Media(and even some of the vocal scientists trying to urge action) have been guilty of overstating confidence in climate modelling. Which is more or less what they are agreeing on in the video.

The IPCC summary of state of the art climate modelling, and virtually ALL published papers on various climate models agree that the unknown and poorly modelled aspects of our climate are larger than the known influence of CO2.

That is to say, the physical modelling largely operates on energy in and out from the Sun and then playing out how changes in that energy balance operate. The thing is, that energy budget is enormous, and the number of factors at play are even larger and dynamic to make it more fun. The influence of CO2 in the energy budget is one of the relatively straightforward elements, and so we've got a pretty good and confident assessment of how much it impacts energy balance. The problem with climate modelling, is that the CO2 impact is smaller than the errors and unknowns in many other factors in the model including clouds.

Which is all saying that our climate modelling is hard, and even though we know CO2 changes are pushing the energy balance up, our modelling of the energy balance is still not good enough to accurately predict energy balance changes. That means we've got a giant 'all other things being equal' qualifier on model projections because if cloud behaviour changes based on temperature, we KNOW that our errors there are larger than the influence of CO2.

Modellers have been trying to draw attention to this nuance, but it's been deemed inconvenient to persuading the public to act and thus ignored by many pushing for action. The almost inevitable side effect though is that over time the reality of the models inaccuracy will play out and the public is gonna be asking why 'science' was wrong.

I know you're just trolling Bob, but here's some really basic questions.

Do you count it a 'bad' thing that nations have been asking to join NATO, and allowed into it?

Do you count it a "bad" thing that Russia has absolutely destroyed itself attempting to invade Ukraine, and exposed to the world that the level of corruption internally has left it's military capacity at a state vastly lower than even our most pessimistic pre-invasion estimates?

Ukraine was a UN member nation, do you count it OK for Russia to invade Ukraine as another sovereign UN nation on the basis of alliances it might choose to join?

“ my solution would be every able bodied Jewish man and woman join the French (or Polish, Russian, British) army and fucking fight…”

I agree that’s the noble thing to do, but I can’t condemn the ones that choose to seek safety in numbers with Jewish Palestinians as exclusively invasion minded aggressors. My 6 million tag was maybe a bit sharp, but you also know that the Nazi’s took Paris and as much as it sucked to be French or European under Nazi occupation, you also know adding Jewish to that carried a lot of extra consequence and danger to your family.

My POV is agnostic of everything save Isreali people today having a right exist as a nation. Which at this point from my POV leaves 1947 as somewhat academic.

It’s your insistence that Jewish people, and the existence of Israel, have always fundamentally been invaders that I was objecting to as it is so intensely at odds with factual history.

You gave a brief nod on not being a scholar of Palestinian history, but then proceed to just count all Jewish refugees as good as Zionist aggressors from day 1(or close enough), and the local Arab population as nothing but pure, kind caring victims of these invaders.

I will state again, that is ahistorical propaganda and NOT what actually happened. And for my POV, its enough generations back as to be Academic, but for your POV it is fundamental because without being able to writeoff Israel as invaders from day 1, nuance enters the calculus and suddenly the conflict is flooded with shades of grey because lots of parties all contribute to the bloodshed, and many with reasonable motivations from both sides yet too.

Please find me any reputable sources to refute the reality of 1920-1940s Palestine:
-Mass Jewish immigration fleeing European oppression raised tensions between Jewish and Arab Palestinians.(as one must expect)
-Arab palestinians were already chaffing and resisting British colonial rule(as one must expect)
-These tensions led conflict, initially more ‘civil’ with the Arab majority trying to refuse all business, sales and trade with all Jews.
-Escalation followed throughout that time, but in drips and drops and NOT a ‘surprise the Zionist army has arrived’! style of aggression

The violent escalation was a fight here, a beating there. Little individual fights, escalating into deaths. Retaliations slowly grew, with each side exchanging small escalations.

