@newtboy,
"Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out."

I'd argue bored maybe more often than confused. Although if we want to say that most of the problems society faces have their root causes in human nature, I think we can agree.

"I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise"

Here is where I see healthy skepticism distinguishing itself from covering eyes, ears and yelling not listening.

Our understanding of the global climate system is NOT sufficient to make that kind of high confidence claim about specific future outcomes. As you read past the head line and into the supporting papers you find that is the truth underneath. The final summary line you are citing sits atop multiple layers of assumptions and unspecified uncertainties that culminate in a very ephemeral 50% likelyhood disclaimer. It is stating that if all of the cumulative errors and unknowns all more or less don't matter. then we have models that suggest this liklyhood of an outcome...

This however sits atop the following challenges that scientists from different fields and specialities are focusing on improving.
1.Direct measurements of the global energy imbalance and corroboration with Ocean heat content. Currently, the uncertainties in our direct measurements are greater than the actual energy imbalance caused by the CO2 we've emitted. The CERES team measuring this has this plain as day in all their results.
2.Climate models can't get global energy to balance because the unknown or poorly modeled processes in them have a greater impact on the energy imbalance than human CO2. We literally hand tune the poorly known factors to just balance out the energy correctly, regardless of whether that models the given process better or not because the greater run of the model is worthless without a decent energy imbalance. This sits atop the unknowns regarding the actual measured imbalance to hope to simulate. 100% of the modelling teams that discuss their tuning processes again all agree on this.
3. Meta-analysis like you cited usually sit atop both the above, and attempt to rely on the models to get a given 2100 temperature profile, and then make their predictions off of that.

The theme here, is cumulative error and an underlying assumption of 'all other things being equal' for all the cumulative unknowns and errors. You can NOT just come in from all of that, present the absolute worst possible case scenario you can squeeze into and then declare that as the gold standard scientific results which must dictate policy...

Edit:that's very nearly the definition of cherry picking the results you want.

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

Mueller didn't investigate you.
He said very clearly, both in the report, and in his press conference, that he could not recommend charges or make any decision on whether the President had committed a crime because of the protection the President has from prosecution without an impeachment.
Or in his words, “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
Period. He cannot make that decision. So when he says, “as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
He's saying, he cannot accuse the President of a crime, but he can't say the President is innocent, because it wouldn't be true.

If you bothered to actually go to the source, you'd see it's very clear what he's saying. He's just ethically and legally obliged to say it in an indirect way because he (unlike some people) actually respects the rules, laws, and constitution of the United States.

Translation: We have confidence that the president did commit a crime. The ball is in your court. The court of law.

Look where his confidence is.

What he really said is what he really meant.

If Muller was a cop on the scene of a house with billowing smoke, he could have told the reporters, "If we had confidence that the house was not on fire, we would have said so."

It's not the job of the cop to put the fire out. That job belongs to the firefighters.


BTW, nice play on words. "Nancy Policy." I say, run with it!

What a sham

What kind of person would say it like this

Muller: “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

What he really said ..we do not have any evidence to charge Trump.

This was just a ploy to push the ball back in Nancy Policy lap to try to get her to push forward impeachment proceedings.

Muller: “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

Full press conference https://youtu.be/jIibqvae8fY?t=52

(edit) Breakdown by Philip DeFranco https://youtu.be/V-CPT33jDeA?t=476

"if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."

They didn't state as much, aka they don't feel that obstruction of justice didn't occur.

"Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President’s conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law."

Or, in other words, the justice department doesn't have the legal authority to pursue charges against a sitting president; that job lies constitutionally with congress.

@bobknight33

Bob, understand something, please,

I'm not opposed to changing my mind, but when I read "The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

And he says "SEE! Total exoneration!!!" It's not bias to call a spade a spade, saying the report SAYS what it SAYS is not Anti-Trump. >>>>>>It's pro-facts.<<<<<<<
Stop the bullshit that the report found nothing. That is simply not true.

I agree when someone endangers you or others. But I look at it as a first aid response. Not a challenge. Remove the danger from the victim. If that's not possible, remove the victim from the danger.

The second part is kind of iffy. No matter how confident you may be, and go beyond defusing a scene then proceed to administer punishment, you may be the one that fails prematurely and could end up with you, being the only defense, useless. Sometimes unexpected things happen and to keep a situation ongoing needlessly would be irresponsible. Don't fool yourself thinking you will be victorious. There are many things to defend yourself against without creating more.

Don't be a victim of your hand. It's really embarrassing.

When you want to pummel someone remember, SAFETY FIRST. Safety glasses and a hard hat.

List of people in Trump's administration that have quit or been fired. The Trump Administration has seen the highest rate of turnover among White House staff in decades.

During the president’s first year, the administration saw a 34% turnover rate. This is the highest of any recent White House, according to a Brookings Institution report that tracked departures of senior officials over the last 40 years.

The next-highest turnover rate for an administration’s first year was Ronald Reagan’s, with 17% of senior aides leaving their posts in 1981.

Former presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton saw much lower turnovers during their first year in office—9%, 6%, and 11%, respectively.

------

John Kelly – December 2018. The retired Marine Corps general was hired in July 2017 to bring order to the White House.

Matthew Whitaker – December 2018. Named acting attorney general in November this year, replacing Jeff Sessions. Immediately came under scrutiny over past remarks about the investigation into possible Russian collusion with Mr Trump's presidential election campaign.

Nikki Haley – December 2018. Stepped down as US ambassador to the UN at the end of the year.

Jeff Sessions – November 2018. After months of being attacked and ridiculed by the president, the former senator was forced out as attorney general.

