Open thread 1/27/24
Yes, it’s a gimmick, but it’s a pretty nifty one. And no, they don’t have anything special on their feet:
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Yes, it’s a gimmick, but it’s a pretty nifty one. And no, they don’t have anything special on their feet:
It is interesting that this staple of supposedly folk Russian culture was developed and had been for a long time run by a Jewish woman.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadezhda_Nadezhdina
The original “hovercraft”.
Interview with Netanyahu in today’s WSJ.
For those with access:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/benjamin-netanyahu-at-war-israel-interview-f9131e73
Oh, and the lead editorial uses the pause in LNG exports to paint a picture of what a second Biden administration would look like.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-lng-export-pause-white-house-tiktok-climate-bill-mckibben-3efb5287?st=t2u1nt48c8idnw6&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Nifty, yes!
“See the article by Andrew McCarthy” [The Democrats’ 2024 Plan Is Still Working to Perfection.]
• Another recent perspective is this AXIO article: Behind the Curtain: Trump’s exponential power surge
• Of note is that NR and AXIO are both ‘Never Trump’ publications.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/25/trump-2024-campaign-republican-nominee
***
https://www.project2025.org/
***
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/01/trump-government-job-applications-2025
Global warming and climate change…science? This last term is contested. Here are two on the subject, the first more of the moment since it concerns the Mann-Steyn defamation trial in DC approaching the middle; the second, a more argumentative and sympathetic journalistic treatment of man-made climate skepticism.
“Climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation case reveals what critics say is unethical behavior”—24Jan24-Kevin Killough, Just The News
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/climate-scientists-defamation-case-reveals-what-critics-say-plaintiffs?
“HOW THE LEFT’S GLOBAL WARMING IDEOLOGY WRECKED SCIENCE—AND HOW TO STOP IT” by Jeff Reynolds, 22Jan24
https://www.restorationofamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ROA-Junk-Science-Global-Warming-Report-final.pdf
Re: Video
It’s a dance, it’s a kaleidoscope, it’s a magic trick…
Stop! It’s all three!
For those who are curious (I was), the Russian:
______________________________________
Ensemble “Beryozka” – dance “Sudarushka” (05/29/2012)
Yana Grebennikova
13.8K subscribers
1,802,421 views May 30, 2012
Thanks for filming Marina (veterr)!!
Moscow International House of Music, May 29, 2012
that guy, I hope those Axios “revelation” are correct. A second Trump administration, or following, any non-leftist administration, will need to be heavily focused on personnel and policy.
TJ,
Sabine just put up a very disappointing video on climate change. She’s now on board based on one paper, and even worse, she cites Jim Hanson. She also focuses entirely on the “sensitivity” number. That number is simply the the temperature change for a doubling of CO2, which of course assumes CO2 is actually driving the climate. She’s usually so good on looking at all sides of the issues, but she’s way off base on this. She seems very trusting of the IPCC and their associates. In the comments I referred her to the latest model/data comparison by John Christy of UAH.
neo – You might enjoy this version.
My ex was a belly dancer and those communities mix so I got to see a lot of ‘exotic’ practices. That stepping is very hard, as in physically difficult to keep up. A glassy version of River Dance, heh.
When the girls practiced they of course didn’t go full costume so you can see their legs. The line looks like a huge centipede.
These girls are nice but you can see traces of their steps. There’s a Russian national company (or something) with YouTubes and they look like their sliding across ice. Nary a wiggle at the hems.
physicsguy, in this, she sounds like my female physicist friend. Brilliant in her own field, she simply defers to “experts” in other fields without investigation. My husband (physics, EE) kept saying, “But what about the scientific method?” and she kept saying, “They’ve got models.”
So they’re not standing on Roombas®?
Their faces all sort of look alike, but some are better at maintaining the illusion than others. Also some angles work better than others.
I wish they were all different sizes, though. Then it would look like one could fit inside the other like wooden matryoshka dolls.
Based on what data set, dubious science more like divining
Wikpedia offers an explanation:
She is known for the way she taught her dancers to move across a stage without seeming to move their feet. Beneath long, nearly floor-length gowns, her dancers learned to walk on the very tips of their toes, resulting in the impression that they are floating or gliding across the stage.
