Discussion:
Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
(too old to reply)
Don
2024-09-13 16:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear

Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and
Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this
illustration, which may be the first cover without a
headline or typography in The Atlantic's 167-year
history.

<https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1833105626962055554>



The Atlantic has unveiled a cover that was intended as a
smear on Donald Trump, but has ended up creating possibly
the best Trump campaign poster yet.

The cover shows Trump at the helm of a horse drawn wagon
riding through a decimated hellscape only recognisable as
Washington DC because of the Capitol building in the distance.

Trump has a fist raised, reminiscent of his response to almost
being assassinated, and he is holding a whip.

In the back of the wagon is a caged elephant, presumably
representing the Republican Party.

<https://modernity.news/2024/09/11/whoops-the-atlantic-makes-trump-look-epic-in-cover-intended-as-a-smear/>

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
Paul S Person
2024-09-14 16:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and
Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this
illustration, which may be the first cover without a
headline or typography in The Atlantic's 167-year
history.
<https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1833105626962055554>
The Atlantic has unveiled a cover that was intended as a
smear on Donald Trump, but has ended up creating possibly
the best Trump campaign poster yet.
The cover shows Trump at the helm of a horse drawn wagon
riding through a decimated hellscape only recognisable as
Washington DC because of the Capitol building in the distance.
Trump has a fist raised, reminiscent of his response to almost
being assassinated, and he is holding a whip.
In the back of the wagon is a caged elephant, presumably
representing the Republican Party.
<https://modernity.news/2024/09/11/whoops-the-atlantic-makes-trump-look-epic-in-cover-intended-as-a-smear/>
Yeats, "The Second Coming":

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

comes to mind.

Also the circus in /Something Wicked This Way Comes/.

There appears to be a Raven in the leafless tree.

I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.

But thanks for pointing this out.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Don
2024-09-14 17:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Don
Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and
Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this
illustration, which may be the first cover without a
headline or typography in The Atlantic's 167-year
history.
<https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1833105626962055554>
The Atlantic has unveiled a cover that was intended as a
smear on Donald Trump, but has ended up creating possibly
the best Trump campaign poster yet.
The cover shows Trump at the helm of a horse drawn wagon
riding through a decimated hellscape only recognisable as
Washington DC because of the Capitol building in the distance.
Trump has a fist raised, reminiscent of his response to almost
being assassinated, and he is holding a whip.
In the back of the wagon is a caged elephant, presumably
representing the Republican Party.
<https://modernity.news/2024/09/11/whoops-the-atlantic-makes-trump-look-epic-in-cover-intended-as-a-smear/>
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
comes to mind.
Also the circus in /Something Wicked This Way Comes/.
There appears to be a Raven in the leafless tree.
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
But thanks for pointing this out.
Yeats also crossed my mind. Only this particular beast is headed to the
ninth circle of hell instead of Bethlehem. So the elephant caged can
cope with the mammoth Mammon mess he helped create.
Kamala and a Democratic donkey need to be added to the picture.
Trump's not President yet so Kamala can sit beside him and fight over
who owns the whip. While a Democratic donkey decends with the whole
wagon when hell's in session.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
Paul S Person
2024-09-15 16:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Don
Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and
Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this
illustration, which may be the first cover without a
headline or typography in The Atlantic's 167-year
history.
<https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1833105626962055554>
The Atlantic has unveiled a cover that was intended as a
smear on Donald Trump, but has ended up creating possibly
the best Trump campaign poster yet.
The cover shows Trump at the helm of a horse drawn wagon
riding through a decimated hellscape only recognisable as
Washington DC because of the Capitol building in the distance.
Trump has a fist raised, reminiscent of his response to almost
being assassinated, and he is holding a whip.
In the back of the wagon is a caged elephant, presumably
representing the Republican Party.
<https://modernity.news/2024/09/11/whoops-the-atlantic-makes-trump-look-epic-in-cover-intended-as-a-smear/>
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
comes to mind.
Also the circus in /Something Wicked This Way Comes/.
There appears to be a Raven in the leafless tree.
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
But thanks for pointing this out.
Yeats also crossed my mind. Only this particular beast is headed to the
ninth circle of hell instead of Bethlehem. So the elephant caged can
cope with the mammoth Mammon mess he helped create.
Ah! Treachery.

Isn't that the circle from which Satan (firmly stuck in and through
the center of the Earth) grabs souls to eat? It's been a while since I
read Dante.
Post by Don
Kamala and a Democratic donkey need to be added to the picture.
Trump's not President yet so Kamala can sit beside him and fight over
who owns the whip. While a Democratic donkey decends with the whole
wagon when hell's in session.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-16 04:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Don
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Don
Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a Smear
Inspired by the visual language of old Ray Bradbury and
Stephen King paperbacks, Justin Metz created this
illustration, which may be the first cover without a
headline or typography in The Atlantic's 167-year
history.
<https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1833105626962055554>
The Atlantic has unveiled a cover that was intended as a
smear on Donald Trump, but has ended up creating possibly
the best Trump campaign poster yet.
The cover shows Trump at the helm of a horse drawn wagon
riding through a decimated hellscape only recognisable as
Washington DC because of the Capitol building in the distance.
Trump has a fist raised, reminiscent of his response to almost
being assassinated, and he is holding a whip.
In the back of the wagon is a caged elephant, presumably
representing the Republican Party.
<https://modernity.news/2024/09/11/whoops-the-atlantic-makes-trump-look-epic-in-cover-intended-as-a-smear/>
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
comes to mind.
Also the circus in /Something Wicked This Way Comes/.
There appears to be a Raven in the leafless tree.
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
But thanks for pointing this out.
Yeats also crossed my mind. Only this particular beast is headed to the
ninth circle of hell instead of Bethlehem. So the elephant caged can
cope with the mammoth Mammon mess he helped create.
Ah! Treachery.
Isn't that the circle from which Satan (firmly stuck in and through
the center of the Earth) grabs souls to eat? It's been a while since I
read Dante.
Yes. Its a plain of ice, in which are embedded the souls of those who
betrayed their benefactors, people such as Judas Iscariot.

pt
The Horny Goat
2024-09-18 16:25:24 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 00:02:15 -0400, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Paul S Person
Isn't that the circle from which Satan (firmly stuck in and through
the center of the Earth) grabs souls to eat? It's been a while since I
read Dante.
Yes. Its a plain of ice, in which are embedded the souls of those who
betrayed their benefactors, people such as Judas Iscariot.
So who are Trump's benefactors? Vince McMahon or Mark Burnett?
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-18 17:03:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 00:02:15 -0400, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Paul S Person
Isn't that the circle from which Satan (firmly stuck in and through
the center of the Earth) grabs souls to eat? It's been a while since I
read Dante.
Yes. Its a plain of ice, in which are embedded the souls of those who
betrayed their benefactors, people such as Judas Iscariot.
So who are Trump's benefactors? Vince McMahon or Mark Burnett?
Benefactors here are people the damned person owed, and betrayed.

The creators of The Apprentice profited handsomely from the
show, so I don't think he betrayed them.

However, the contractors Trump stiffed, the Trump University
students, the investors and employees of the businesses he
ran into the ground, were certainly betrayed.

He's betrayed all three wives by sleeping around.

He's been convicted multiple times of betraying his lenders
by lying about his assets.

Extending further, I think he betrayed the American people,
with his self-serving approach to Covid ('Stop the testing!'),
and his failures to live up to his oath of office, and
creating the chaos following the 2020 election.

pt
Bobbie Sellers
2024-09-18 20:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 00:02:15 -0400, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Paul S Person
Isn't that the circle from which Satan (firmly stuck in and through
the center of the Earth) grabs souls to eat? It's been a while since I
read Dante.
Yes. Its a plain of ice, in which are embedded the souls of those who
betrayed their benefactors, people such as Judas Iscariot.
So who are Trump's benefactors? Vince McMahon or Mark Burnett?
Benefactors here are people the damned person owed, and betrayed.
The creators of The Apprentice profited handsomely from the
show, so I don't think he betrayed them.
However, the contractors Trump stiffed, the Trump University
students, the investors and employees of the businesses he
ran into the ground, were certainly betrayed.
He's betrayed all three wives by sleeping around.
He's been convicted multiple times of betraying his lenders
by lying about his assets.
Extending further, I think he betrayed the American people,
with his self-serving approach to Covid ('Stop the testing!'),
and his failures to live up to his oath of office, and
creating the chaos following the 2020 election.
pt
Add in the Polish plasters he imported and stiff for their wages. He
cheated the rest of his own birth family out of their
share of the Fred Trump inheritance.
His benefactors are rich people who believe as does DJT
in not paying their share of taxes. His dupes are those people
who give him money hoping that he will turn back the anti-racist
tide and vote for him, some so confused that they think he is
the Anointed one.

bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
The Horny Goat
2024-09-15 20:21:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:02:45 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Don
2024-09-16 02:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!

The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.

ObSF:

"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-16 02:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”

Lynn
Don
2024-09-16 03:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Curiouser and curiouser.

Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
Paul S Person
2024-09-16 16:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?â€?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
So, this is the event reported yesterday? I got the impression it was
more of a private altercation between two people which happened to
take place near whatever rock Trump's currently hiding under.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Dimensional Traveler
2024-09-17 01:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Don
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?�
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
So, this is the event reported yesterday? I got the impression it was
more of a private altercation between two people which happened to
take place near whatever rock Trump's currently hiding under.
No, it turned out to be one guy who waited at least 12 hours for Trump
to play golf and got spotted and arrested before he even saw Trump.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Paul S Person
2024-09-17 15:40:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 18:11:58 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Don
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?â€?
Curiouser and curiouser.
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
So, this is the event reported yesterday? I got the impression it was
more of a private altercation between two people which happened to
take place near whatever rock Trump's currently hiding under.
No, it turned out to be one guy who waited at least 12 hours for Trump
to play golf and got spotted and arrested before he even saw Trump.
So I read yesterday.

And shot at by the Secret Service too.

There were two basic types of articles I noticed:
-- those emphasizing his record as a Republican (indeed, a Trump)
voter
-- those claiming he made an unusual number of donations to Democrats
but I didn't bother reading them because the bias was pretty clear.

I mean, at this point, the people writing them are at best
cherry-picking what they can find out -- if they aren't making it up
out of whole cloth.

Less obviously biased articles suggested that he is a bit off in the
head and known to authorities. And that he was arrested for a gun
crime: apparently, he has a criminal record that makes having a weapon
illegal.

But who can say what I might "learn" today?
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Mike Van Pelt
2024-09-17 03:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.

I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.

Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Dimensional Traveler
2024-09-17 04:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Don
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
No, the would-be shooter politically turned against Trump in the 2020
election.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Paul S Person
2024-09-17 15:50:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 03:57:15 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Don
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
The movie, on DVD under a "copyleft", /Sita Sings the Blues/ [1]
suggests that such songs have a /long/ tradition in American pop music
(the Annette Hanshaw recordings are now about 90 years old).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annette_Hanshaw>

And I suspect this is /not/ just two cases separated by 90 years. I
suspect a /lot/ of pop songs have the same theme.

