone who disagrees with them for slander.

    If all this is starting to sound familiar, that is because Japan’s netto-uyoku helped shape the new American far-right movement. In fact, white nationalist (and fluent Japanese speaker) Jared Taylor told The Guardian in October that his sense of racial purity and far-right politics was shaped by a two-year stint in Tohoku, Japan, as a Mormon missionary. “It’s an ethnostate and it’s deeply nationalist,” he said. “And they have resisted the pressure to admit refugees. I say: ‘God bless them!’”
So, far from being a spontaneous uprising, the current anti-establishment movement in America is actually a clumsy imitation of a racial war that was conducted a few years ago in the far east. And to what end? The situation in America couldn’t be any more different than that in Japan. America is a land of immigrants. It is a seething potpourri of different races, always has been, always will be. Japan is the complete opposite - it is largely mono-cultured and mono-racial. You would have to be insane to try and equate the two. But then again, one has to keep remembering that large swathes of America have turned away from sanity long ago.

Dan Rowden sent me a link to this interesting article - Robert Mercer: the big data billionaire waging war on mainstream - which adds another piece to the puzzle. It brings together various disparate elements such as Mercer, Bannon, Breitbart, Trump, Cambridge Analytica, data mining, on-line propaganda, and Russian meddling in a very plausible way. Anyone who has delved into alternative politics in recent years ought to give it a read.

jupiviv wrote:What I found interesting is the obvious, stark separation of trust in Trump vs the MSM. Clearly mainstream media as such no longer exists because previously mainstream media is now alt alt media. Too bad they can't yet bear to accept that.
I'm not sure about this. Going forward, the media landscape is going to continue fracturing into smaller and smaller categories, which will make the mainstream/alternative dichotomy meaningless. Every site will have its own political bias. Some sites will try to be as unbiased as possible (and will earn my custom), while others won't even try to hide who they support (I will avoid these).

In my view, current "alternative" sites, like Breitbart, will go into decline in the not-too-distant future. They are too biased, too reactionary and nowhere near factual enough, to be sustainable. At the moment, they are surfing a political wave; they are at the height of their popularity. But that wave will soon collapse. Trump will no longer be able to hide the fact that he is a charlatan. And when he goes down, much of the movement's impetus will evaporate. And all of these warriors making such a hullabaloo at the moment will go back to the fringes where they belong.

That's the trouble with the internet. You can't sustain a political movement on hot air. It won't last.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Since Jup brought up the climate I was reminded of the earlier demonstrative falsehood from Quinn which needs to be exposed.
David Quinn wrote:Virtually everyone who is intellectually competent is in opposition to him. No matter what the field - military, science, intelligence, medicine, psychiatry, academic - the most renowned experts in all walks of life are united in their view that Trump is dangerously delusional and unfit for office.
Since quite few intellectually competent people (or else please redefine competent as "mainstream") just submitted a call on "delusional and unfit" Trump to please go one step further on his policy around climate change and abandon the related UN convention, it shows here already one area where it's just not true that in "all fields" competent people oppose Trump. Clearly this is an example of a rather large intellectual lobby supporting and encouraging certain policies of the current president.

Then there's this public support of various notable scholars and writers for Trump's plans. More generally here's a list in Wikipedia of campaign endorsement. So no matter the field, you'll find not broad but still a rather well defined intellectual support for various policies on area's of national security, trade, immigration, climate and economy while not declaring the man "unfit".

To claim otherwise is like stating the sky is virtually always overcast in England. It's just not true.
I’m sure the huckster Trump and his deluded supporters can always rustle up a bunch of endorsements from all kinds of people in whatever fields, but they will always be third-rate types with unstable mentalities and axes to grind. The bottom line is, you would have to be sick in the head to support a leader who so obviously dwells incoherently in a fact-free environment. Or greedy, like his billionaire fossil-fuel mates. Or filled with fear and hate, like much of white America.

Jimhaz nailed it when he said that Trump and his cronies make the US look like an ex-soviet block country. Yep, that's exactly what they are doing.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Pam Seeback wrote:
Pam: my belief that most on this board suffer from poverty of love-play emptiness. Perhaps it is time to let go of fear of the feminine.
Diebert: On what do you base the idea of "fearing the feminine"? Fear is the shadow of love, fear is always geared to a sense of loss or losing whatever one feels attached or entitled to.
David said he would rather have a world of the feminine than a world of Trumpism. Kevin's online war with the feminists displays a fear of a "takeover." Both these are examples of attachments to desire (in its aversion form).
Can Buddhas have desires? What else can they have? Do Buddhas seek particular outcomes? What else can they do?