-the culmination of this was eventually all out civil war, and the Jewish side immediately accepting a UN mandated 2 state solution

-this culmination coinciding with the end of WW2 and revelations of the true extent of the holocaust can’t be ignored, it certainly shaped the Jewish mindset in the conflict.

-Their mindset was pretty clearly not inaccurate either, as the immediate response of all neighbouring Arab nations was a declaration of war on the new ‘state’, with bold claims of how quickly the Jews would be swept into the sea. The confidence was so high, a call was sent it for ALL Arab palestinians to abandon and flee the entire region of Palestine to better enable the complete cleansing of the land.

The above is all pretty much inarguably factual, and I’d bargain you could get an Arabic and Israeli scholar together to more or less agree on those facts which is saying alot.

——
Propaganda from both sides would like to declare that the Arabs harboured deep Nazi sympathies, and thus Israel was pure and true in all it did. Or from the other side, more or less your narrative of Zionist bad guys launching invasion from day 1(ish).

Both though are just sprinklings of half truths, with anti-British resentment naturally breeding some leanings towards the axis, and even genuine Nazi cleanse the Jews believers. And absolutely Zionists featured prominently within the Jewish population. Neither of those partial truths though make the propaganda of either side true, but instead just an incomplete and intentionally biased picture.


Again, please find me sources demonstrating I’m terribly wrong on all that, but the only ones I can find are clearly biased and the accurate accounts paint the picture above, the propaganda very, very clearly copies the real story more or less with just deletions of inconvenient bits

Maybe let’s try a different tack to common ground.

It feels like the fundamental difference is on the reasonableness of the actions of the Jewish population in the 40s. I count it within reason enough to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a nation, while you count it a foreign invader from day 0(or maybe day 5 or 6).

What would you have had the Jewish European people in the 30s/40s do?

I’d like to rule out ‘wait patiently for legal avenues of immigration’ on account of at least 6million doing that, but…

It depends on the first answer, but if your answer includes the option of seeking refuge amongst the Jewish population in Palestine, then the followup:
What you have had the existing Jewish Palestinian population and new refugees do with themselves once in Palestine?

I kinda feel your POV requires the belief that, again humbly waiting for fair treatment was gonna work out well for them…

"Who the fuck cares what the reason they wanted to invadeflee was?"

Characterization matters a little here, no?

"They had a right to refugee status there, not to take control and possession by force"

Which is at the heart of things.

The Arab narrative is that Jews arrived guns loaded and set about pillaging, killing and invading as soon as they had sufficient numbers, while the poor domestic Arab population had only been trying to assist and welcome in the refugees...

Which is ahistorical propaganda.

The reality is that for the most part, the European Jews arriving in Palestine were refugees and acting like refugees. Meaning they mostly just wanted to be able to provide food, shelter and safety for the families, just like everyone else. Most of them tried to set about doing this by legally purchasing land.

Lots of the local Arabs similarly were content to get along.

At that same time though, there were hardcore Zionists among the Jewish arrivals AND there were xenophobic elements willing to use violence within the Arab population too.

The tensions rose as the populations rose, but largely as a result of a large people being displaced, and NOT as the planned invasion you describe. The local Arab population started to band together to refuse to work, trade or sell to Jews. Violence broke out instigated separately on smallish scales by BOTH sides. Escalating violence followed, again back and forth between sides.

I'm in a camp that has a hard time blaming either the domestic Arab population for distress at the huge influx of refugees, nor for the European Jewish people having a low tolerance for discrimination and violence directed there way solely for being Jewish.

I see it as a huge mess, but with two large populations of Jewish and Arab people in Palestine acting not terribly unreasonably under circumstances of extreme pressure.

I think it's lazy and convenient to just declare 'invasion' so that you can simplify it all down to right/wrong and good guy/bad guy....

If a hint is needed for why the 1940s immigration happened, folks all over western cities are spray painting logos right now to remind us all.