[1] If you haven't seen it, you should. Ebert watched it (dragging it
out of a pile of DVDs sent to him in the hope he would review them)
because a friend recommended it, and Ebert then reviewed and
recommended it on National TV.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sita_Sings_the_Blues>
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-17 16:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by Don
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie? Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
I'm not a Swiftie either, though she seems pleasant enough,
and it helps that she aligns with me against Trump.

After her endorsement, I dropped into a pro-Trump reddit
sub to see how they were taking it. There was one thread
which probably deserved a prize for Cleverest Title of the Year:

"Woman who made career singing about her bad choices chooses Harris"

I couldn't help but smile.

pt
Bobbie Sellers
2024-09-17 17:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Don
Rumor has it the attempt occurred shortly after Trump tweeted how he
hates Taylor Swift. Maybe Taylor Swift needs to be caged in the back
with the elephant?
Was the would-be assassin a Swiftie?  Enquiring Minds (TM)
want to know.
I don't know what my opinion of Taylor Swift's music would be.
I don't listen to much in the way of pop music, and just
the impages of the endless parade of Pop Tarts pretty much
repels me, so I don't care to hear what they're singing.
Though someone asserted that all her songs are about her
picking relationships with Very Wrong People, so maybe
her political endorsements are in character.
I'm not a Swiftie either, though she seems pleasant enough,
and it helps that she aligns with me against Trump.
After her endorsement, I dropped into a pro-Trump reddit
sub to see how they were taking it. There was one thread
"Woman who made career singing about her bad choices chooses Harris"
Actually nearly all singers, no matter the genre sing about
bad choices that someone made, not necessaritly the singer. The
blues are full of angst about this and so is Country and Western,
popular ballads and Rock & Roll including punk rock. Oh and I
nearly left out Folk Music but it is full of bad choices that
some other possibly fictional character made. "Bow down your
head, Tom Duley, poor boy about to die", just off top of my head.

As you might guess from my age I have not been in tight contact
with the music scene as I was 50 years ago and earlier
Post by Cryptoengineer
I couldn't help but smile.
pt
She has made herself a billionaire I understand with her
singing unlike Trump who started as a multi-millionaire and tries
to pretend he was a successful business man while losing money
and going bankrupt multiple times to avoid paying his bills.

Prediction:
Someday soon the survivors of this time will begin
singing songs about the bad choices Trump and his MAGA party
have made. It will likely be folk music. We could do one or
more about the bad choices Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee
made.

bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
D
2024-09-16 08:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Lynn
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Paul S Person
2024-09-16 16:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.

AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
D
2024-09-16 19:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by D
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
From

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh

"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"

Sounds democrat to me.
Paul S Person
2024-09-17 15:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Post by Paul S Person
Post by D
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
“Ban democrats from owning guns. Why would they object?”
Brilliant! Everyone wins. Nr of guns go down, democrats don't like them
anyway, and the republicans get to keep theirs! Lynn for president!
Of course, this presupposes that any attempts on Trump are by
Democrats.
AFAIK, that has not be demonstrated yet. The Donald has pissed off a
lot of his former followers by waffling on abortion in an attempt to
avoid a Kamalaslide. And a lot of those are armed and have very short
fuses.
From
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassination-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
Sound like a former Trump follower who has woken up to me. A
Republican who feels /very/ betrayed.

Would that /all/ Trump followers wake up! But without hiding in golf
courses while armed, of course. Violence is not needed, just voting.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Scott Lurndal
2024-09-17 18:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassinatio=
n-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
Sound like a former Trump follower who has woken up to me. A
Republican who feels /very/ betrayed.
Sounds to me like nothing to do with Science Fiction. Take it elsewhere.
Bobbie Sellers
2024-09-17 18:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassinatio=
n-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
Sound like a former Trump follower who has woken up to me. A
Republican who feels /very/ betrayed.
Sounds to me like nothing to do with Science Fiction. Take it elsewhere.
Oh we are so sorry to have offended you.
SF fans are political entities too.
A lot of SF is about politics and cultural choices.
Political notes have been included in this group long before
i came along and I was glad to see it accepted here because on my
other choices at participation in the WWW many simply ban politics
outright. Here we have reasonable conversation between all sides.
Freedom of speech though is a part of Usenet and if political
speech offends you then don't read political posts.

bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Paul S Person
2024-09-18 15:31:47 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 11:40:56 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
Post by Bobbie Sellers
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by D
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/16/nx-s1-5113801/trump-shooting-assassinatio=
n-attempt-suspect-ryan-wesley-routh
"He once supported Trump, but recently donated to Democrats"
Sounds democrat to me.
Sound like a former Trump follower who has woken up to me. A
Republican who feels /very/ betrayed.
Sounds to me like nothing to do with Science Fiction. Take it elsewhere.
Oh we are so sorry to have offended you.
SF fans are political entities too.
A lot of SF is about politics and cultural choices.
Political notes have been included in this group long before
i came along and I was glad to see it accepted here because on my
other choices at participation in the WWW many simply ban politics
outright. Here we have reasonable conversation between all sides.
Freedom of speech though is a part of Usenet and if political
speech offends you then don't read political posts.
He has a point, but it would be a better one if references to, say,
Dick or Bradbury hadn't appeared upthread.

And, of course, there's always Heinlein. Trump may actually be /worse/
than Scudder (alternately, he could be the lesser evil because of his
demonstrated incompetence as President; Scudder was, IIRC, quite
competent in that regard), and their supporters are pretty much the
same group: poor, white, feeling oppressed because they aren't in
charge, and vengeful. With the nutters, in both cases no doubt,
trending toward violent.

So this isn't /entirely/ unrelatable to SF. However defined.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
The Horny Goat
2024-09-18 19:55:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 08:31:47 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
And, of course, there's always Heinlein. Trump may actually be /worse/
than Scudder (alternately, he could be the lesser evil because of his
demonstrated incompetence as President; Scudder was, IIRC, quite
competent in that regard), and their supporters are pretty much the
same group: poor, white, feeling oppressed because they aren't in
charge, and vengeful. With the nutters, in both cases no doubt,
trending toward violent.
It's amazing how much attention Heinlein gets for a story he never
wrote. (Though I wish he had)
Titus G
2024-09-16 05:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.

Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
Paul S Person
2024-09-16 16:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
Sounds like unrequited/refused love to me.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
The Horny Goat
2024-09-18 16:27:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:13:33 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Titus G
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
Sounds like unrequited/refused love to me.
To me that could be interpreted as a deceased lover. (Which for me is
a little too close to home though I admire the poet whoever he/she
might be)
William Hyde
2024-09-18 22:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 09:13:33 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Titus G
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
Sounds like unrequited/refused love to me.
To me that could be interpreted as a deceased lover.
I think it is clear that it is more than this. Nobody has any sympathy
for the singer, quite the reverse. It seems clear that the singer has
lost everything. And will never get it back.


(Which for me is
Post by The Horny Goat
a little too close to home though I admire the poet whoever he/she
might be)
I looked this up some time ago, and apparently there was no consensus as
to an author, with only Dowland's name being given as a possibility.

Wikipedia is of the same opinion.

Dowland considered himself to be a second-rate composer by comparison to
his contemporary William Byrd, but great as the latter is, I suspect
Dowland is listened to more often.

William Hyde
Don
2024-09-16 16:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
London invented the legal fiction called a corporation. Then gave its
corporation equal rights with humans. (As an aside, it'd be interesting
to know if the City of London Corporation, commonly called the Crown,
was incorporated first.)
At this point it's important to differentiate global, City of London
sized corporations from infinitesimally smaller mom and pop
corporations. Because big boys at the top of corporate feudalism love to
hide the dirty details of crony Capitalism behind mom and pop and
pretend everything's existentially entrepreneurial based. Besides, big
boys believe it's not fair to force trust babies to compete against real
world entrepreneurs.

Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
autocracy along the lines of these guys:

<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>

Oprah's a disciple of scientism:

"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"

...

"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."

Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
Titus G
2024-09-17 04:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by Titus G
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
London invented the legal fiction called a corporation. Then gave its
corporation equal rights with humans. (As an aside, it'd be interesting
to know if the City of London Corporation, commonly called the Crown,
was incorporated first.)
At this point it's important to differentiate global, City of London
sized corporations from infinitesimally smaller mom and pop
corporations. Because big boys at the top of corporate feudalism love to
hide the dirty details of crony Capitalism behind mom and pop and
pretend everything's existentially entrepreneurial based. Besides, big
boys believe it's not fair to force trust babies to compete against real
world entrepreneurs.
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Thank you for that long explanation. Was the reader supposed to
immediately realise all that based on your cryptic comment:

"ObSF: "Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said."?

As this is an SF group, I interpreted your reference as to Dick's "Flow
my Tears the Policeman Said, hence Constable Bacon.
Post by Don
Post by Titus G
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
But Dick's tale was of a household name 'exiled' to an alternate reality
where he was unknown and that has no relevance to the Atlantic cartoon
cover. (Unless my memory is at fault.)
Don
2024-09-17 15:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Don
Post by Titus G
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
I don't understand, but then I only understand really twisted PK Dick
for only a short time after reading.
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
London invented the legal fiction called a corporation. Then gave its
corporation equal rights with humans. (As an aside, it'd be interesting
to know if the City of London Corporation, commonly called the Crown,
was incorporated first.)
At this point it's important to differentiate global, City of London
sized corporations from infinitesimally smaller mom and pop
corporations. Because big boys at the top of corporate feudalism love to
hide the dirty details of crony Capitalism behind mom and pop and
pretend everything's existentially entrepreneurial based. Besides, big
boys believe it's not fair to force trust babies to compete against real
boys believe it's not fair to force trust babies to compete against real
world entrepreneurs.
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Thank you for that long explanation. Was the reader supposed to
"ObSF: "Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said."?
As this is an SF group, I interpreted your reference as to Dick's "Flow
my Tears the Policeman Said, hence Constable Bacon.
Post by Don
Post by Titus G
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
But Dick's tale was of a household name 'exiled' to an alternate reality
where he was unknown and that has no relevance to the Atlantic cartoon
cover. (Unless my memory is at fault.)
Despite your earlier misgivings in this thread about only understanding
really twisted PK Dick for only a short time you did an excellent job
of summarizing his story!

It's unintuitive how Constable Bacon jumps out at you at my mention of
Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon. Do you remember your followup to my
"Hidden Life is Best" post?

