December links

Many developments in the Russia investigation. Confirmation of Trump's involvement in paying off women before the election, but no shockers. More too, but I'm not sure what's new. There was a reminder of what a scummy lawyer Michael Cohen was-- and he was Trump's lawyer. Trump lies so much that fact-checkers need a new rating, something like 'habitual conman cheater creep.'
Russian bots tried to smear Mueller--of course this happened. We could use a daily index on what disinformation the Russian bots are pushing. And, finally, is this an unrelated corruption scandal, or just typical of Russian (criminal) elite?

Working class protests in France. France, like the US, has a rural/urban divide. The rural people feel overlooked and dismissed by the traditional elites. This time the protest centers on hikes in gas prices, which hit those in rural parts more. It seems so familiar to me that I have remind myself that I don't know about the issues in this other country.

What's wrong with the GOP? Power is more important to them than the principle of democracy. Just another article about this. Similarly, they champion the idea of fake news, and not because they want accuracy in reporting. Maybe there's hope because some are acknowledging reality on the 'small government' fable and noticing what people actually want.

Don't trust InfoWars... or anyone who's been on InfoWars. Roger Stone, a slimy Trump adviser, loses a defamation suit.

Economic predictions. A round-up I might want to review in a few months.

Trump vacillates on the shutdown. Trump doesn't know what he wants or why. So he threatens a shutdown, backs away, and then demands the money to start the wall anyway. All in the space of a few days. I was expecting the reversal on Trump's part, but I didn't think the GOP in the House could put together and pass a bill to his specifications. They did, and now the Senate is in the hot seat. The Senate is still working on a compromise, a deadline has passed, so the US government is officially shutdown. Why wasn't this settled back in September, or during the summer? Because the GOP has no frigging idea how to negotiate and they wait until the last minute.

Image: cnet.com

Research into global warming and climate change

This isn't the first climate crisis I've researched. When I was in college, the threat to ozone was a hot topic. When the ozone hole was discovered, there was a consensus that the cause was a class of industrial chemical -- hydrocarbons containing chlorine and fluorine. I studied the scientific papers, and was surprised at how definitive the information was. The science was very clear and solid, so much so that an undergraduate could grasp it.

Luckily there wasn't a strong level of denial and stupidity about the findings. Many countries banded together to verify the science, and act responsibly by figuring out how to greatly decrease the use of the questionable chemicals. It was a case of rational response.

Greater complexity with CO2

In contrast, the questions about global warming have prompted huge levels of disagreement. People who barely know any science are passionate about it, sometimes for and sometimes against. Unlike the earlier climate crisis, the data doesn't seem so clearcut.

There have been fluctuations in climate throughout the history of the planet. The evidence of my lifetime is that my region is warming, and many other regions report the same trend. What is the cause? The growth of cities, change in the atmosphere, pollution - all of those seemed plausible, but that doesn't make them the actual cause.

It wasn't until earlier this year that I made a more determined study of the information. By this time I knew of other possible factors, including complex changes in weather patterns (so complex that I never grasped the mechanics of it). There is fairly solid evidence for a warmer period in the medieval period from about 900 - 1300 AD. It's also known (with good scientific data) that the sun can produce greater or lesser amounts of radiation, and that will affect temperatures on Earth. The amount of solar has been running lower than average, which is lucky for us. Had it been average levels, it probably would have added to the warming trend.

Three important FACTS

The warming trends I've seen in my life show on graphs of worldwide average temps:

Image: nasa.gov

There are questions as to how this data is gathered and massaged. I can't answer anything about that except to say that I'm not wrong about the trends I've seen, so I don't believe the earlier springs are a figment of my imagination or the result of shenanigans by scientists.

A second important data point in the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is definitely true, since it would be easy to disprove if it wasn't. No atmospheric sampling has contradicted this finding, so let's accept it as undisputed.