Take care not to fall into "emptiness syndrome". Focusing on emptiness is important, but it becomes a problem if you start mistaking vacuity for reality.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote: You have as yet not provided any citations for Exxon accepting 2.4 C as the likely change in temperature, but even were it true it would not indicate that they worked with the IPCC's recommendations as you claim, since they considered 2-4.5 C to be the likely range in the 2007 AR4.
Citations? You quoted initially " ...model, largely underwritten by Exxon, forecast a 2.4-degree-centigrade rise ", which coincides with best estimate figures in two scenarios from IPCC in 2007. It's not clear how that coud be used by the article to suggest some vague "course change" based on some realization that nobody was going to do anything (which would mean worse case scenario: run away warming). No evidence is supplied, just speculation.
Consensus about empirical observation is a scientific principle, hence the peer review process.
The peer review process is not based on any "consensus". It's not about views or opinions but about correct presentation and verifiability of the supplied evidence. There is no real disagreement even possible between the peers and if there is, another group will solve the differences. The IPCC is a bit of a strange beast as it works with a slightly different method, also since it's meant as policy guide, not as a pure scientific work, meaning they try to handle various "intangibles" and one could indeed speak about a consensus but just not a scientific one. More one of risk assessment and policy recommendation.
What I found interesting is the obvious, stark separation of trust in Trump vs the MSM. Clearly mainstream media as such no longer exists because previously mainstream media is now alt alt media. Too bad they can't yet bear to accept that.
Yes, you're getting to the root of the problem. The mainstream is still believing they are mainstream. But simply based on size and reach, the designated "fake" media are market leaders already (Fox, RT, Daily News). Based on quality, there is also a large question mark about the relevancy of mainstream reporting, the choice of topics, the lack of deep investigation and access to "secret" flows of data. Increasingly all media are in the same boat.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The mainstream is still believing they are mainstream. But simply based on size and reach, the designated "fake" media are market leaders already (Fox, RT, Daily News). Based on quality, there is also a large question mark about the relevancy of mainstream reporting, the choice of topics, the lack of deep investigation and access to "secret" flows of data. Increasingly all media are in the same boat.
Almost the enemy of the people.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:I’m sure the huckster Trump and his deluded supporters can always rustle up a bunch of endorsements from all kinds of people in whatever fields, but they will always be third-rate types with unstable mentalities and axes to grind. The bottom line is, you would have to be sick in the head to support a leader who so obviously dwells incoherently in a fact-free environment. Or greedy, like his billionaire fossil-fuel mates. Or filled with fear and hate, like much of white America.
In my view it's a sickness to pretend political and social reality over the last decades has been something way different to that, not withstanding the usual ups and downs. And to dismiss some of the supportive people as "third-rate types with unstable mentalities and axes to grind" is just akin to closing your eyes and singing "nananana". Which is of course exactly the way Trump got into power in the first place! What I think you need to realize is that there's actually support for Trump at many levels and dismissing (repressing) it like you do won't change that reality. Instead, it's better to wake up to it and try to understand what's going on.
David Quinn wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The mainstream is still believing they are mainstream. But simply based on size and reach, the designated "fake" media are market leaders already (Fox, RT, Daily News). Based on quality, there is also a large question mark about the relevancy of mainstream reporting, the choice of topics, the lack of deep investigation and access to "secret" flows of data. Increasingly all media are in the same boat.
Almost the enemy of the people.
You're very good in lumping things together. What I said is rather established opinion amongst a broad collection of investigative journalists of some standing, some known authors on the topic and also simply based on statistics and various recent polls. It's just too easy to throw it under the Trump train just because you are so impressed by the New York Times. This might be overly harsh but it seems that at times during these discussions you are in opposition against any serious critique, any fundamental but oppositional thought on society or media "As it is". It's like you want to derail any hint of possibility that there's something deeply wrong or conflicted with Western society and that Trump might just be our own ugly face staring back at us, marking our own hypocrisy and make-belief world that "we are so different". Some kind of revulsion against the real possibility that we in the West do not have monopoly any more on the "facts" in terms of ideology and current economical or political developments, but just believe we still have.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:You quoted initially " ...model, largely underwritten by Exxon, forecast a 2.4-degree-centigrade rise ", which coincides with best estimate figures in two scenarios from IPCC in 2007.
And the remaining scenarios forecast higher best estimates. The IPCC gave the likely range as 2-4.5 C. Besides, your premise itself is wrong. The fact that Exxon funded the study doesn't automatically mean they share or agree with the IPCC's perspective on climate change.