<https://rec.arts.sf.written.narkive.com/HmUD6mC6/what-i-m-listening-to#post3>

Most of my long explanation above has been repeatedly posted in bits
and pieces since Spring. Oprah's discipleship is new.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
Titus G
2024-09-18 05:37:15 UTC
Permalink
On 18/09/24 03:05, Don wrote:
much snippage
Post by Don
Post by Titus G
Post by Titus G
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
But Dick's tale was of a household name 'exiled' to an alternate reality
where he was unknown and that has no relevance to the Atlantic cartoon
cover. (Unless my memory is at fault.)
Despite your earlier misgivings in this thread about only understanding
really twisted PK Dick for only a short time you did an excellent job
of summarizing his story!
Thank you.
Post by Don
It's unintuitive how Constable Bacon jumps out at you at my mention of
Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon.
You said: "ObSF: "Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said."
PK Dick said: "Flow my Tears" the Policeman said."
I said: "Constable Bacon,"

Do you remember your followup to my
Post by Don
"Hidden Life is Best" post?
No.
Post by Don
<https://rec.arts.sf.written.narkive.com/HmUD6mC6/what-i-m-listening-to#post3>
I saw no reference to Titus G there.
I thought that it was not possible to search in Google Groups any more
so I was pleased to learn and use narkive.com. Thank you.
Don
2024-09-18 13:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
much snippage
Post by Don
Post by Titus G
Post by Titus G
Flow, my tears, fall from your springs,
Exiled for ever, let me mourn
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.
Unknown. (Perhaps, Constable Bacon.)
But Dick's tale was of a household name 'exiled' to an alternate reality
where he was unknown and that has no relevance to the Atlantic cartoon
cover. (Unless my memory is at fault.)
Despite your earlier misgivings in this thread about only understanding
really twisted PK Dick for only a short time you did an excellent job
of summarizing his story!
Thank you.
Post by Don
It's unintuitive how Constable Bacon jumps out at you at my mention of
Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon.
You said: "ObSF: "Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said."
PK Dick said: "Flow my Tears" the Policeman said."
I said: "Constable Bacon,"
Do you remember your followup to my
Post by Don
"Hidden Life is Best" post?
No.
Post by Don
<https://rec.arts.sf.written.narkive.com/HmUD6mC6/what-i-m-listening-to#post3
I saw no reference to Titus G there.
I thought that it was not possible to search in Google Groups any more
so I was pleased to learn and use narkive.com. Thank you.
My mistake. This is the thread where you and a few other guys played
"pass the story" with Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon analogs:

<https://rec.arts.sf.written.narkive.com/8oZP1aXU/tears-fads-and-fallacies-by-martin-gardner#post2>

It left me with the impression you knew all about my Bacon beef, so to
speak. "Flow My Tears" in reference to Bacon is indeed a play on the
PKD.

Many people use substack as a venue to think out loud. usenet
accomplishes the same task for me. And narkive provides linkage to
synthesize snippets into a synergy .

Given Bacon's enormous influence throughout half a millennium, threads
about him may rank as the most on-topic of all. My biggest Baconian
bone of contention is his Royalist mindset.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
quadibloc
2024-09-17 23:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
<https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
"And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
...
"I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.

And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.

I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.

45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.

But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get

55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.

This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...

from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.

We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-18 00:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.

Lynn
Bobbie Sellers
2024-09-18 03:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.  Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
Lynn weather changes all the time and even more so with human
caused or abetted global warming. We put millions of years of fossil
carbon in several forms starting with coal, in Europe at the beginning
of the industrial revolution or calamity. The smoke from the beginning
of industry was reflected by drought conditions to the Windward in
Africa.
Since then for the convenience of mankind and the captains
of Industry intent on pursuing money ignored warnings from the early
1900s by scientists that this would end badly. We have to have carbon
fuel presently, but should give up the smoking habits of limousines,
sports cars, motorcycles and ships for a sustainable future. And
being as I must be an optimist I believe we can do all that but
it may not even slow down the global warming a bit.

Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.

bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
quadibloc
2024-09-18 11:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobbie Sellers
Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.

It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.

When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.

We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and
we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-18 23:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
    Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.
It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.
When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.
We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and
we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.
John Savard
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, United
Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.

Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.

Lynn
Bobbie Sellers
2024-09-19 04:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
    Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.
It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.
When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.
We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and
we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.
John Savard
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China, United
Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Lynn
Israel is presumed to have Nuclear weapons. North Korea definitely has
them. Iran is trying to get theirs built but Western nations and
Israelis seem to be interfering with that objective.

I doubt Cuba is wasting it time and money on nuclear weapons
as they seem unaggressive except on the PR front as they send doctors
and other medical personnel to African nations at times.

bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-19 14:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobbie Sellers
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
    Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.
It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.
When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.
We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and
we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.
John Savard
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China,
United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Lynn
Israel is presumed to have Nuclear weapons. North Korea definitely has
them. Iran is trying to get theirs built but Western nations and
Israelis seem to be interfering with that objective.
    I doubt Cuba is wasting it time and money on nuclear weapons
as they seem unaggressive except on the PR front as they send doctors
and other medical personnel to African nations at times.
Cuba has one half-built nuclear reactor, unfinished for more than 20
years. I've never heard even a hint of a weapons program, nor of
their having weapons since the Cuba Crisis.

pt
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-19 20:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bobbie Sellers
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
    Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.
It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.
When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.
We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and
we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.
John Savard
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China,
United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Lynn
Israel is presumed to have Nuclear weapons. North Korea definitely has
them. Iran is trying to get theirs built but Western nations and
Israelis seem to be interfering with that objective.
    I doubt Cuba is wasting it time and money on nuclear weapons
as they seem unaggressive except on the PR front as they send doctors
and other medical personnel to African nations at times.
    bliss
At one point, Cuba had several nuclear weapons installed by the
Russians. It caused the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, maybe you have
heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

I have no idea if those Russian nuclear weapons were actually removed or
not. Note, there were both nuclear missiles and nuclear bombers in Cuba.

Lynn
Bobbie Sellers
2024-09-19 21:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Bobbie Sellers
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
    Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.
It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.
When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.
We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and
we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.
John Savard
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China,
United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Lynn
Israel is presumed to have Nuclear weapons. North Korea definitely has
them. Iran is trying to get theirs built but Western nations and
Israelis seem to be interfering with that objective.
     I doubt Cuba is wasting it time and money on nuclear weapons
as they seem unaggressive except on the PR front as they send doctors
and other medical personnel to African nations at times.
     bliss
At one point, Cuba had several nuclear weapons installed by the
Russians.  It caused the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, maybe you have
heard of it.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
Yes I was paying attention to the daily news in 1962.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have no idea if those Russian nuclear weapons were actually removed or
not.  Note, there were both nuclear missiles and nuclear bombers in Cuba.
Lynn
I believe they were and in case without maintenance they would
likely be useless 62 years later. Russia stopped supporting Cuba when
the USSR went away and was replaced by the Russian Federationm formerly
a democracy now under Putin, a kleptocracy or government by thieving
oligarchs. Autocrats make mistakes like invading other nations by
treating people who tell them the truth badly. Then the oligarchs
stole from the Armed Forces as well which did not help with the invasion
of the Ukraine.

bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-19 21:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Bobbie Sellers
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
    Then of course we have the imbeciles in charge of the bits
of the great planet who simply must maintain nuclear deterrence so
maybe we will be extinct of ourselves before our fossil follies
do us in.
Although I agree with much of what you have written, the phrasing of
this does not sound right to me.
It implies that it would be a good thing if Joseph Robinette Biden
decided to stop being imbecilic, and unilaterally abolished the
nuclear capabilities of the United States of America.
When, of course, it is obvious that the result of doing so would be
to bring into existence a world utterly dominated by the cruel
tyrants Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
The problem is their fault. The problem is that evil dictators have
their hands on nuclear weapons, which keeps the world in a dangerous
situation.
We are stuck in an unpleasant situation that is not of our making, and
we are trying to make the best we can of it; to survive and remain
free.
John Savard
At least ten countries have nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, China,
United Kingdom, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey.
Several other countries are rumored to have nuclear weapons: Taiwan,
South Africa, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, North Korea, Cuba, etc.
Lynn
Israel is presumed to have Nuclear weapons. North Korea definitely
has them. Iran is trying to get theirs built but Western nations and
Israelis seem to be interfering with that objective.
     I doubt Cuba is wasting it time and money on nuclear weapons
as they seem unaggressive except on the PR front as they send doctors
and other medical personnel to African nations at times.
     bliss
At one point, Cuba had several nuclear weapons installed by the
Russians.  It caused the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, maybe you have
heard of it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
    Yes I was paying attention to the daily news in 1962.
Post by Lynn McGuire
I have no idea if those Russian nuclear weapons were actually removed
or not.  Note, there were both nuclear missiles and nuclear bombers in
Cuba.
Lynn
    I believe they were and in case without maintenance they would
likely be useless 62 years later. Russia stopped supporting Cuba when
the USSR went away and was replaced by the Russian Federationm formerly
a democracy now under Putin, a kleptocracy or government by thieving
oligarchs. Autocrats make mistakes like invading other nations by
treating people who tell them the truth badly. Then the oligarchs
stole from the Armed Forces as well which did not help with the invasion
of the Ukraine.
They were removed. The US and the SU negotiated an end to the crisis, in
which SU nuclear weapons were removed from Cuba, and US nuclear missiles
were removed from Turkey.

pt
fr
Titus G
2024-09-20 05:09:50 UTC
Permalink
On 20/09/24 09:22, Cryptoengineer wrote:
snip
Re: Cuban Missile Crisis.
Post by Cryptoengineer
They were removed. The US and the SU negotiated an end to the crisis, in
which SU nuclear weapons were removed from Cuba, and US nuclear missiles
were removed from Turkey.
I had forgotten the Turkey part incorrectly remembering that the crisis
was resolved before SU weapons arrived near Cuba, that the SU had just
threatened and been discouraged by the US. I am not interested enough to
read further so thank you for the summary.

D
2024-09-18 08:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is wrong.
Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to that big fusion
reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient (1.8%) but works so well
with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not shining,
and measure the temperature. It will be lower.

Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does not
affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has been proven
by science.
William Hyde
2024-09-18 22:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not shining,
and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does not
affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has been
proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.


William Hyde
Titus G
2024-09-19 04:34:56 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by William Hyde
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)

Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
D
2024-09-19 08:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by William Hyde
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
No, just illustrating that the sun affects the climate which some climate
hysterics don't seem to know.
Paul S Person
2024-09-19 16:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by William Hyde
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
No, just illustrating that the sun affects the climate which some climate
hysterics don't seem to know.
You have demonstrated that the Sun affects the /weather/, not the
climate.

The Sun is basically a constant input so far as climate is concerned.
Greenhouse gasses, OTOH, are definitely /not/ a constant.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
D
2024-09-19 20:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by D
Post by Titus G
snip
Post by William Hyde
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
(Excluding, of course, the innovative and brilliant proposed scientific
study of going out, coming in and going out again, a tool whose
usefulness may have been overlooked by the scientific establishment as
well as the modern press.)
Or is it a challenge?
Hmmm.
D agrees with Dimwire arguing with Fourbricks.
That will be difficult to better.
No, just illustrating that the sun affects the climate which some climate
hysterics don't seem to know.
You have demonstrated that the Sun affects the /weather/, not the
climate.
The Sun is basically a constant input so far as climate is concerned.
Greenhouse gasses, OTOH, are definitely /not/ a constant.
Wrong again Paul!