Image: yale.edu

The mechanism of warming is complicated. CO2, water vapor, methane, and other gases are known to trap in heat. We experience this with water vapor (a humid place doesn't cool down at night as readily as a dry locale). Is it also true, as claimed, for CO2 and methane? I think it wouldn't be hard to verify this using standard techniques like mass spectrometry. I'm not a chemist, but this isn't difficult stuff to understand. Different chemical bond absorb and reradiate different wavelengths of light, blah, blah, blah. It's basic, and it's solid.

So, there are three solid points in the argument about global warming.

1. the demonstrated increase in global temps
2. the demonstrated increase in CO2
3. the likely mechanism of CO2 and methane with their known radiation profiles

How to ignore the FACTS

Climate change deniers tend to use these tricks:

1. They ignore that world wide temps are rising. This is a data-based fact.
2. They ignore that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising. This is also a fact.
3. They pretend that climate/CO2 models must be very accurate or all of climate change is nonsense.

However, climate change isn't nonsense because of the facts stated in #1 and #2.
Climate deniers are con men ignoring definite scientific data. However, #1 and #2 don't go away because they are liars.

They refuse to consider how harmful even higher levels of CO2 might be, or the bad effects of higher temperatures. Many won't even touch the biggest risk, which is a surge in CO2 when the permafrost melts. They won't face the very real risks. They won't face that it's not going to be possible to turn off the CO2 like you turn off a faucet. As a scientist, I can't pretend that these risks aren't real. Scientists are used to facing facts, whether we like them or not.

And really, are people unhappy with cleaner energy? Why would we be? I don't get why carbon-free energy wouldn't be a goal and something we do as much as feasible. It makes for a better quality of life.

This is the kind of gobbledegock from climate deniers:

And we're about half way to CO2 doubling since pre-industrial times now and what do we have? -- about .9C of warming, suggesting 1.8C for 2X Co2. But the science also states that CO2 constituters 9-26% of the GH-Effect, so it's only 9-26% of 1.8C in this case. The experts are full of beans. They are hoist on their own claims.

Risks, models, and uncertainty

One issue is now very clear to me based on my research. The carbon cycles on the Earth's surface, its oceans and its atmosphere are extremely complex. They are not thoroughly understood and quantified. We don't know how much CO2 a given body of water will absord, or a given forest. We don't know how much CO2 will be released from boggy lands in the northern latitudes as they warm up. These movements of CO2 are very large, and perhaps seem to dwarf the man-made CO2 pollution.

However, don't forget that CO2 in the atmosphere is clearly rising. If there are other huge point sources of CO2 creation on Earth, we would have found them by now and we could work on plugging them. But there aren't. The man-made pollution seems to be the source. To ignore this would be like ignoring a flat tire as the source of that strange noise when you're driving. Some may choose to ignore a clear source, but I don't because I don't ignore evidence that's right in front of me.

Because of the complexity of CO2 cycles on Earth and the interactions related to temperature, I don't trust that the various models of warming are accurate. However, their level of accuracy is not the biggest concern here. It's really only an excuse to ignore what is important, which is the risk of major changes in climate that can have devastating effects on almost all life on the Earth. The amount of possible damage shouldn't be ignored. It is unwise to do so. It definitely behooves real conservatives to be careful, and consider these risks. Real conservatives...

Extras. More on the medieval warming period with a bias against current concerns about warming. Models aren't accurate, but I've noted why that isn't the most important consideration. Trump buries and denies the report from US scientists... because facts don't matter.

The pause in temperature increases may be because the solar radiation was lower than normal due to a quieter solar cycle in the years 2006-20. Temperature versus solar activity clearly shows that temperature isn't currently correlated with higher solar activity. A more up-to-date graph of the solar cycles. 

CO2 levels for the past 800,000 years.

Update 2024. I looked up the trend since 1950. Here it is: Warming has been about 1degree C. CO2 + 112 ppm. Methane + 750 ppb.

This is not the best graph I've seen of temperature, CO2, and sunspots, but it's the best I can find right now. From a legit source -- an emeritus physics professor.