That said, however, Exxon really has no choice but to practically (if not politically) deny AGW. They are effectively broke and there's no way back to solvency apart from nationalisation and debts shifted to taxpayers.
The peer review process is not based on any "consensus".
In strict logical terms it makes no difference whether the observer accepts supervision or not - if he is right then he is right. Nevertheless, consensus is desired and sought after via processes like peer review. And again, as usual, your argument is a red herring because it attacks points that I didn't make, i.e., peer review is identical to scientific consensus and Trump is only supported by idiotic and inconsequential people.
Last edited by jupiviv on Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Based on quality, there is also a large question mark about the relevancy of mainstream reporting, the choice of topics, the lack of deep investigation and access to "secret" flows of data. Increasingly all media are in the same boat.
That emboldened bit is really the killer, so to speak. Trump is Captain Queeg in charge of the USS Caine. Communication in the halls of the White House at this point probably resembles this scene from Fawlty Towers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IMlhu9fjVI
David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:What I found interesting is the obvious, stark separation of trust in Trump vs the MSM. Clearly mainstream media as such no longer exists because previously mainstream media is now alt alt media. Too bad they can't yet bear to accept that.
I'm not sure about this. Going forward, the media landscape is going to continue fracturing into smaller and smaller categories, which will make the mainstream/alternative dichotomy meaningless. Every site will have its own political bias. Some sites will try to be as unbiased as possible (and will earn my custom), while others won't even try to hide who they support (I will avoid these).
Wait, what are you unsure of? You just repeated what I said!
In my view, current "alternative" sites, like Breitbart, will go into decline in the not-too-distant future. They are too biased, too reactionary and nowhere near factual enough, to be sustainable.
Yes, because dispassionate reporting of facts is so popular. What else would people who spend most of their viewing time on reality shows, high-budget postmodernist drama-porn and celebrity chats be interested in?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:And the remaining scenarios forecast higher best estimates.
Not true. From the six scenarios in AR4 only two were higher than 2.8. Two had 2.4 best estimate and one lower. It's okay to disagree but please do check things before claiming them
The IPCC gave the likely range as 2-4.5 C.
We were talking about best estimates (some derived averaging). In AR5 they did stop giving those and they provide with "high confidence" the equilibrium climate sensitivity range between 1.5°C to 4.5°C. Again you seem to not know the material well.
Besides, your premise itself is wrong. The fact that Exxon funded the study doesn't automatically mean they share or agree with the IPCC's perspective on climate change.
No that was more like the article's premise, in that funding that one group would mean they would somehow have it inform Exxon policy, being it lower or higher. Neither is documented and I explained why that also seems very unlikely they would use that over the IPCC report, if they even used any number to inform their policy at all. The idea that they would "plunder" the planet because "everything is going to pieces anyway" sounds a bit far fetched. Lets just label it conspiracy theory! What might be the case however is that many of the people working in that industry just do not believe the worst case disaster scenarios.
In strict logical terms it makes no difference whether the observer accepts supervision or not - if he is right then he is right. Nevertheless, consensus is desired and sought after via processes like peer review.
Peer review is really only for catching big mistakes or omissions, and not forming some view on the material itself. But I agree that it's probably besides the point by now . And we've more interesting points to discuss.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:What I found interesting is the obvious, stark separation of trust in Trump vs the MSM. Clearly mainstream media as such no longer exists because previously mainstream media is now alt alt media. Too bad they can't yet bear to accept that.
I'm not sure about this. Going forward, the media landscape is going to continue fracturing into smaller and smaller categories, which will make the mainstream/alternative dichotomy meaningless. Every site will have its own political bias. Some sites will try to be as unbiased as possible (and will earn my custom), while others won't even try to hide who they support (I will avoid these).
Wait, what are you unsure of? You just repeated what I said!
And an undisputed point as well, it's largely the same as I thought I was arguing for. The only difference I might have here is that I'm skeptic about the development of these "unbiased sites". My experience is that people think news arguing from mostly their general perspective will sound "fair" and "even". It almost reflects Trump's baby cries of "unfair media".