How Much Has the Sun’s Energy Varied Throughout Time?

The Sun’s energy output has varied over multiple time scales, primarily
influenced by solar cycles and longer-term patterns. The most notable
variations occur in an 11-year cycle, where the Sun’s brightness
fluctuates due to the reversal of its magnetic poles. During periods of
high solar activity, known as solar maximum, the Sun’s total brightness
can be approximately 0.1 percent higher than during solar minimum.

Short-Term Variations: The 11-Year Solar Cycle

The 11-year sunspot cycle is a well-documented phenomenon where the number
of sunspots increases and decreases in a predictable pattern. Observations
have shown that during strong cycles, there can be a variation in total
solar irradiance (the amount of solar energy received at the top of
Earth’s atmosphere) on the order of about 1 Watt per square meter. This
variation is relatively small compared to other climate influences but is
significant for understanding short-term climate impacts.

Long-Term Variations: Gleissberg Cycles and Grand Solar Minimums

In addition to the short-term variations associated with the 11-year
cycle, there are longer-term changes known as Gleissberg cycles, which
span approximately 100 years. Historical records indicate that there have
been three major Gleissberg cycles since the 1700s: from 1700-1810,
1810-1910, and 1910-2010. These cycles show alternating periods of
stronger and weaker solar activity.

Moreover, there have been instances of Grand Solar Minimums—extended
periods where sunspot activity significantly declines for several decades
or even centuries. The Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) is one such example,
during which sunspots virtually disappeared. While these grand minimums
can lead to temporary cooling effects on Earth’s climate, they do not
reverse long-term warming trends driven by human activities.
D
2024-09-19 08:10:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by D
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is wrong.
Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to that big
fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient (1.8%) but
works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not shining,
and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does not
affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has been proven
by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
William Hyde
This is incorrect William.
William Hyde
2024-09-19 22:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Post by William Hyde
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day,
and measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not
shining, and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does
not affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has
been proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
William Hyde
This is incorrect William.
You are concurring with Lynn's claim that global warming is due to the
sun. It is not. We do study variations in the sun's output very
closely, and such variations do not explain the current warming.

This has been known for decades.

You are also concurring with Lynn's claim that almost all climate change
in the past was due to solar change. We know this not to be the case,
in particular with the ice ages. We've known this for decades,
suspected it for more than a century.

The world has often in the distant past been warmer than it is now. Yet
the sun was dimmer. Clearly, other factors also count, even dominate
at times.

In your first paragraph you confuse climate with weather. That's a
mistake. Further, it does sometimes happen that night is warmer than
day. Weather's like that.

The press does indeed sometimes print stories about solar change. It
does not print that many for reasons given in the first paragraph.

But ignorance is not stupidity, it can be cured easily enough.

Lynn has maintained that he cannot believe in global change because it
would be bad for his business. He is probably wrong in this, but it is
for this reason that Lynn sees ignorance, or pretended ignorance, as
being in his financial interests. That is why I did not respond to Lynn.

While politics can attach itself to anything, at heart this is not a
political question. Observations show the earth to be warming, and we
know why. Unexpected predictions, like Stratospheric cooling, were made
in the 1960s and have been shown to be true (this alone contradicts
warming by increased solar output, though one ill-informed person on
this group cited it as evidence *against* AGW).

We have not yet begun to feel the worst effects, but weather events
around the world tell us that change is here. As do rigorous
statistical studies.

What to do about it? Now that is indeed a political question. One
might propose doing nothing, just adapting to change. One might propose
a severe cut in GHG emissions. One might propose geoengineering. Or
some mix of the above. But we'll never make progress on these issues
without accepting that the change is here, and worse is on the way.

Thirty five years ago, I said technology. It was clear that humans were
going to use more and more energy, so that unless our energy sources
were cleaned we wouldn't stop below 4XC02. But we didn't put the effort
into it that was required. No matter how fast we implement the low
carbon technologies we now have or are developing, that alone will not
alone save us from a 3C warmer world.

I would guess that you and Lynn would be for adaptation - get used to
the higher temperatures and more acid ocean, somehow, - or
geoengineering. Either of those would probably have a less heavy
regulatory framework than emissions cuts and that would fit with your
political views.

But you won't make progress on either of those areas while wasting time
arguing against reality. The more effort you put at that, the more the
question of what solutions to adapt will be dominated by other people,
and those will not be the solutions you prefer.

In part through the use of fossil fuels our ancestors created a society
where ordinary people are live in comfort and safety beyond the dreams
even of the richest people of earlier days, and have opportunities
denied their ancestors for millennia. But many good things have bad
side effects and the task of those who received the benefits is to deal
with those side effects.

That task has fallen to us.

It is one thing to fail our descendants because we were wrong. Far
worse to fail them because we didn't try.



William Hyde
quadibloc
2024-09-19 19:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by D
This is the truth! It can be proven easily. Go out during the day, and
measure the temperature. Then go out again, when the sun is not shining,
and measure the temperature. It will be lower.
Reading the modern press, you easily get the idea that the sun does not
affect the climate at all, but this is actually wrong, and has been
proven by science.
Rarely has so short a posting contained so much ignorance.
Are you sure it isn't sarcasm the post contains?

John Savard
quadibloc
2024-09-18 11:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong. Climates change all the time. Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
As I said, it's pretty basic science that carbon dioxide is transparent
to the light and short-wave infrared we get from the Sun that warms the
Earth, but is opaque to the long-wave infrared that the Earth emits into
space to cool off.

So burning fossil fuels, which has measurably increased the proportion
of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, has changed the equilibrium point of
Earth's temperature.

This is recognized and agreed upon by the competent scientists in the
field. The few dissenters have been caught receiving oil company
funding.

I don't know what more evidence you could possibly want.

Yes, climates do change from natural causes. On significantly longer
timescales than phenomena caused by human action.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-19 00:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.  Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
As I said, it's pretty basic science that carbon dioxide is transparent
to the light and short-wave infrared we get from the Sun that warms the
Earth, but is opaque to the long-wave infrared that the Earth emits into
space to cool off.
So burning fossil fuels, which has measurably increased the proportion
of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, has changed the equilibrium point of
Earth's temperature.
This is recognized and agreed upon by the competent scientists in the
field. The few dissenters have been caught receiving oil company
funding.
I don't know what more evidence you could possibly want.
Yes, climates do change from natural causes. On significantly longer
timescales than phenomena caused by human action.
John Savard
Nope. Not proven.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2024-09-18 15:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements. Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
D
2024-09-18 19:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements. Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?

Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of the
greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). In his
1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could lead
to an increase in global temperatures by approximately 5 to 6 degrees
Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations regarding the heat
absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.

Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that
he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this figure was
too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback from contemporaries
like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his estimate downwards to around
1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when accounting for feedback effects from
water vapor.

Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations were
heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient of CO2.
The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines how
effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström
challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This
discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for the
complexities involved in how different gases interact with infrared
radiation.

Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in Arrhenius’s
miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s role as a
greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion of the
atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on climate
due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat across various
wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an important greenhouse
gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its effects would be
overshadowed by those of water vapor.

Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics has
evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate models
incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse gases, including
feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which were not part of
Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have led to more accurate
predictions regarding temperature increases associated with rising levels
of CO2.

Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect, subsequent
research revealed that his initial estimates were overly optimistic due to
errors in calculation methods and assumptions about atmospheric chemistry.
His work serves as both a historical milestone in climate science and an
example of how scientific understanding can evolve over time through
rigorous testing and validation.
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-19 00:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements.   Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of the
greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). In his
1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could
lead to an increase in global temperatures by approximately 5 to 6
degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations regarding
the heat absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that
he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this figure
was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback from
contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his estimate
downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when accounting for
feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations were
heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient of CO2.
The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines how
effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström
challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This
discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for the
complexities involved in how different gases interact with infrared
radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion
of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on
climate due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat
across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an
important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its
effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics
has evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate models
incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse gases,
including feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which were not
part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have led to more
accurate predictions regarding temperature increases associated with
rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect, subsequent
research revealed that his initial estimates were overly optimistic due
to errors in calculation methods and assumptions about atmospheric
chemistry. His work serves as both a historical milestone in climate
science and an example of how scientific understanding can evolve over
time through rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.

Lynn
William Hyde
2024-09-19 00:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by D
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements.   Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of the
greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). In
his 1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric CO2
could lead to an increase in global temperatures by approximately 5 to
6 degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations
regarding the heat absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is
that he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this figure
was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback from
contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his estimate
downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when accounting for
feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations
were heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient
of CO2. The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines
how effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström
challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This
discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for the
complexities involved in how different gases interact with infrared
radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger
portion of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant
impact on climate due to its higher concentration and ability to
absorb heat across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2
as an important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize that
its effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics
has evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate
models incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse
gases, including feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which
were not part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have
led to more accurate predictions regarding temperature increases
associated with rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect,
subsequent research revealed that his initial estimates were overly
optimistic due to errors in calculation methods and assumptions about
atmospheric chemistry. His work serves as both a historical milestone
in climate science and an example of how scientific understanding can
evolve over time through rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
I take it you mean saturation in the IR spectrum. If you have some
other intent with "chemical" saturation, please enlighten us.

Radiative transfer calculations, to which you seem to be referring,
take into account the known laws of physics. "Saturation" is not some
add-on to these laws but a consequence of them.

Alas for us, "saturation" does not limit greenhouse warming for several
reasons, not least of which is that the atmosphere is not saturated, and
will not soon be saturated, over most of the emission spectrum.