Image: L David Roper

Update 5/23/24. I found some cool tools for looking at temperature trends. Temperature trends with global, national, regional, city, and tons of other widgets. Fewer options, but focuses on anomalies. 

Update 6/9/2024. Found a link to a site with a large database about climate denial, including who funds it. 

Temperature and glacial trends for the last 500 million years. Yes, I'm also very interested in glacial periods. 

Good article about the carbon cycle. I'm inspired to estimate how much excess CO2 humans are pumping out. My initial calculation: 20 billion metric tons a year excess. This is based on 1ppm = 7.8 billion metric tons. We are currently increasing CO2 at 2.5 ppm each year. That's just the excess that ends up in the atmosphere. The claim that human production is miniscule compared to the throughput of the natural cycle--I have very strong doubts. I think the natural throughput might be only 5 times the human production. Possibly less. 

Here's a German physicist who makes videos to explain science to non-scientists. This is her capsule explanation for how we know human activity is changing the climate. Very clear, and what I tried doing myself. 

Temperature increase is 100% due to manmade greenhouse gases. A full analysis. 

Parking these two links with CO2 vs. temperature graphs. 400K years, 400 million years CO2 vs. glaciation.

Older webpage but so far the best explainer on the rapid climate changes in the recent glacial and interglacial period. The Younger Dryas et al. Good explanation for how living creatures handled changes in CO2 levels during earth's history. 

This graph shows the mean temperature fluctuations for the last 800,000 years. I'm keeping it handy to counter the denialist who claim that it's been much warmer in interglacial periods. No it hasn't-- just a bit warmer than now. 

Sources for energy, answering the question about how much coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, etc. 

Voter fraud in California?

While there was clear and definite absentee ballot fraud in North Carolina, Republicans were doing this accusation thing about California. In California, voting by mail is so common that 43% of votes are tendered that way. So 43% of the vote isn't counted on election night, but counted afterward.

Republicans were hinting that elections were stolen even though they knew how and when ballots would be counted. Well, no surprise there. The Republicans are inveterate liars when it comes to elections. They spread so many falsehoods that anyone else would be embarrassed.

California has allowed some questionable practices, though. It might be extremely easy to illegally register to vote in California, or was a few years ago. I went the website, gave an out-of-state address, and the process didn't grind to a halt. I might have become a California voter except that I bailed before committing a fraudulent act. If there was any checking, it wasn't evident.

Now California is allowing people without a close connection to pick up absentee ballots from voters at their homes, and turn in or mail in those ballots.This is called 'ballot harvesting.' I don't know what safeguards they have to prevent fraud. Do the ballots even have to be sealed before being picked up? It's not clear.

Considering how frequently California is accused of high levels of non-citizens registered, one would think that California would be conducting transparent checks of its voter rolls, and announcing the findings. But that's not what they've done. Instead, there is very little about verification that their systems work. In the absence of data, Democrats tend to shrug, and GOPers continue to go apeshit. Instead of assumptions, let's have some actual hard information, ok?

Image: sandiegouniontribune.com

Extras. Conservative media reporting on California absentee ballots regularly neglected to mention that ballots must be postmarked by election day to be valid. Other media outlets seemed to have no trouble mentioning this. I wonder why the discrepancy? Alas, my examples have disappeared.

Finally there is a real voter fraud scandal

Conservatives have been lying about voter fraud for nearly two decades. Or let me clarify. They have vehemently been making unsubstantiated claims repeatedly. Their goal seems to be to cast unwarranted doubt on any Democratic victories, and has nothing to do with telling the truth about election processes. So calling them liars is completely deserved.

Finally there is a big, undeniable voting fraud scandal. It has nothing to do with false impersonation or non-citizens voting. Instead, it involves the area that is most rife with fraud, which is absentee ballot voting. Why haven't the GOPers focused on this before? Because they're liars and were hoping to institute measures that nominally hurt Dem voters.