The Soviet Union was a multinational, multicultural regime, as was the Russian empire, so it wasn’t unheard of for people of different ethnic backgrounds to participate in artistic endeavors. As Nadezhdina said herself, “Beryozka’s dances are not folk dances. They are dances whose source is the creative work of the people. But these dances are composed by me.”
“sensitivity number”
physicsguy, this is yet another thing that bothers me about the warmist claims. Even IF CO2 has the “wham-bam” effect on temperature that they claim, the sensitivity number (x degrees for every doubling of CO2) implies that the (alleged) temperature increase has an *inversely* exponential relation to CO2. That is, it should level off over time rather than “hockey stick”.
Climate models.
A few years ago a friend of a friend on Facebook, who was supposedly some kind of scientist, claimed he had taken part in a ” peer review” of some climate model.
I asked him how the model took into account changing vegetation growth patterns with climate change.
He keep insisting that there would be no feedback loops with changes in vegetation.
Guy was a true believer, a ” scientist ” , who could not fanthom that climate change would effect plant growth which would then effect climate in one way or another.
It’s a religious system.
Sabine:
Another falls into line with the dogma. Enforced conformity in action; she wouldn’t want to be labeled a as “denier” when there is a “climate crisis.’
Dance was very nicely done
om,
So true. And what I find amazing how she is so rightfully skeptical of the models in high energy/particle physics, yet blindly accepts those in climate. She knows the climate is a chaotic system, and with scant regularity such as are easily found in high energy physics.
The climate change cult is composed of people who believe that humans are a threat to the planet. They believed that well before Michael Mann invented his Hockey Stick. I knew some of them back in the 1970s and I was convinced that we needed to clean up our environment – quit polluting our rivers, stop throwing trash along our highways, have more respect for our wild areas, protect our fish and wildlife with sensible bag limits and conservation.
Interestingly, much of that has happened. However, for the purists it was not enough.
In the 1970s and 80s I was friends with a scientist at NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research.) They had a Cray computer and were trying to find a way to make better weather forecasts. They weren’t making much headway because the weather is a chaotic system with multiple variables that are changing by the second. My friend left NCAR because it was becoming more and more about bureaucracy and politics, and less about science.
The scientists at NCAR and NOAA (all based in Boulder, CO) were the ones who started noticing the cooling trend of the 1970s. A new Ice Age was coming, and it was caused by man-made pollution. (Aerosols)
This was the beginning of the quest to find out what caused the climate to vary over time. When CO2 was named as the major culprit, and that burning fossil fuels produced CO2, the extreme conservationists (Sierra Club, Green Peace, Nature Conservancy, etc.) rushed into the breach. Money was poured into the research. Politicians heard about it and realized the potential it offered for gaining power over the masses. A new cult was born.
If you want to read the “real climate science” blog, go to:
https://www.realclimate.org/
That blog is run by Gavin Schmidt who works at NOAA. It was where I first read about climate change. I had questions about their conclusions, because I began doing some nosing around and found other climate scientists (John Christy and Roger Pielke) who had different conclusions.
I was eventually blocked from commenting there. I surmised then that those people did not like freedom of speech or inquiry. Everything that’s happened since had convinced me that they cannot back up their assertions.
I once accepted their assertions about average global surface temperatures as being valid. Well, Watts Up With That has pretty much shown that there is no way to measure average global surface temperatures accurately with the data available today.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/
Satellite global temperature measurements may be more valid, but even those are subject to interpretation.
Yet, the climate change cult wants us to go back to living as we did in the 1800s based on computer models that have incorrectly forecast much more warming than has been observed.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/25/dr-roy-spencer-new-article-on-climate-models-vs-observations/
It’s Saturday Night and it’s all right for French fighting…
Tonight I’m entranced with the Divine Françoise Hardy’s sixties hit:
____________________________
You want to go out without me
What’s wrong with that?
I will just do like you
I don’t really like nightclubs
I don’t like drinking whiskey that much
But, like you, I have a few friends
That I have to see too
I don’t like to waste time stupidly
But since you must be absent
What’s wrong with that?
I will do like you
What’s wrong with that?