William Hyde
D
2024-09-19 08:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by D
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements.   Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of the
greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). In his
1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could lead
to an increase in global temperatures by approximately 5 to 6 degrees
Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations regarding the heat
absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons Arrhenius
was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that he
significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration.
His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise between 5 and 6°C;
however, later revisions indicated that this figure was too high. By 1906,
after further analysis and feedback from contemporaries like Knut Ångström,
Arrhenius revised his estimate downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to
2.1°C when accounting for feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations were
heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient of CO2. The
absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines how effectively a
gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström challenged Arrhenius’s
values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This discrepancy highlighted that
Arrhenius had not fully accounted for the complexities involved in how
different gases interact with infrared radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in Arrhenius’s
miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s role as a
greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion of the
atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on climate due
to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat across various
wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an important greenhouse gas,
he did not adequately emphasize that its effects would be overshadowed by
those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics has
evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate models
incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse gases, including
feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which were not part of
Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have led to more accurate
predictions regarding temperature increases associated with rising levels
of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect, subsequent
research revealed that his initial estimates were overly optimistic due to
errors in calculation methods and assumptions about atmospheric chemistry.
His work serves as both a historical milestone in climate science and an
example of how scientific understanding can evolve over time through
rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or ever
discussed.
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-19 14:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by D
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements.   Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of
the greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2).
In his 1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric
CO2 could lead to an increase in global temperatures by approximately
5 to 6 degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations
regarding the heat absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is
that he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this
figure was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback
from contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his
estimate downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when
accounting for feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations
were heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient
of CO2. The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines
how effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström
challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This
discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for
the complexities involved in how different gases interact with
infrared radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger
portion of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant
impact on climate due to its higher concentration and ability to
absorb heat across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized
CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize
that its effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics
has evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate
models incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse
gases, including feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which
were not part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have
led to more accurate predictions regarding temperature increases
associated with rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect,
subsequent research revealed that his initial estimates were overly
optimistic due to errors in calculation methods and assumptions about
atmospheric chemistry. His work serves as both a historical milestone
in climate science and an example of how scientific understanding can
evolve over time through rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or ever
discussed.
We also tend to be kind of hard on flat-earthers. Oh, the intolerance!

pt
Dimensional Traveler
2024-09-19 14:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by D
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements.   Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of
the greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide
(CO2). In his 1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 could lead to an increase in global temperatures by
approximately 5 to 6 degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on
his calculations regarding the heat absorption properties of CO2
compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is
that he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this
figure was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback
from contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his
estimate downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when
accounting for feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations
were heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient
of CO2. The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines
how effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström
challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This
discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for
the complexities involved in how different gases interact with
infrared radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger
portion of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant
impact on climate due to its higher concentration and ability to
absorb heat across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized
CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize
that its effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate
dynamics has evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern
climate models incorporate complex interactions among various
greenhouse gases, including feedback loops involving clouds and
aerosols, which were not part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These
advancements have led to more accurate predictions regarding
temperature increases associated with rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect,
subsequent research revealed that his initial estimates were overly
optimistic due to errors in calculation methods and assumptions
about atmospheric chemistry. His work serves as both a historical
milestone in climate science and an example of how scientific
understanding can evolve over time through rigorous testing and
validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or
ever discussed.
We also tend to be kind of hard on flat-earthers. Oh, the intolerance!
And you really don't want to know what we do to Mobious Strip Earthers....
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-19 20:53:42 UTC
Permalink
On 9/19/2024 9:55 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
...
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by D
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or
ever discussed.
We also tend to be kind of hard on flat-earthers. Oh, the intolerance!
And you really don't want to know what we do to Mobious Strip Earthers....
Oh my goodness, there are really people on the intertubes espousing that
craziness !

Lynn
quadibloc
2024-09-20 04:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
And you really don't want to know what we do to Mobious Strip
Earthers....
Oh my goodness, there are really people on the intertubes espousing that
craziness !
Really? Other than as a joke? I'll have to look into this. But since
there are people who believe in a hollow Earth with holes at the poles,
I could almost believe there were Klein Bottle-earthers.

John Savard
D
2024-09-19 20:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by D
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements.   Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of the
greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2). In his
1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 could
lead to an increase in global temperatures by approximately 5 to 6
degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations regarding
the heat absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that
he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this figure
was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback from
contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his estimate
downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when accounting for
feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations were
heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient of CO2.
The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines how
effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström
challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This
discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for the
complexities involved in how different gases interact with infrared
radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in Arrhenius’s
miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s role as a
greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion of the
atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on climate
due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat across various
wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an important greenhouse
gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its effects would be
overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics has
evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate models
incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse gases,
including feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which were not
part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have led to more
accurate predictions regarding temperature increases associated with
rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect, subsequent
research revealed that his initial estimates were overly optimistic due
to errors in calculation methods and assumptions about atmospheric
chemistry. His work serves as both a historical milestone in climate
science and an example of how scientific understanding can evolve over
time through rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or ever
discussed.
We also tend to be kind of hard on flat-earthers. Oh, the intolerance!
pt
You are a very kind man.
William Hyde
2024-09-19 22:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by D
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.
You claim to be a process chemist, yet you make such
speciously _wrong_ statements.   Svante August Arrhenius proved the
effects of CO2 on the atmosphere over a century ago (and earned
a Nobel prize in Chemistry).
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Introduction to Arrhenius’ Work Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish physical
chemist, is often credited with the early scientific foundation of
the greenhouse effect and global warming due to carbon dioxide (CO2).
In his 1896 publication, he posited that a doubling of atmospheric
CO2 could lead to an increase in global temperatures by approximately
5 to 6 degrees Celsius. This assertion was based on his calculations
regarding the heat absorption properties of CO2 compared to water vapor.
Overestimation of Temperature Increase One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is
that he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration. His initial calculations suggested a temperature rise
between 5 and 6°C; however, later revisions indicated that this
figure was too high. By 1906, after further analysis and feedback
from contemporaries like Knut Ångström, Arrhenius revised his
estimate downwards to around 1.2°C directly and up to 2.1°C when
accounting for feedback effects from water vapor.
Errors in Absorption Coefficient Arrhenius’s original calculations
were heavily reliant on his estimates for the absorption coefficient
of CO2. The absorption coefficient is crucial because it determines
how effectively a gas can absorb infrared radiation (heat). Ångström
challenged Arrhenius’s values, suggesting they were inaccurate. This
discrepancy highlighted that Arrhenius had not fully accounted for
the complexities involved in how different gases interact with
infrared radiation.
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger
portion of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant
impact on climate due to its higher concentration and ability to
absorb heat across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized
CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize
that its effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Advancements in Climate Science The understanding of climate dynamics
has evolved significantly since Arrhenius’s time. Modern climate
models incorporate complex interactions among various greenhouse
gases, including feedback loops involving clouds and aerosols, which
were not part of Arrhenius’s simpler models. These advancements have
led to more accurate predictions regarding temperature increases
associated with rising levels of CO2.
Conclusion: Legacy and Misunderstandings While Svante Arrhenius laid
important groundwork for understanding the greenhouse effect,
subsequent research revealed that his initial estimates were overly
optimistic due to errors in calculation methods and assumptions about
atmospheric chemistry. His work serves as both a historical milestone
in climate science and an example of how scientific understanding can
evolve over time through rigorous testing and validation.
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Lynn
Certainly in this group, anything that even remotely contradicts the
narrative of man made global warming is never taken into account or ever
discussed.
"Never" is a long time. You've been here how long?

Actually there's been a great deal of discussion on this in the past.
More than there should have been, given its off topic nature.

Check the archive. I've been in many such discussions.

William Hyde
quadibloc
2024-09-19 19:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Given that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is measured in parts per million, I had
not thought of that as an important factor just yet.

If the carbon dioxide level got high enough that it
was an issue... long before that point was reached,
global warming would no longer be the most important
consequence of the CO2 concentration. Instead, the
toxicity of CO2 would have led to the extinction of
human life.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-19 21:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Given that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is measured in parts per million, I had
not thought of that as an important factor just yet.
If the carbon dioxide level got high enough that it
was an issue... long before that point was reached,
global warming would no longer be the most important
consequence of the CO2 concentration. Instead, the
toxicity of CO2 would have led to the extinction of
human life.
John Savard
There have been extensive studies on the level of CO2 toxicity.

Some people get a headache at 0.5% (5,000 ppm). Many people get a
headache at 1.0% (10,000 ppm). People start dying at 15% (150,000 ppm).

The Apollo 13 astronauts were subjected to high CO2 levels, very close
to 15% before the ground crew figured out how to reduce the CO2 content
in the much warmer capsule as the LEM was under -100 F or so.

It is a fact that the Earth has experienced much higher levels of CO2 in
the far distant past, up to 8,000 ppm.

If CO2 toxicity was a serious problem, then hydrocarbon (coal, fuel oil
natural gas) power plant workers would be continuously sick as the
stacks emit 10% to 20% CO2 depending on load of the device.

Lynn
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-19 21:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Given that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is measured in parts per million, I had
not thought of that as an important factor just yet.
If the carbon dioxide level got high enough that it
was an issue... long before that point was reached,
global warming would no longer be the most important
consequence of the CO2 concentration. Instead, the
toxicity of CO2 would have led to the extinction of
human life.
John Savard
There have been extensive studies on the level of CO2 toxicity.
Some people get a headache at 0.5% (5,000 ppm).  Many people get a
headache at 1.0% (10,000 ppm).  People start dying at 15% (150,000 ppm).
The Apollo 13 astronauts were subjected to high CO2 levels, very close
to 15% before the ground crew figured out how to reduce the CO2 content
in the much warmer capsule as the LEM was under -100 F or so.
It is a fact that the Earth has experienced much higher levels of CO2 in
the far distant past, up to 8,000 ppm.
If CO2 toxicity was a serious problem, then hydrocarbon (coal, fuel oil
natural gas) power plant workers would be continuously sick as the
stacks emit 10% to 20% CO2 depending on load of the device.
Which is part of why they have the stacks in the first place; to
get those gases away from the plant.

Try sitting at the top of the chimney, with your head in the flow,
and tell us how it makes you feel.

pt
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-20 00:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Given that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is measured in parts per million, I had
not thought of that as an important factor just yet.
If the carbon dioxide level got high enough that it
was an issue... long before that point was reached,
global warming would no longer be the most important
consequence of the CO2 concentration. Instead, the
toxicity of CO2 would have led to the extinction of
human life.
John Savard
There have been extensive studies on the level of CO2 toxicity.
Some people get a headache at 0.5% (5,000 ppm).  Many people get a
headache at 1.0% (10,000 ppm).  People start dying at 15% (150,000 ppm).
The Apollo 13 astronauts were subjected to high CO2 levels, very close
to 15% before the ground crew figured out how to reduce the CO2
content in the much warmer capsule as the LEM was under -100 F or so.
It is a fact that the Earth has experienced much higher levels of CO2
in the far distant past, up to 8,000 ppm.
If CO2 toxicity was a serious problem, then hydrocarbon (coal, fuel
oil natural gas) power plant workers would be continuously sick as the
stacks emit 10% to 20% CO2 depending on load of the device.
Which is part of why they have the stacks in the first place; to
get those gases away from the plant.
Try sitting at the top of the chimney, with your head in the flow,
and tell us how it makes you feel.
pt
Been there, done that, got the tshirt, got the coal dust layered on me
to about a 1/8th of an inch (it is greasy when ground to face powder).
I was a plant engineer for a five unit natural gas / fuel oil 811 MW
power plant for three years. Then I worked on mostly coal supercritical
power plants (550 MM and 750 MW) for two years.