In this scandal, consultants for a GOP candidate running for a house seat hired a known local operative to round up absentee ballots. He paid relatives, neighbors, and friends to help with the work, which involved knocking on doors, getting people to sign the ballots, walking away with unsealed ballots, and filling them in later. Maybe I need to add 'allegedly.' However, there are numerous affadavits about the activities, including how the operative would get a $40K bonus if his candidate won. It looks very likely that a new election will be called. This is rare, but the level of fraud is substantial and the candidate thoroughly tainted. It would be travesty to certify the election, and it appears that will not happen, so a repeat election will be necessary.

This happened in North Carolina, but it could easily have happened elsewhere. The fraudsters are on the GOP side, but it could have been otherwise. However, make no mistake, the GOP chased other non-frauds and ignored this sort.

Will GOPers change their talking points about voter fraud? One would hope, but that wouldn't be typical of the GOP. They cling to their lies.

Image: ajc.com

October links: even more to catch up with

Writings by Jamal Khashoggi. Collusion and repression in Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Khashoggi was murdered and dismembered in a Saudi consulate in Turkey. A fast survey of power balance in the Middle East.

New bombing and terrorism. "Bet it's a Democrat." says a clueless commenter on Breitbart. Some people are either too stupid or too partisan to realize that there are extremists among them. The bomber talked a lot of shit, but complied with the work requirements of his boss, a lesbian. Here are some of the lies that the shooter in a synagogue believed.

Old terrorism. Again, there is some twerp claiming that the driver at Charlottesville isn't a murderer. How many times does this have to be refuted? Some people can't deal with the facts, and have to make up lies that allow them to excuse the actions. The videos taken of the car speeding. The lies about self-defense. White supremacists charged with violence at the rally.

Not a deficit hawk. The GOP doesn't care about deficits, and have increased it greatly in the past year.

How to lower healthcare costs. Focus on the providers. Limit payments to them. What doesn't work: making patients pay a higher share. Sorry, libertarians, but your theory is a bust.

Foreign policy inertia is good. Trump hasn't been able to wreck the foreign policy throughout the world, even though he is president and he's a foreign policy idiot. My comments on the thread: if you're going to scream about how bad the US is, step up and name someone who think would do a better job.

Humorous failed plot to smear Mueller. Try to bribe women to accuse him. Gosh, it fell apart. Who would have guessed. Incidentally, one of the crooks was behind the Seth Rich lies too.

Image: washingtonpost.com

October links: too many

GOPers learn to negotiate. The GOPers in Congress learned and managed to fund the government. No shutdown. Trump was out of the loop.

Lying scummy politics. A scummy, lying trick in a campaign ad. Chris Collins, indicted for insider trading, gives a completely false translation of his opponent's words.

A lying scientist. Cornell

Trump outrageous again. I think it's part of his plan. In love with NK dictator.

Revision of a critique on conservatism. Maybe it is a lot of paranoia. This is a very good read--maybe the most important in several months.

Dangers in US-China relations. Link.

Coerced sex is legal. If done by police.

Russia investigation update. A Trump operative considered using phony accounts. Buried in this article: sentencing for Manafort and Flynn. Does that mean the investigation is almost over? I'm guessing yes. You don't sentence your informants until they have fulfilled their side of the bargain.

Famous for 15 minutes. A mom screws up against #metoo. Funny.

California voter registration. Always curious about this black hole.

Climate change links.

Anti-democracy. Georgia puts voter applications on hold.

Antifa and Nazis are still fighting, but I lost the link.

Image: aip.org

Charges against Judge Kavanaugh

If one person comes out with a story about Brett Kavanaugh with a lot of gaps in the details and no witnesses, it's not too credible. When the count gets up to four people, it becomes more credible. Now there are over 8 people on the record with their names and what they witnessed. It includes drunkeness, aggressive behavior, and sexual aggression toward women. And that doesn't count numerous people who wouldn't release their names.