I will do like you
–Françoise Hardy, “Quel mal y a-t-il à ça? — What’s wrong with that?” (1964)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsSJdv2zd28
____________________________
It seems Françoise’s petit ami wishes to play the field and she would prefer not, but is equal to the challenge.
It sounds weirdly like an 80s country song with a surf track.
Furthermore it sounds like Judy Collins’ writers copped it for her civil rights sort-of-hit, “It isn’t right”:
–Judy Collins, “It Isn’t Nice”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElCPW-NObHQ
If you miss 60s British-American pop, there was a bunch of great stuff on the other side of the Channel, just written in French.
Hey! You never listened to the lyrics anyway.
“Saturday night….”
Rumble 101.
Introductory course in Contextuality, Diversity and Gang Warfare is all the rage in England.
“Girl, 17, arrested after mass machete brawl at Bournemouth college campus sparked by ‘rival Afghan and Romanian gangs’ “—
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13009797/Two-machete-wielding-gangs-Afghans-Romanians-sparked-mass-brawl-college-hour-students-asked-safety-survey-amid-rising-tensions-two-rival-groups.html
RE: China as a land of “shortcuts and facades”
Case in point the city of Chongqing.
While Chinese propaganda would have you think of Chonqing as a glittering ultramodern Chinese success story, the reality is much less flattering to China.*
Thus, see this mirage at https://www.youtube.com/shorts/w3sZkzFtM-g
VS
This all too common reality at
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW5lLszxmEk&t=138s
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjYah6swPoU&t=5s
Barry Meislin:
But DCL (not Bertie) is more concerned about The Great Orange Whale; this is nothing to see.
Open Thread Sunday; Russian war on Ukraine this winter;
Russia’s Winter Offensive & The War in Ukraine – The Initiative, losses, & air, sea & land campaigns -Perun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvCL15fsphE
Oh
https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/01/28/trump-carroll-judge-was-mentor-to-e-jeans-lawyer-conflict-of-interest-appeal-expected/
WOW! Replying to physicsguy, Kate, and John Baker. But especially the first
Given the hurdles you’re facing, what’s the best and most constructive answer to share? How to confront experts in physics who cannot see that AGW is not the threat they now profess?
I think we can usefully collaborate in “Unthreaded” over the week ahead, and improve on the failure rate in reaching these sorts of people. It is frustrating to see this. Let’s compare strategies? Methods and steps for engagement?
The first fundamental step is choosing our battles carefully to maximise the Enlightenment payoff! My examples are Naomi Oreski versus Susan Solomon.
The first cut we must make is this one. I say that the Leftist prog — a convinced anti-capitalist, like Naomi Oreskes — is not worth my time. YMMV, naturally. But she’s clearly an ideologue — and no longer a scientist. Her background PhD in geology resulted in publishing a credible history of geology as a science. But since then, over the past twenty years, she’s ridden the AGW alarm bandwagon as career enhancement!
Back then she was in California, I think. Since then, she’s gotten juicy promotions to MIT and Harvard (if not other Northeast power-posts), pimping the AGW crisis along the way. But her key move to public prominence and influence was in her book designed to appeal progs using AGW Skeptics and guilt by association of resisting environmental tabacco smoke, ergo, an evil alliance with nefarious tobacco industry! A Big Business as whipping boy! A classic straw man fallacy — but aided by her historian co-author, and quite effective as polemics. Tar indeed.
Another, I think different and more productive case comes from atmospheric chemist Dr. Susan Solomon. She burnished her career by working and published with later Nobel Prize winning chemists (1990s), during the 1980s stratospheric ozone crisis (itself, a model for enviro group marketing case-study for our current AGW alarm!).
Circa 2007, this gaudy-awarded scientist had advanced to a senior scientist position at NOAA in Boulder. I attended her lecture tour that began at the Denver Museum of Science, given to some 400 people (a full house). After the Gore/IPCC Peace Prize Nobel, the possibilities of career AGW promotion became a powerful lure.
Susan Solomon’s thesis is a seemingly sound one: mountain locales, elevated locations like the Rockies in general, and Colorado in particular, will experience enhanced global warming sooner than lower locales because of rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. (I believe her same talk is on YT as a video, given in Idaho — 2008? 2010? — and the last time I checked, she gives the same lecture!)