You have not lived until you take a short cut through the back side of a
coal boiler firing 6% H2S coal with a two foot by three foot hole in the
exhaust gas header discharge from the ID (induced draft) fans blowing 6%
SO2 on you at 300 F.

Lynn
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-20 00:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Given that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is measured in parts per million, I had
not thought of that as an important factor just yet.
If the carbon dioxide level got high enough that it
was an issue... long before that point was reached,
global warming would no longer be the most important
consequence of the CO2 concentration. Instead, the
toxicity of CO2 would have led to the extinction of
human life.
John Savard
There have been extensive studies on the level of CO2 toxicity.
Some people get a headache at 0.5% (5,000 ppm).  Many people get a
headache at 1.0% (10,000 ppm).  People start dying at 15% (150,000 ppm).
The Apollo 13 astronauts were subjected to high CO2 levels, very
close to 15% before the ground crew figured out how to reduce the CO2
content in the much warmer capsule as the LEM was under -100 F or so.
It is a fact that the Earth has experienced much higher levels of CO2
in the far distant past, up to 8,000 ppm.
If CO2 toxicity was a serious problem, then hydrocarbon (coal, fuel
oil natural gas) power plant workers would be continuously sick as
the stacks emit 10% to 20% CO2 depending on load of the device.
Which is part of why they have the stacks in the first place; to
get those gases away from the plant.
Try sitting at the top of the chimney, with your head in the flow,
and tell us how it makes you feel.
pt
Been there, done that, got the tshirt, got the coal dust layered on me
to about a 1/8th of an inch (it is greasy when ground to face powder). I
was a plant engineer for a five unit natural gas / fuel oil 811 MW power
plant for three years.  Then I worked on mostly coal supercritical power
plants (550 MM and 750 MW) for two years.
You have not lived until you take a short cut through the back side of a
coal boiler firing 6% H2S coal with a two foot by three foot hole in the
exhaust gas header discharge from the ID (induced draft) fans blowing 6%
SO2 on you at 300 F.
I can see why you switched into software, where the most dangerous fumes
are an undercooled processor releasing its 'magic smoke'.

pt
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-20 02:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
Chemical saturation limits EVERYTHING but is rarely taken into account.
Given that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is measured in parts per million, I had
not thought of that as an important factor just yet.
If the carbon dioxide level got high enough that it
was an issue... long before that point was reached,
global warming would no longer be the most important
consequence of the CO2 concentration. Instead, the
toxicity of CO2 would have led to the extinction of
human life.
John Savard
There have been extensive studies on the level of CO2 toxicity.
Some people get a headache at 0.5% (5,000 ppm).  Many people get a
headache at 1.0% (10,000 ppm).  People start dying at 15% (150,000 ppm).
The Apollo 13 astronauts were subjected to high CO2 levels, very
close to 15% before the ground crew figured out how to reduce the
CO2 content in the much warmer capsule as the LEM was under -100 F
or so.
It is a fact that the Earth has experienced much higher levels of
CO2 in the far distant past, up to 8,000 ppm.
If CO2 toxicity was a serious problem, then hydrocarbon (coal, fuel
oil natural gas) power plant workers would be continuously sick as
the stacks emit 10% to 20% CO2 depending on load of the device.
Which is part of why they have the stacks in the first place; to
get those gases away from the plant.
Try sitting at the top of the chimney, with your head in the flow,
and tell us how it makes you feel.
pt
Been there, done that, got the tshirt, got the coal dust layered on me
to about a 1/8th of an inch (it is greasy when ground to face powder).
I was a plant engineer for a five unit natural gas / fuel oil 811 MW
power plant for three years.  Then I worked on mostly coal
supercritical power plants (550 MM and 750 MW) for two years.
You have not lived until you take a short cut through the back side of
a coal boiler firing 6% H2S coal with a two foot by three foot hole in
the exhaust gas header discharge from the ID (induced draft) fans
blowing 6% SO2 on you at 300 F.
I can see why you switched into software, where the most dangerous fumes
are an undercooled processor releasing its 'magic smoke'.
pt
I've been working in engineering software since I was 14 in 1975 at my
father's company. One of the Chemical Engineering PhDs would give me an
algorithm and I would code it into a Fortran subroutine for him. I
graduated from TAMU in 1982 at the age of 21 and went to work for TESCO
as a plant engineer. I left TXU (TESCO and five other electric
companies merger) in 1989 to go back into engineering software full time.

I turned down a programing job at Microsoft in 1987? since I would have
to move my family and I to Redmond, WA, away from our families here in
Texas. Google called me to come work for them in 2004? but same issue.

I wrote my own unified Equation of State for water in the 1980s at:
https://www.winsim.com/steam/steam.html
Microsoft spent millions in the 1990s trying to do this and never could
get theirs to work to my amazement.

Lynn
quadibloc
2024-09-19 20:03:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by D
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Overestimation of Temperature Increase
One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that
he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration.
I'm not aware that scientists concerned about global warming
are going around insisting Svante Arrhenius' estimates were
right.
Post by D
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance
Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion
of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on
climate due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat
across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an
important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its
effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Now, this one is a total red herring.

The reason should be obvious.

What determines the level of water vapor in the atmosphere? Is it
being increased, say, by irrigation projects spraying water on
crops, which we should curtail before worrying about fossil
fuels?

No. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... is mostly due to
evaporation from the oceans and lakes and rivers. Which is controlled
by global temperatures.

So water vapor is part of a feedback loop that amplifies the effects
of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because the carbon dioxide
level is a *free* variable, that we're affecting significantly by our
use of fossil fuels.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-19 21:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Post by D
Why was Svante Arrhenius wrong about CO2?
Overestimation of Temperature Increase
One of the primary reasons
Arrhenius was considered wrong about CO2’s impact on temperature is that
he significantly overestimated the effect of a doubling of CO2
concentration.
I'm not aware that scientists concerned about global warming
are going around insisting Svante Arrhenius' estimates were
right.
Post by D
Neglecting Water Vapor’s Dominance
Another critical factor in
Arrhenius’s miscalculations was his underestimation of water vapor’s
role as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor constitutes a much larger portion
of the atmosphere compared to CO2 and has a more significant impact on
climate due to its higher concentration and ability to absorb heat
across various wavelengths. While Arrhenius recognized CO2 as an
important greenhouse gas, he did not adequately emphasize that its
effects would be overshadowed by those of water vapor.
Now, this one is a total red herring.
The reason should be obvious.
What determines the level of water vapor in the atmosphere? Is it
being increased, say, by irrigation projects spraying water on
crops, which we should curtail before worrying about fossil
fuels?
No. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere... is mostly due to
evaporation from the oceans and lakes and rivers. Which is controlled
by global temperatures.
So water vapor is part of a feedback loop that amplifies the effects
of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because the carbon dioxide
level is a *free* variable, that we're affecting significantly by our
use of fossil fuels.
John Savard
We have extra water in the upper atmosphere right now due to the
underwater volcano spewing water vapor, "Tonga Eruption May Temporarily
Push Earth Closer to 1.5°C of Warming"

https://eos.org/articles/tonga-eruption-may-temporarily-push-earth-closer-to-1-5c-of-warming

"The underwater eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha‘apai sent megatons of
water vapor into the stratosphere, contributing to an increase in global
warming over the next 5 years."

Lynn
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-18 17:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Any Global Warming is not caused by humans so your basic thesis is
wrong.  Climates change all the time.  Just about all of it is due to
that big fusion reactor in the sky that is so incredibly inefficient
(1.8%) but works so well with it's 10+ billion years of fuel.
Lynn
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his
job depends on not understanding it."
- Upton Sinclair.

pt
Bobbie Sellers
2024-09-18 03:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
This is disastrous. It means the mainstream regular American
people, those with the best educational opportunities, aren't
competent to manage their own affairs any more. If Trump isn't
elected, it will only be because they had help...
from Americans who can easily be prevented from getting to the
polls. And several states are trying to do just that.
We don't know yet if the guys in the white hoods will make
their presence felt on Election Day to help with that.
John Savard
Typical Americans are not really keeping up with politics
because they find it too too boring. It is pretty boring but very
important For a long while the parties both were very similar
but since the Advent in 2015 they have become more distinct but
since very wealthy people control the majority of the media in
the USA they have obscured the changes, hoping to keep the
consumers sedated.

The party of Lincoln is now the party of the myth of
"the Lost Cause", the anti-Christian Christian White
Nationalists and of simply Money.
The once Southern-based Democratic Party of the 1930s
has been replaced by one that is a coalition of people who feel
injured by the ideas of the Confederates, the Monied Classes,
and prurient Puritans of all stripes.

On November 6th if we are fortunate we will see if the
non-scheme, non-conspiracy, of the totally independent thinking
media has succeeded or more hopefully failed.

But that is just my poor opinion.

bliss
--
b l i s s - S F 4 e v e r at D S L E x t r e m e dot com
Paul S Person
2024-09-18 15:40:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 23:11:37 +0000, quadibloc <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snippo>
Post by quadibloc
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
<snippo blather, this is /politics/, get a grip>

4% isn't much of a gap. What was the margin of error?

"Support" doesn't matter, particularly if the question is being
answered in groups where social pressure can affect the response.

And the only "poll" that matters is the one in early November.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-19 00:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Post by quadibloc
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
<snippo blather, this is /politics/, get a grip>
4% isn't much of a gap. What was the margin of error?
"Support" doesn't matter, particularly if the question is being
answered in groups where social pressure can affect the response.
And the only "poll" that matters is the one in early November.
The polling started in Pennsylvania this week.

Texas will join the polling in the middle of October.

Lynn
Paul S Person
2024-09-19 16:05:11 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 19:10:03 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Post by quadibloc
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
<snippo blather, this is /politics/, get a grip>
4% isn't much of a gap. What was the margin of error?
"Support" doesn't matter, particularly if the question is being
answered in groups where social pressure can affect the response.
And the only "poll" that matters is the one in early November.
The polling started in Pennsylvania this week.
Texas will join the polling in the middle of October.
Outstanding!

I expect my ballot/voter's pamphlet(s) will appear in mid-October.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-18 17:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Post by Don
Francis Bacon revealed his dream in _New Atlantis_. He sought to move
beyond corporations to supranational scientism. So sciencey specters
such as global warming and covid can be controlled by a scientific
    <https://vimeo.com/1004265903>
    "And it was miraculous to me that before you can practically
    finish the requests, the answer has come back to you,"
    ...
    "I think we should be disciplined and we should honor it and
    have a reverence for what is to come and respect, because I
    think it's going to change in ways that are unimaginable for
    the good."
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
Global warming is not an imaginary spectre. The science involved is
really basic stuff.
And we've seen the consequences of Trump's anti-science mentality in
all the unnecessary deaths from COVID-19 he caused.
I just saw an article giving more detail on those polls that say
Kamala Harris is ahead.
45% of voters favor Trump, 49% of voters favor Harris, a 4% lead.
But if you split things up, and just look at typical Americans,
you instead get
55% of voters support Trump; 41% of voters support Harris.
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans',
as opposed those polled.