I find the charges against Kavanaugh plausible, but that doesn't mean much. It means he might well have been there and he might physically have been able to do the actions he's accused of. I don't believe arguments like 'it's not within his character' or 'she's so honest there's no way she's lying.' Those arguments aren't convincing to me unless I peronally know the extreme credibility of the character witness. Why? Because 'it's not within his character' has been said about too many serial killer, serial molesters, etc.

So the charges are plausible. It's also plausible that Ford is lying or mistaken. That's why the investigation is important. It's not going to be easy. Many people are not going to want to talk about their wild times in high school or college. If they're conservatives, as many of Kavanaugh's supporters are, they may not want to reveal his dirty past for political or tribal reasons. If they were friends, they may want to remain silent and loyal. That makes it hard for Kavanaugh to clear his name. The suspicions will linger. There's no way around that. It's an injustice built into suspicion, and it's impossible to remove it from people's brains.

If Christine Blasey Ford is lying, she figured out quite a cunning lie to tell. It's one that fits the pattern of Kavanaugh's partying. She's obscured details like where and when to make it harder to disprove. But she's done it in ways that are somewhat believable. I do have a couple problems with her story, which is her not remembering how she got to the house and how she left. Particularly not knowing how she left, I'm left wondering if she went back into the party. I wonder if she's leaving out details that which might undercut her story of how traumatized she was. It's also possible that she dissociated, and lacks the memory for that reason. Or there could be other reasons her memory is poor. I'm not an expert on memory, and I'm not sure anyone is expert enough to sort this out. Of course, a strong reason to conclude Ford hasn't fabricated the story is that she told her therapist and husband years ago, with therapy notes to confirm that. It's hard to fabricate a lie in advance.

This is one of those times when an infallible truth serum would be so helpful. I wish I could ask them both, and get the real story, not the one sorted and selected for the audience in the American public. But that's not possible, and we humans are such cunning animals. We aren't to be trusted. So what to do? We're left trying to make judgments in our imperfect ways. That's life.

Image: dailykos.com

Extras. This will be very long because I did a lot of research and want to save the info I found.

Transcript of Ford's and Kavanaugh's testimony. Julie Swetnick's sworn complaint. And another from another client of Avenatti. Decoding Kavanaugh's yearbook entry. Lots of references to sex and especially drinking. A letter from Kavanaugh to his friends about Beach Week, with lots of details and insider info. About Mark Judge's books.

Tucker Carlson and very sloppy argumentation. Weaknesses of Ford's story, and ignoring its strengths and supporting info. Biased assessment. As counterpoint, defending youthful mistakes--of privileged white guys, but not others.

Run down on two of the allegations. Rather complete at the time, so good detail. Private school culture at that time and place. Some sources fully identified. Also this article, which talks about gang rapes which weren't called gang rapes. A first-hand account by the author, so a named eye-witness. However, the parties are from the mid 1980s, so a few years after Kavanaugh graduated.

More people remembering Kavanaugh very drunk.  And more, with a follow-up. Others asked not to be named. A police report of Kavanaugh involved in a bar fight while at Yale, discrediting one of his character witnesses. Witnesses about Kavanaugh: Liz Swisher, Christine Keating, Lynne Brookes, James Roche, Charles Ludington, Elizabeth Rasor, Daniel Livan, Sean Hagan, Kerry Berchem, Kenneth Appold. Other named participants who should be thoroughly interviewed (which didn't happen) Mark Judge, Leland Keyser and Patrick Smythe. Also Renate Dolphin because she might have some very interesting stories to share.

A very critical analysis of Kavanaugh's testimony with numerous lies and evasions pointed out. Plus a companion piece on why Kavanaugh would be a harsh, rotten justice.

Inspired by Ford, a woman reveals her rape at a frat party many years ago. Is it fair for him to have to face consequences so many years later? Is it required that the survivor just let it go?

The very rigid rules for reading the FBI report, which forbids 'characterizing' the information. Looks like the FBI investigation is brief, limited, and a whitewash.

Update 11/5/18. A Republican consultant remembers being anger and aggressive at a conference meeting with Ken Starr. She's very disappointed with GOPers sweeping it under the rug.