The problem for me is the weakness in data she cites as compelling us into climate problem-solving action. She thinks temp records in Leadville, Breckenridge, and Carbondale, etc, proves her point. But then she stumbles. She looks at Boulder’s late 20thC record and stumbles, admitting that it doesn’t support her thesis! The temp records display an bsence of alarming warming in Boulder as anomaly.
Thus, she stumbles on her ignorance of the weakness of her temp data! She does not know that Boulder’s record is taken from the West edge of the South Boulder NCAR complex, high and forested — which is ideal for yielding a veridical temp record, incorrupted by UHI effects — and hence, one of little temp change given that winds blow almost continually from West to East, and thus no UHI contamination by the massively growing town populations.
By contrast, temp records from higher mountain valleys show rapid UHI influence. These sites have gone from post silver mining era population lows after WWII (think “ghost towns”), and since then, with the postwar winter resort sports boom, mountain towns have seen exponential growth.
And the data show us that the first 100 people are more powerful in UHI effects than the 100-1,000 population jump! Few people know that the impact of UHI increases at a slower rate from, say, 100,000 population to one million (eg, Salt Lake City), and is faster in minute densities.
Therefore, her alarum for AGW is rooted in drawing inferences from bad data. And rationalising away the anomalies (eg, Boulder).
I think this type of error is correctable. Like Oreskes,nSolomon has also jumped from Boulder to the Ivy Leagues and MIT. But I don’t think she experienced exposure to her mistake, as far as I’ve been able to discern.
Additionally, I believe she was 60-ish in 2007 — by now she’s pushing 80. So, unless one has a friend of a friend connection and inside knowledge of her now, she’s not a viable subject to engage with our climate realism perspectives.
In one of my Meetup Groups, Denver Skeptics perhaps, I met a philosophy prof at UCD-Metro State who had also been at Solomon’s Denver talk. I found that he was open to skepticism on AGW and therefore I shared my critique with him.
Still, Solomon presents a classic case of post hoc correlation fallacy.
In larger terms, the Dr Solomon case is a simpler parallel to Judith Curry’s evolution: Curry trusted her fellow experts and regurgitated their views! That is, until the Climategate emails from late November 2009, disabused her of her misplaced trust of professional colleagues, which caused her to re-examine the AGW talking points that she relied on. And ultimately turn into a critic of climatology.
By tomorrow, I’ll attempt to helpfully reply to your specific problem case, physicist Sabine H. If only because I’m also engaged in trying to reach another physicist turned public scientist, Simon Clark (also at YT, but a young atmospheric physicist turned climate modeller). And hopefully share some useful, general struggles for others like Kate and John Baker.
Well a geologist could determine comparable temperature records in the time line and obviously colorado is only one data point
Thats why the yamal records are so pivotal among other samples
TJ, my physicist friend is unlikely to change her view on “climate change.” She is retired from an illustrious career in space physics, with awards in the field. She is, personally, a leftist, belongs enthusiastically to a church which embraces all the DEI theories as she does herself. She simply says that “climate scientists” are the “experts” in their fields as she is in hers, and because her information sources are all left-wing, she never see evidence to the contrary. I referred her to Steven Koonin’s book to no avail. She’s gone.
So turns out, Françoise Hardy, “Quel mal y a-t-il à ça? — What’s wrong with that?” (1964), is based on a Patsy Cline song.
Oh, Patsy!
________________________________________
You think you love Sue
But when I get through with you
You won’t ever look at Sue again
I’m gonna be so good to you
I’m gonna love you my whole life through
Pretty soon you’ll feel the same
You won’t even know her name
I’ll give ya kisses that she can’t beat
I’ll treat you so nice and sweet
When I get through with you
You’ll love me too, not Sue
When I get through with you
You’ll love me too…
Poor Susie will have to go…
–Patsy Cline, “When I Get Through With You” (1962)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k9mg5rSqd8
________________________________________
Yet Hardy flips the song into a sexual competition with the man!
You could date second wave feminism to that transformation.