Where are there numbers coming from?

Right now, if the election was held today, it looks like Harris
would probably win.

pt
quadibloc
2024-09-19 19:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cryptoengineer
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans',
as opposed those polled.
I reveal what I meant when I noted that the other ones could easily be
prevented from voting by the guys with the white hoods.

I quoted the figures from an Angus Reid poll which split out the voting
preferences of _white_ Americans.

Although this is because Trump has strong rural support, and rural areas
are overwhelmingly white, I expect better from white America.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2024-09-19 21:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Post by Cryptoengineer
I have no idea what you mean here when you say 'typical Americans',
as opposed those polled.
I reveal what I meant when I noted that the other ones could easily be
prevented from voting by the guys with the white hoods.
I quoted the figures from an Angus Reid poll which split out the voting
preferences of _white_ Americans.
Although this is because Trump has strong rural support, and rural areas
are overwhelmingly white, I expect better from white America.
John Savard
You are Canadian, we ignore your expectations here in the USA. Just
like every other country in the world.

Lynn
Paul S Person
2024-09-18 15:49:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 16:29:18 -0000 (UTC), Don <***@crcomp.net> wrote:

<snippo>
Post by Don
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
John Dowland, born 2 years after Francis Bacon and so a contemporary
of his, wrote, among others, lute songs with titles like:

Can She Excuse My Wrongs
I Saw My Lady Weep
and
Flow My Tears

so, yes, I would say people in Bacon's day sung the blues, even if the
genre by that name did not exist yet.

I wouldn't rule out such songs in Ancient Rome, or even Classical
Greece.

As I said elsewhere, songs about problems with romance appearto have
been around for a /very/ long time.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Don
2024-09-18 18:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Post by Don
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
John Dowland, born 2 years after Francis Bacon and so a contemporary
Can She Excuse My Wrongs
I Saw My Lady Weep
and
Flow My Tears
so, yes, I would say people in Bacon's day sung the blues, even if the
genre by that name did not exist yet.
I wouldn't rule out such songs in Ancient Rome, or even Classical
Greece.
As I said elsewhere, songs about problems with romance appearto have
been around for a /very/ long time.
Got to be Delta if you want it to be Blues:










Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.
William Hyde
2024-09-18 22:45:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Post by Don
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
John Dowland, born 2 years after Francis Bacon and so a contemporary
Can She Excuse My Wrongs
I Saw My Lady Weep
and
Flow My Tears
so, yes, I would say people in Bacon's day sung the blues, even if the
genre by that name did not exist yet.
I wouldn't rule out such songs in Ancient Rome, or even Classical
Greece.
As I said elsewhere, songs about problems with romance appearto have
been around for a /very/ long time.
But he could also be less serious.

In a song the singer tells of his love for Cynthia, and how he carves
her name into a tree.

But later in the same song:

"If Cynthia crave her ring of me I blot her name out of the tree".


William Hyde
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-19 01:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Hyde
Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Post by Don
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
John Dowland, born 2 years after Francis Bacon and so a contemporary
Can She Excuse My Wrongs
I Saw My Lady Weep
and
Flow My Tears
so, yes, I would say people in Bacon's day sung the blues, even if the
genre by that name did not exist yet.
I wouldn't rule out such songs in Ancient Rome, or even Classical
Greece.
As I said elsewhere, songs about problems with romance appearto have
been around for a /very/ long time.
But he could also be less serious.
In a song the singer tells of his love for Cynthia, and how he carves
her name into a tree.
"If Cynthia crave her ring of me I blot her name out of the tree".
Is 'Greensleeves' an early Blues song?

pt
Paul S Person
2024-09-19 16:15:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Sep 2024 21:47:49 -0400, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by William Hyde
Post by Paul S Person
<snippo>
Post by Don
Far sighted Bacon knew it would take centuries for his vision to come
true. Should Trump singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological
ratcheting it'd be enough to make Bacon "sing the blues" as they say.
Only the blues didn't exist back in Bacon's day - ergo "Flow My Tears."
John Dowland, born 2 years after Francis Bacon and so a contemporary
Can She Excuse My Wrongs
I Saw My Lady Weep
and
Flow My Tears
so, yes, I would say people in Bacon's day sung the blues, even if the
genre by that name did not exist yet.
I wouldn't rule out such songs in Ancient Rome, or even Classical
Greece.
As I said elsewhere, songs about problems with romance appearto have
been around for a /very/ long time.
But he could also be less serious.
In a song the singer tells of his love for Cynthia, and how he carves
her name into a tree.
"If Cynthia crave her ring of me I blot her name out of the tree".
Is 'Greensleeves' an early Blues song?
I have no idea.

I /do/ know that Flanders & Swann ascribe it to King Henry VIII. Which
is credited with making it /very/ popular among those wishing to keep
their heads.

And, since the genre "Blues" did not exist then, it could only be a
"blues" song at best, and possibly not even that, depending on how
much semantic goo applies to musical genres and their names.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
WolfFan
2024-09-16 17:24:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
Danke,
M’man Routh was, apparently, a gung-ho gun-happy nut. The BBC has a nice
write up at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5eewvy3nlo

If you look at the aerial view in the article, the road directly to the south
of the Orange One’s golf course is Summit Blvd. The building across the
street at the point where Summit jogs north-east is the main office of the
county library. Next up is the county school board, and then the main post
office. The cut-out on the north is Sheriff’s HQ and lockup; inmates on the
top two floors of the lockup used to be able to see the golf course, before
spoil-sport Don raised the height of the hedge and the fence. The small
cut-out to the east is a fire station, County Station 33; there is low to
low-mid income housing on the other side of Kirk. (Lots of immigrants, mostly
Haitians; no reports of missing pets.) On the west side is Congress, with the
biggest strip club in the county, plus lots of bail bondsmen. North of the
sheriff’s office, on the other side of Gun Club Rd, is the National
Guard/Reserve Armory. Congress goes north and there’s an exit to Southern,
which leads to I-95. M’man Routh bailed that way and hauled ass north to
cowtown, a.k.a. Martin County (there’re more cattle than people in Martin
and Indian River counties...) where he discovered that he can’t outrun a
radio.

Note #1: the media is calling the weapon an AK-47 type rifle. Of course, the
media calls all Kalashnikov weapons, and anything even vaugely similar to a
Kalashnikov weapon, AK-47s. It’s particularly amusing when its an AKS, or,
worse, a SKS. (I only wish that I was making this up... Aparently if it’s
Russian and ain’t a pistol it’s an AK...)

Note #2: at the time of this incident I was in the library. When I left,
there were swarms of PBCS deputies all over, and Summit west-bound was
blocked off. There were more deputies at Summit and Kirk, they wouldn’t let
anyone except the fire-rescue guys from Station 33 go west, and those heading
east got a quick look-over. Multiple helos, from the Sheriff’s Office, from
the Coast Guard, (yes, the Coasties, in their red and white...) and at least
one in grey that was probably Air Force, were up. I had no idea what was
going on, and the deputies weren’t answering questions. I figured that it
probably involved the Orange One and that it was a good idea to Be Somewhere
Else. I found out what was happening when I got home, local news was full of
it, one of the helos was apparently the Channel 5 news helo.

Note #3: Summit between Kirk and Congress was still blocked off as of 9:00
this morning. The lead pic on the BBC article shows the Station 33
fire-rescue guys trying to get past Sheriff Ric's (no ‘k’, he hates it if
you spell his name with a ‘k’) deputies. That pic is the intersection of
Kirk and Summit.

Note #4: Sheriff Ric is pissed. He’s taking this personally. It’s a good
thing for m’man Routh that it was the Martin County boys who caught him,
there might have been an unfortunate incident if Ric’s little helpers and
done it.
Paul S Person
2024-09-17 16:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
Another assassination attempt?!?!
The State, Deep in the bowels of hell, acts as though Trump can
singlehandedly reverse centuries of sociological ratcheting.
"Flow my Tears" the Francis "Shakespeare" Bacon said.
M’man Routh was, apparently, a gung-ho gun-happy nut. The BBC has a nice
write up at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5eewvy3nlo
<snippo very interesting details of the local geography>
Note #4: Sheriff Ric is pissed. He’s taking this personally. It’s a good
thing for m’man Routh that it was the Martin County boys who caught him,
there might have been an unfortunate incident if Ric’s little helpers and
done it.
One headline I read yesterday had a Democrat saying that Trump should
have better protection than Biden.

After all, we can't have someone popping up and shooting Trump just
because he ticked everyone except his base in 2020 by deliberate
insult and has ticked off his base in 2024 by waffling on abortion.
IOW, that he has managed to tick off 99% [1] of the country is no
reason to make it easier to assassinate him while running for office
by having less than full-press security.

Sherrif Ric, after all, might be less pissed if Trump's security had
been better than it was. Although shooting at the shooter before he
shot even one round is certainly better than last time.

Of course, if, as a result of Springfield, one of his judges would
wake up and realize that leaving him free /does/ pose a danger to the
public, locking him up would probably be quite secure. As long as he
was kept out of the General Population, of course. And the Secret
Service (armed) provided 24/7 security.

[1] OK, maybe more like 85%, leaving the semi-fascist /hardcore/ MAGA
types loyal to Trump.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Paul S Person
2024-09-16 16:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:02:45 -0700, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
I don't recall Trump holding a whip in his fist after being shot.
I don't recall much being made of the assassination attempt in the
debate at all frankly especially not by the heavily Dem leaning ABC
crew.
I read this as referring the first (the one and only, so far as I
could tell yesterday) attempt. Well, alleged attempt allegedly
perpetrated by an alleged lone gunman allegedly shot by the Secret
Service. Allegedly.

I think they should do a third debate with Trump's choice of
moderators. I want to hear MAGA's excuses when Trump blows /that/ one.

Just be sure to screen everybody for weapons beforehand.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
quadibloc
2024-09-16 21:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.

John Savard
WolfFan
2024-09-16 22:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by quadibloc
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some
reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to. South
Florida, yes; there are probably several thousand Haitians within 20 miles of
Donny’s golf course in West Pam Beach. Quebec, yes; there are thousands of
Haitians in Montreal and places nearby. Even Ontario, and New York. Ohio? Not
so much.

Summit Blvd is still closed off between Kirk and Congress or at least was two
hours ago. There’s still cop tape up at the fron entrance to Donny’s golf
course. A PBSO helo (a Bell 206 JetRanger) and what is probably an Air Force
helo (a H-60 of some type) are still circling the area while staying out of
the flight paths for Palm Beach International. Sheriff Ric has put snipers up
on the roof of PBSO HQ, in back of the golf course. See the overhead shot in
this article for more detail, the white outline is Donny’s golf course,
PBSO is due north, PBIA is further north, not in the pic. Summit is the road
on the south edge, Kirk on the east, Congress on the west. Donny was up by
the corner of Congress and Gun Club, the idiot would-be shooter was down by
the corner of Summit and Congress. The biggest strip club in the county is on
the other side of Congress right opposite where Donny was.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5eewvy3nlo
a425couple
2024-09-16 22:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by WolfFan
Post by quadibloc
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some
reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.