Link below is to my tiny province's capital, but it's hard to find cities that aren't seeing it swastika's popping up all over. The left is suddenly all soft though now on the punch a nazi policy...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/anti-semitic-graffiti-removed-from-pedestrian-underpass-1.7023036

"welcomed a relatively small number of European Jewish refugees in the 30’s while under British rule"
The Jewish population in Palestine approximately doubled from 84k in 1922 to 175k in 1931, and tensions already started pretty heavily then in 1931. The Arab narrative is pretty emphatic that the invasion start in the 1920s(and unspoken, the resistance and tension internally between Jew and Arab too).


"Then in the 40’s the Jewish minority, America, and England ignored their pleas to minimize immigration, ignored immigration laws, and invited a major invasion, so many European Jews came illegally..."

Come now, don't play dumb, you left out any reason why European Jews might do this outside of 'launching an invasion'. What other motive might 1940's Jewish Europeans have had to ignore immigration laws to migrate out of Europe????


That's where your narrative and mine clash irrevocably. I count the refugee flight from 1940s Europe to be even more desperate than the plight the Palestinians in Gaza face today. I can not accept your POV where upon arriving in Palestine and facing violence and discrimination there too, that it's just plain and simply obvious that the Jewish people's are invaders and bad guys with no right to an existence in the land they fled to.

You know, unless you want to credit Trump's MAGA approach to the southern border as valid cause it's awful similar, save that the Jewish people were facing much more desperate circumstances

I disagree with you on the "Zionists are all squatters" and related bits, but on the whole you've characterized alot of what is happening correctly. I can not accept though that 1930s and 40s Jewish Europeans seeking refuge amongst an existing community of Jewish Palestinians was the 'invasion' that Arab narratives claim it as.


That's also largely academic in the sense of what will happen. Israel is NOT so dominant that they can easily defeat Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Jordan or Saudi Arabia individually, let alone should they join forces. Perhaps more importantly, regardless of what the true comparison of military strength is, the neighbouring nations mentioned are NOT convinced. Al Jazeera spent the first two weeks after the attack crowing about how this proved how weak and ineffective Israel truly is and harolded the beginning of the end for them.

My two predictions:
1. Israel will continue to do anything they deem necessary to ensure the attack in October is viewed by Iran and the Arab world as another Naqba, rather than a victory.
2. Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran and to lesser degrees Jordan and Saudi will continue channeling weapons and support to any and all militant groups near Israel(mostly Palestine) to encourage and ensure they continue launching attacks into Israeli territory in the same continuous effort they have for the last decades.

The worst losers in it, as have been for the last decades you've noted, will continue to be the Palestinian people. Angry young Palestinians will be armed , trained and recruited with foreign money to attack the Israeli 'aggressor'. Thus leading to Israeli reprisal, more dead Palestinians and more angry young recruits.


I think my biggest point of difference with you is I'm not content to ignore the absolutely enormous role of other nations than Israel in the plight of the Palestinian people.

Tragically it's all more complicated than anyone can really state, right? I mean, if you had a 30 book(10k pages a book) series solely on the conditions in the region of Palestine between 1930 and today you'd still have so much material to cut, you could limit all 30 books to only 1 sides POV.

The closest I see to shortcutting things, is trying view what is likely to happen in the future, and from that maybe what one might try and do.

The trouble being there's so little one can do. The reality is that Israeli military strength compared to Palestine is completely and entirely one sided, and thus Israel can and will do whatever it wishes to militarily. It's all their choice, period. In fairness to Israel, you have to note that Hamas as stated in their own charter, given that same power would've already cleansed the entirety of Israel and have created their own single state 'final' solution.

It's also not actually about Palestine vs. Israel, which should be obvious given the fact of Israel's military dominance. Israel IS really facing existentially threats of it's own, just not directly from Palestine, and instead from ALL of it's neighbours. That state of constantly requiring Israel to be capable of winning an existential war since it's inception has kept things in a perpetual state of near-war, and more often proxy-war with the Palestiniances as the pawns of alternately Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others depending which time and region we choose to look at.