What will happen, and is already happening, are attempts to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. By publishing black lists, by blocking of downgrading certain sites on networks, marking them ("digital burning") and so on. Which will lead us closer to the press management of some ex-soviet state than Trump even could have imagined. Although he's already doing the same thing of course , trying to "correct" erroneous and damaging media.

Perhaps we're all learning why in unstable and highly volatile societies, leaders prefer to have more control over these things. There are various recent cases where one or two (mostly false) reports have inflamed an already unhappy population into riots which after a tipping point did not stop anymore. New media is basically a potential tinder box.
Yes, because dispassionate reporting of facts is so popular. What else would people who spend most of their viewing time on reality shows, high-budget postmodernist drama-porn and celebrity chats be interested in?
Exactly, the issue is intimately related to a culture of shiny entertainment and broadcast excitement. The right as the new Catholics, the left as doom and gloom Protestants. Plus ça change...
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jimhaz »

[And to dismiss some of the supportive people as "third-rate types with unstable mentalities and axes to grind" is just akin to closing your eyes and singing "nananana"]

Of the Australian pollies on the Wiki list, 3rd rate is way too kind.

Tony Abbott, Australian politician, - PM who was deposed midway through his term. Religious. Hated by many. Hates left.

Cory Bernardi, Australian politician, Senator and member of the Liberal Party
Religious. No longer in the Liberal Party - left to form his own party. Hated by many. Hates left.

George Christensen, Australian politician, MP, and member of the National Party.
Religious. Complete turd of human being. Makes same noises about leaving Liberals as blackmail. Hated by many. Hates left.

Pauline Hanson, Australian politician, Senator, and leader of the One Nation Party (1997–2002, 2014–).
Serial Pest. Uses politics as could not earn the level of money outside of politics. No consitency in policy. Populist. Hates left.

Mark Latham, Australian politician, former MP, former leader of the Australian Labor Party (2003–05).
Sadly, I was once a fan - as I thought he would be Trumpian and clean up politics here a bit. He lost election and IMO has gone a bit troppo. Now a turncoat who wants top tax rates lowered and an Australian nuclear energy industry. Works for New Ltd with the fellow below. Hates left.

Ross Cameron, Australian politician and political commentator, former MP, member of the Liberal Party. Religious. Left politics as got caught fucking some bird when married with 5 young kids. Recently banned from the Liberal party for 4 or so years due to (not so bad) homophobic comments. Hampered by religion early on. Hates left.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Jim, the topic was "everyone who is intellectually competent" and "no matter what the field - military, science, intelligence, medicine, psychiatry, academic". But you seem to make it about them being "religious" or "hated by many". It's just not the point.

You're actually making my case somewhat: the 28th Prime Minister of Australia and a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford expressed support. The Latham dude you say you once liked but not any more because he wants to advance the energy industry in a sane way? To increase nuclear power is the only currently available solution for cleaner and affordable energy. And I remember some leading expert on energy and economy in Australia concluding that a while ago as well, saying the gamble on green energy was too late and would destroy financially especially the poor people and nations. So you make him look smart and informed there!

Okay, okay, I get your point, the list is a mixed bag and obviously many wind bags can be found supporting a wind bag. But my only point was that some intellectually competent folks were amongst the ones being supportive. Not meaning one agrees with their views when evaluating competence.

This is the essence of democratic politics: one cannot and should never simply e̶q̶u̶i̶v̶o̶c̶a̶t̶e̶ equate having certain political or religious views with mental health, disorder or malice. Doing that is like supporting the foundation of all police states.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

I've spent the last few hours fondling my hernia and thinking up new names for Trump. I give you *drums* Twitler!

Anyways, there is a possibility that all of this is one big farce from beginning to end, especially when you consider how much coverage Twitler got from his supposed enemies in the MSM. After all, Twitler is the perfect patsy for leading a group of gullible people (who yet desire real reform) through slow boiling disillusionment. Besides, it is acknowledged even by MSM sources that Bernie was betrayed by his own. Him as nominee would have necessitated MSM support and coverage for him. Also, less coverage of Twitler since he shared quite a bit of common ground with Bernie. There is a very good argument to be made for the theory that Bernie refugees (another group of useful idiots) aided in Twitler's win, either by withholding or switching their votes.

Then there is the voter turnout, which was barely above half. The "leader of the free world" was elected by slightly below half of slightly above half of his country's population. The "silent majority" have clearly maintained their silence in the election, as opposed to voting for Twitler as some Twitlerians opine.
Locked