And for John, you complain about one side's lies,
but are fine with lies you like?
Post by WolfFan
Trump pushes baseless claim about immigrants ------
David Muir, the ABC News anchor co-moderating the debate, immediately
fact-checked Trump's claims, saying that the city manager in Springfield,
Ohio, told the network there had been no credible reports of pets being
harmed, injured or abused by people in the city's immigrant community.
Yet they totally allow their favorite, Kamala Harris, to lie without
any "fact-checking".

ABC News has been widely criticized for the bias of the two moderators
Linsey Davis and David Muir. Even liberal outlets acknowledged that the
two journalists seemed inclined to “fact check” only Trump. In the
meantime, they allowed clearly false statements from Harris go unchallenged.

Three of the unchecked claims are being widely disseminated by
supporters, including some in the media. Here are three legal “facts”
that are being repeated despite being clearly untrue.

“Crime is down under the Biden-Harris administration.“

One of the most notable slap downs by ABC followed Trump commenting that
crime rates have drastically risen during the Biden-Harris
administration. Muir immediately balked and declared: “As you know, the
FBI says overall violent crime is coming down in this country.”

Harris and her allies have been repeating the claim by ABC. But the
actual statistics show that Trump was right. The Justice Department’s
released survey found that, under the Biden administration, there has
been a significant increase in crime. Violent crime was up 37 percent
from 2020 to 2023, rape is up 42 percent, robbery is up 63 percent and
stranger violence is up 61 percent. Other reports had shown startling
increases such as a doubling of carjackings in D.C. in 2023.

“Harris has not supported transgender operations for undocumented migrants.”

Some of the greatest mocking in the media concerned Trump’s statement
that Harris has supported transgender conversion treatment for
undocumented persons. New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser immediately
wrote “What the hell was he talking about? No one knows, which was, of
course, exactly Harris’s point.”

On CNN, Wolf Blitzer declared how “outlandish” it was for Trump to make
such a claim.

But it’s true.

In 2019, Harris told the ACLU that she not only supported such
operations but actively worked for at least one such procedure to take
place. When it was reported by Andrew Kaczynski on CNN, host Erin
Burnett was gobsmacked by the notion of taxpayer-funded gender
transition surgeries for detained migrants. “She actually supported
that?” Burnett exclaimed.

Even the New York Times later admitted that the “wildest sounding attack
line” from Trump was “basically true.”

Harris does not support the right to abortion in the final three months
of a pregnancy.

Trump also hit Harris on her no-limits position on abortion rights,
allowing women the right to abort a baby up to the moment of birth.
Trump said Harris supports laws allowing abortions in “the seventh
month, the eighth month, [and] the ninth month,” to which Harris
retorted: “C’mon,” “no,” and “that’s not true,”

The hosts again said that Trump was making up his criticism of late-term
abortions, including the risk of babies being born but allowed to die.

But in fact, many states, including Minnesota under Gov. Tim Walz (D),
protect the right of a woman to abort a baby into the ninth month. While
it is often said that this is left to the mother and her doctor, the law
gives the decision to the mother.

Late-term abortions are relatively rare, but they do occur. A Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention report estimated in 2019 that about
4,882 abortions were performed that year at least 21 weeks or later into
pregnancy.

More than a dozen states, in fact, allow on-demand abortions after a
baby is viable and can even survive outside of the womb. Nine of those
states permit abortions throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Harris has
supported these state laws and certainly did not answer the question on
what limits she would support, other than saying that she supports Roe
v. Wade.

To be sure, Trump did not help himself with his wilder claims. These
included debunked accounts of Haitian migrants eating people’s pets in
Ohio, which Ohio’s Republican governor, Mike Dewine, has denied.

The issue is not fact-checking, but the failure to do so equally and
accurately. ABC actually disseminated false information under the mantle
of fact-checking, and that’s a real problem.

Moderator Linsey Davis admitted later that ABC did not want a repeat of
what had happened in the last debate, wherein Trump was given free rein
and the moderators limited themselves to asking questions and enforcing
time limits. CNN was praised in that debate across the political
spectrum for being even-handed.

What is most striking about this election is that none of this seems to
matter. Indeed, even the debate did not matter. While Trump can
legitimately object to a three-against-one debate format, Harris’s
victory was clear not dependent on bad calls by the refs. However, there
has been little overall movement in the polls, even though 67 million
people were watching.

The era of post-truth politics is evident in Harris repeating false
claims about Trump’s support for “Project 2025” and debunked claims
regarding his comments about an extreme-right Charlottesville rally in
2017. Leading Democrats continue to make these false claims, in some
cases despite knowing that they are false.

On the other side, Trump is making promises he has to know can never be
fulfilled. For example, he has pledged to make flag-burning a federal
crime with a penalty of two years’ incarceration. The Supreme Court,
including conservatives like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, has ruled
that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment. Neither
a president nor Congress can change the meaning of the Constitution
without amending it.

With the help of the media, we have reduced our election to a political
Slurpee. It’s all sugar rush and no nutritional value. We now have
pundits supporting the idea of no further debates and even arguing that
Harris shouldn’t give any interviews because it’s too risky.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) explained that Harris should avoid
one-on-one media interviews because “sometimes, you drill down into a
question until there’s a word that’s uttered that can be used in a
negative way.” I suppose, as president, she will need to insist on
meeting foreign leaders only in CNN town hall events.

If you do not say anything, there are no facts to check. The election
then becomes a vote over whether you are for or against “joy.”

What is clear from the ABC debate is that citizens are on their own in
the election to find actual facts and substance in the super-sized
Slurpee of the 2024 election.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at
George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable
Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

Tags Daniel Patrick Moynihan Erin Burnett Kamala Harris Linsey Davis
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Paul S Person
2024-09-17 16:25:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 15:57:42 -0700, a425couple
Post by a425couple
Post by WolfFan
Post by quadibloc
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some
reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.
In 1516, Erasmus published a critical text of the New Testament in
Greek ("textus receptus"). It was based on the theory that, when
"numerous sources" had a reading for a particular verse, that was the
correct reading.

But that was poor thinking. The reason most Greek texts read, for
example, "peace on earth, good-will towards men" is because they were
copies of copies of relatively recent texts. The texts which read
"peace on earth to men of good will" were older texts -- and so more
likely to be correct. I use this example because it is arguably the
most famous of the differences between the KJV and RSV. Entire books
(well, pamphlets, mostly) were written on how evil the RSV was, and
this verse was prominently featured.

And you are using the same logic. Numerous sources can cite the 20,000
figure all they want to, it doesn't matter. What matters is what truly
is. Even if only one source provides it. Even if that one source is
the Federal gummint, which those pushing this lie do not trust because
it is run by Democrats.

There is also the Vance factor: he has /admitted/ that he made the
"eating pets" story up and claims he was justified because it was the
only way to make it clear what immigration is doing to this country.
Note that that is /his/ view, not mine.

IOW, he has admitted that there is no actual evidence of such harm,
which seems ridiculous since there are a lot of immigrants and surely
some of them are bad apples.

Given the problems his /admitted/ lie has caused, perhaps some legal
action against him (and Trump) would be appropriate. It would, of
course, take a long time to go anywhere, Trump being the Poster Boy,
as it were, for Rich White Male Legal Privilege.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"
Cryptoengineer
2024-09-17 19:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 16 Sep 2024 15:57:42 -0700, a425couple
Post by a425couple
Post by WolfFan
Post by quadibloc
Someone who persists in spreading lies about the Haitians of
Springfield, even after they've led to bomb threats, isn't
"epic" no matter how he is painted.
John Savard
Especially when he and JD say that there are 20,000 of them in Springfield
when there are 5400 or so Haitians in the entire state of Ohio. For some
reason Ohio ain’t high on the list of places Haitians want to go to.
I think your sources are way out of date.
Numerous sources are citing the 20,000 figure.
In 1516, Erasmus published a critical text of the New Testament in
Greek ("textus receptus"). It was based on the theory that, when
"numerous sources" had a reading for a particular verse, that was the
correct reading.
But that was poor thinking. The reason most Greek texts read, for
example, "peace on earth, good-will towards men" is because they were
copies of copies of relatively recent texts. The texts which read
"peace on earth to men of good will" were older texts -- and so more
likely to be correct. I use this example because it is arguably the
most famous of the differences between the KJV and RSV. Entire books
(well, pamphlets, mostly) were written on how evil the RSV was, and
this verse was prominently featured.
And you are using the same logic. Numerous sources can cite the 20,000
figure all they want to, it doesn't matter. What matters is what truly
is. Even if only one source provides it. Even if that one source is
the Federal gummint, which those pushing this lie do not trust because
it is run by Democrats.
There is also the Vance factor: he has /admitted/ that he made the
"eating pets" story up and claims he was justified because it was the
only way to make it clear what immigration is doing to this country.
Note that that is /his/ view, not mine.
IOW, he has admitted that there is no actual evidence of such harm,
which seems ridiculous since there are a lot of immigrants and surely
some of them are bad apples.
Given the problems his /admitted/ lie has caused, perhaps some legal
action against him (and Trump) would be appropriate. It would, of
course, take a long time to go anywhere, Trump being the Poster Boy,
as it were, for Rich White Male Legal Privilege.
I actually went looking for older sources, which pre-dated the
Haitian population of Springfield becoming a political football.

I found one from October 2023:
https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/haitian-immigrants-reshaping-springfield-5-key-takeaways-from-our-reporting/YHS3UJJIMRH7RPNOBMA77DVQ6Y/

It claims '5,000 to 10,000 Haitians moved to Springfield in the
last five or six years.'

Now, its quite possible that more moved in the last 10 months,
even probable, but I don't know if 10,000 more came. But balance
that against Haiti's further descent into anarchy recently, I
wouldn't completely rule it out, either.

pt
The Horny Goat
2024-09-18 16:38:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Sep 2024 15:10:21 -0400, Cryptoengineer
Post by Cryptoengineer
It claims '5,000 to 10,000 Haitians moved to Springfield in the
last five or six years.'
Now, its quite possible that more moved in the last 10 months,
even probable, but I don't know if 10,000 more came. But balance
that against Haiti's further descent into anarchy recently, I
wouldn't completely rule it out, either.
Nor would I - mind you given there are no fewer than 67 "Springfield"s
(so says Google anyhow) 10000 wouldn't be a huge number if it's "10000
in ALL Springfields"

Allegedly that factoid is why Matt Groening chose "Springfield" as the
Simpsons' home town - so that every reader would know where a
"Springfield" was.
Loading...