Predictively, that gives us that Isreal can not, under any circumstances, accept conditions to exist where any party(in particular Iran as the main backer) views the "Al Aqsa Flood operation" as a success. That means Israel will do whatever they deem necessary to ensure that happens and Iran in particular views that operation as a mistake. Nothing the UN or any of the rest of us say or do can change that.

On capital punishment I guess I am somewhat from the Canadian POV. IMO the defense for a Death sentence shouldn't lie in 'punishment' but in public protection against re-offending. If crimes are sufficiently egregious I think you can make the argument that the rights of the convicted are outweighed by the need to protect society given society may have reasonable cause for mistrust of the future actions of someone who's already committed something particularly heinous.

Careful @newtboy, you're sounding a bit like a conservative on this one from the Canadian POV.

A terrorist that shot 12 people in a mosque, killing 6 was sentenced under new Conservative law that allowed sentences like murder to be applied consecutively. More details in the link below, but our liberal dominated Supreme Court ruled the 40 years without a parole chance was "cruel and unusual".

So our gov. will be giving them a chance at parole in 2039.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-canada-bissonnette-mosque-shooting-sentence-parole-1.6466847

This is one of those cons that's so bad it actually helps it's own spread.

His entire premise depends on folks buying in that 'Science" was duped into a bad 'definition' for the origins of oil at some committee meeting. You have to accept that for the next 100 years, the entire scientific community was powerlessly bound by this committee decision.

The reason that's so effective is the same as the scam emails rife with typos and bad grammar. He immediately is limiting his audience after that point to folks who didn't nope out already at that point. Targeted marketing at any audience vulnerable to whatever snake oil pitch he's ultimately selling.

@newtboy,

Per my very first sentence in thread, I also oppose gov using this as a wedge issue to rally their base.

Meaning, I 100% am in agreement that nobody(gov or otherwise) should be banning trans kids(and adults) from anything, competitive sports included.

I did point out a single biological fact:
-Whether a person is born with XX or XY chromosomes has a significant impact on development that impacts performance in sports.

You jump all over that observation though, like raising it is hateful, denying peoples right to exist, and on. It is not.

And your observation that the performance advantages aren’t 100% of the time favouring XY folks is the red herring. Of course there are areas were the difference is an advantage, others were it’s neutral, and yet others a disadvantage. In a large population you also always have the possibility of individuals overcoming those odds.

Pointing to those facts though like they mean specific advantages don’t exist is the red herring.

In addition to that one fact, I also proposed applying the same standards for fairness in competition equally to everyone.

And it’s on this point I am automatically decried as hateful, evil and maliciously acting against people’s right to exist….

If your only looking for a villain to demonize there’s no point attempting further discussion.

@newtboy,

Last try to get anything resembling a straight answer.

If we pick specifically the 100m race as an event: If the olympics had but a single open category to all sex and genders, do you expect to see biologically female competitors ever making it into qualifying and competition?

@newtboy,

On average you can agree…

I never said anything against any given pro/competitive female athlete probably beating out plenty of biologically male folks.

I was only pointing to advantages between equally gifted/talented and trained people.

To that point, can you agree that most standing olympic records as currently separated into mens and womens records, indicate that the historical separation based on XX and XY certainly appears to show an advantage. Would you be able to agree following from that, the existence of distinct mens and womens records is because without it, women would be “unfairly” left almost entirely unrepresented in every sprint distance, every lifting record and most other records.

For instance, the Olympic qualifying standard for the mens 100m was 10.05s, while the standing Olympic womens record time for 100m is 10.49s. AKA in absence of a separate competition for biologically female athletes, even the standing Olympic record holding female wouldn’t pass the bar to qualify to compete in the Olympics.

That is the advantage I am stating exists, and matters and I am asking if you acknowledge that distinction existing as a result of biology or not?