Don McGahn – October 2018. Mr Trump revealed in August that the White House counsel would leave following strains between the two over Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Scott Pruitt – July 2018. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief quit after he came under fire over a series of ethics controversies.

David Shulkin – March 2018. He left his position the Veteran Affairs secretary, telling the media he had been fired rather than resigning.

HR McMaster – March 2018. Mr Trump’s national security adviser was replaced by John Bolton.

Rex Tillerson – March 2018. The secretary of state was fired by the president on after a series rifts.

Gary Cohn – March 2018. The National Economic Council director and former Goldman Sachs president said he resigned his advisory role.

Hope Hicks – February 2018. The White House communications director, a long-serving and trusted Trump aide, decided to resign.

Rob Porter – February 2018. The White House staff secretary stepped aside following accusations of domestic abuse from former wives.

Omarosa Manigault Newman – December 2017. The former star of The Apprentice was fired as assistant to the president.

Richard Cordray – November 2017. The US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s first director quit his administration role.

Tom Price – September 2017. The Health and Human Services secretary quit under pressure from Mr Trump over travel practices.

Stephen Bannon – August 2017. Mr Trump’s chief strategist was fired in after clashing with other top White House figures, including the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Anthony Scaramucci – July 2017. The White House communications director was fired by Mr Trump after only 10 days on the job. Mr Scaramucci had openly criticised Mr Bannon.

Reince Priebus – July 2017. Replaced as chief of staff by John Kelly, Priebus lost Mr Trump’s confidence after setbacks in Congress.

Sean Spicer – July 2017. Resigned as White House press secretary, ending a turbulent six-month tenure.

Walter Shaub – July 2017. The head of the US Office of Government Ethics, who repeatedly clashed with Mr Trump.

Michael Dubke – May 2017. Resigned as White House communications director.

Katie Walsh – March 2017. The deputy White House chief of staff was transferred out to a Republican activist group.

Michael Flynn – February 2017. Resigned in as Mr Trump’s national security adviser. Mr Flynn later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. He is set to be sentenced later in December.

Sally Yates – January 2017. Mr Trump fired the acting US attorney general after she ordered Justice Department lawyers not to enforce is immigration ban.

I heavily edited my comment because it came out much harsher in text.

Sounds like you've been thru a lot. I can only wish you well.

I used to suffer from nephrotic syndrome, I nearly died in my teens. I had ulcers opening up on my skin, my joints so swollen they would not bend. Daily blood tests etc. A plant based diet saved my life and as you can tell I can not stop telling people about it.

It seems to solve almost every western chronic disease. And even though the science backs it up clearly doctors and the public see it in the same category as homeopathy. I don't know what is keeping you so ill but I can tell with confidence that if you eat the ForksOverKnives.com way you will have more time at the very least. I can only encourage you to try it for a week or two and feel it for yourself.

Trial and error? There's no user manual? Also, these guys don't exactly fill me with confidence with the way they do things.

Stopped watching at "The never ending killing fields of Iraq".

Now, if the speaker goes on to accuse Bush Sr. for failing to remove Saddam after having Liberated Kuwait, I judged too quickly. I'm pretty confident though that this is just more of the revisionist history garbage blaming Bush Sr. for Iraq, rather than Saddam's campaign of genocide against his own people and his conquest of Kuwait.

I mean, if you want to rail against American exceptionalism, at least have the decency to blame the presidents prior to Bush(Carter and Reagan) who supported Saddam after the Iranian revolution, rather than the American president who finally took the right side against one of the most brutal tyrants and dictators of his time.

Impotence 1
Confidence 0

Why do you think it was secret?
Why do you think nobody noticed?
Do you think they just began on it since sanctions?

Every major power has had back-burner development of this stuff since the cold war.
The only "secret" was how much progress they made. That it existed, you can freely take for granted.

Just how you can take for granted that everyone is working on genetic weapons, everyone is working on directed energy weapons, everyone is working on infrastructure hacking weapons, everyone is working on automated robotic weapons, etc.

Do you think there is a better / more-cost-efficient place for Russia to spend defense dollars, than on a system which can trade the price of a missile for the price of an aircraft carrier?
I would be more surprised if they hadn't put their money into a program such as this.

Look at what progress China has made :
Which country is fielding a rail gun today? China.
Which country is fielding a man portable laser rifle? China
Which country has demonstrated quantum entanglement encrypted communication? China.

The world is moving on, while we stand around confidently patting ourselves on the back.

-scheherazade

When you have neither speed nor maneuverability, it's your own durability that is in question, not the opponents durability.

It took the capture of the Akutan zero, its repair, and U.S. flight testing, to work out countermeasures to the zero.

The countermeasures were basically :
- One surprise diving attack and run away with momentum, or just don't fight them.
- Else bait your pursuer into a head-on pass with an ally (Thatch weave) (which, is still a bad position, only it's bad for everyone.)

Zero had 20mm cannons. The F4F had .50's. The F4F did not out gun the zero. 20mms only need a couple rounds to down a plane.

Durability became a factor later in the war, after the U.S. brought in better planes, like the F4U, F6F, Mustang, etc... while the zero stagnated in near-original form, and Japan could not make planes like the N1K in meaningful quanitties, or even provide quality fuel for planes like the Ki84 to use full power.

History is history. We screwed up at the start of WW2. Hubris/pride/confidence made us dismiss technologies that came around to bite us in the ass hard, and cost a lot of lives.




Best rockets since the 1960's? Because it had the biggest rocket?
What about reliability, consistency, dependability.
If I had to put my own life on the line and go to space, and I had a choice, I would pick a Russian rocket.

-scheherazade