Well thats not really science is it, at best a half baked hypothesis
I saw a performance of anything goes by cole porter lipsynched by kate capshaw in temple of doom it was set on a cruise ship
@huxley, an American cover of the Joe Dassin classic, itself adapted from Jason Crest’s English tune (1968). Charming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B4CLQGxHmI
Kate:
Politics trumps science.
Science takes work and contains the essential element that your data can prove that you are wrong or cannot say what appears to be happening.
With politics that isn’t the case.
She may have been a scientist, now she is a true believer.
RE; The demonic.
According to Lou Elizondo, some of his superiors at the Pentagon didn’t want him researching UFOs, because they viewed them as being “demonic.”
Meanwhile, back here on Earth, you want to talk about demonic, it seems to me that we are increasingly being treated to examples of, and being surrounded by barbaric, demonic, and/or crazy people.*
*See for example, https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/barbaric-youtuber-20000-subscribers-arrested-pennsylvania-torturing-killing/
P.S.–If you want to view what is going on here on Earth, right now, as just the latest episode in the eternal battle between Good and Evil, well, it seems to me that the forces of the Good are increasingly losing ground, and have been for quite few years, say, especially since the 1960s.
Cannot disagree on that point maybe the world of john constantine is as close to the point
Principalities and powers
. Les Champs-Elysées | Joe Dassin | Pomplamoose ft. John Schroeder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B4CLQGxHmI
Oblio:
Total keeper!
I will get to the Champs-Elysses. I will speak to the natives, haltingly, I don’t expect much after that.
I am aware that much of my compulsion to learn French is based on a fantasy, which I don’t expect to be fulfilled. Yet it drives me, gives me joy, and seems constructive, so, fine.
I wonder how other people arrange their lives.
PS. Good to see you again!
physicsguy— as a physicist, you are not alone in rejecting Sabine Hossenfelder’s apparent gullibility.
Yong Tuition — an immigrant to Australia did his doctorate in physics there, before turning to science teaching — has replied twice on YT to Sabine. His second one is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWyxfmHJcd0
Yong Tuition has appeared once or twice on Tom Nelson’s climate realist podcasts.
He raises significant points, especially pointing out her failure to do the homework, and instead regurgitates talking points. Too often, ignorant ones.
But Yong also misses an opportunity in his otherwise direct critique. For example, pointing out her unsuitable background to weigh CO2 induced ocean acidification is a true, but weak correction.
The claim is implausible on a quantitative basis. In addition, corals, typically claimed to be vulnerable, evolved to thrive in significantly warmer past temperatures. And third, alarums based on sea temperature change miss the fact that there is no standard ocean temperature measurement for past seas to even know what’s “normal.” Fourth, chaotic turbidity in oceans is
very high.
As a marine ecologist from UC-Santa Barbara explained to me, it is impossible even model the continental shelf’s ecology. It would require overwhelming amounts of data.
Dr. Yong is concise and quick. But his thick accented English can be a real barrier to comprehension, going by my own ears.
But I have to admit, I am yet to listen to Sabine H’s talks on climate change,
@ huxley mostly, but could be interesting to anyone looking at AI with a skeptical eye.
https://notthebee.com/article/creatives-fight-back-with-nightshade-a-new-software-that-poisons-ai-models
It’s about using a software filter on visual postings, such as original artwork, to keep them from being “scraped” by the AI engines that power the “free” digital artwork.
I wonder if people might use a variant to sabotage written postings as well, to contaminate the data pool used by AI.
@ J.J. > “Yet, the climate change cult wants us to go back to living as we did in the 1800s based on computer models that have incorrectly forecast much more warming than has been observed.”
I’m not going.
https://accordingtohoyt.files.wordpress.com/2024/01/421788127_10160102862838247_2328282382069518772_n.jpg
Climate change is pretty amazing, actually.
There is NOTHING it cannot do….
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2024/01/28/wtf-1905/
AesopFan:
Nightshade sounds like a good start to deal with our pan-speciest insect overlords, the googly bastards (they only want the best for us (sarc x 11).
This is following on the veneration of climate science based on climate models that can’t portray recent weather but which are so good are trusted to destroy an entire civilization. Again, for our own good.