Monthly Archives: February 2017

A look at the Climate Change debate

Over the past few weeks I’ve been in a little debate over Climate Change and it has come to me that most folks have no idea what is really going on.  By this I mean, in the debate and just what they are doing.  So I thought to take some time and lay it all out.  To help with this I have drawn a simple  decision tree.

As you can see the first question is “Does Climate Change Exists?”  Is it really happening or not.  This is what we most often here as what the debate is about, the “Climate Change Deniers”.  Their position is quite simple, Climate change is not happening, therefor we need do nothing.  The major problem with this position is that it flies in the face of the great majority, last reported at 97% of climatologists do hold that Climate Change exits. (They also hold that humans are a causal factor.) To hold that Climate Change does not exist means these people find themselves arguing science with little or no scientific training.  More often than not they end up just looking foolish or worse.  This just maybe why the also seem to be angry.  I submit that their real problem is they don’t realize that what they really want is not to do anything about Climate Change because they don’t like any of the proposed actions to deal with Climate Change.

As you can see from the chart there are several paths to doing nothing even if you accept that Climate Change is real.  I shan’t go into any of the points in the argument(s) at this time as they are both long and complex in most cases.  The next question is “Should we do anything?”  As you can see answering NO gets you right to “Do Nothing”.  The simplest argument for saying NO to this question is that Climate Change is important and/or significant.   If you answer YES to this question we move on to the next question “Can we do anything?”

Once again, if you answer NO you end right back to Do Nothing.  This is one of the questions we need to be talking about very seriously and while some of us are way to many of us are  caught up talking about the earlier questions.  It maybe that in the end there is nothing we can do to have any effect on Climate Change, but this is not something I believe.  So if we answer YES to “Can we do anything?” we move on to “Can we have any effect?”

While this question looks a lot like the previous question it is not the same.  Before we were asking if anything thing can be done, and here were are asking if what we can do will have any positive effect on Climate Change or not.  If we answer NO then we get to move on to the question “Can we have any mitigating actions?” An if we answer YES we go on to “Will it be totally effective?”

In all these cases we have moved on to what we need to do about Climate Change.  You will notice we have yet to start on the issue of “Should we do anything about Climate Change?”  I shall leave this question for another time.


Understanding Fake from Real, a logical view.

Yesterday Pres. Trump made the following statement “The leaks are real, the news is fake.”  This has some people very puzzled, and well it should.  Not for bad logic, but for the very poor speaking style of of our President.  What I submit he was trying to say was:

Yes, the leaks actually occurred but the content in them is false, therefor the news stories are fake.

Unfortunatly this is not the common usage of the phrase ‘Real Leaks’.  When someone says a leak is real you are saying both that the leak actually occurred and its content is true/factual.  This is because in politics, ever since we’ve had politics, it has been rife with rumors, fabrications, stories, and out right lies.  A leak is only a leak if what is being told is indeed true.  Everything else is commonly know as ‘disinformation’.

We should not expect President Trump to be familiar with this set of definitions, after all he come from a business where the truth is what you say it is.  All marketing is true for certain shades of truth.  Donald Trump is a promoter, marketer, a snake oil salesman and like all such his relegation ship to the truth is very loose.  This why no one should take anything he says at face value.  We can not go by his words, only by his actions because his words have no fixed truth level.  The run the gauntlet of 1 to 99, where 0 is a full falsehood, to 100 is an absolute truth.

So lets give the guy a little slack here, let him say what he wants and just not pay it any attention.



True Colors

Yesterday we got to see the true colors of Senate Majority Leader McConnel and it wasn’t  pretty .   During the heated debate over the Ratification of fellow Senator Jeff Sessuins to be our next AG he invoked rule 19 to force Senator Warren to sit down and shut out.  The cause of his outrage was Senator Warren reading into the record a letter from Cotetta Scott King,  opposing Sessions nomination to a federal judgeship back in the 1980’s.  Then, in the exact same debate, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Or) read in the exact same letter, with the exact same wording with out so much as a peep out of the  sensitive Majority Leader. (Please note that there are, as of this writing, multiple reports of other Senators also reading into the record this same letter)

The Senator has shown to all his true Colors, now all we need to do is figure out what those colors are.  To aid in this I would like to quote the worlds greatest detective:

Once you have  eliminated the impossible,

What ever is left  hast  to be the answer .

Given that this letter has been read into the Senate record with out objection by two other Senators, both men, it is safe to say it was not just the verbiage of the letter that so offended the Honorable Senator. If it had been he should have also risen in objection to both Senator Merkly and Udal.  He did not!

So if it was not the text of the letter it has to have been something else, such as the delivery or the person reading.  As to the delivery of the reading of the letter what I have heard of Senator Warrens read, while it was not in the classic style of reading something into the record for forms sake, that is a dry,  bored drone we all know so well.  The worst that can be said it was forceful and  impassioned. So I can see nothing in the delivery that would call for invoking Rule 19.

So what are we left with, either it was Senator Warren, herself that the Majority Leader found objectionable or it hast to be that it was a woman who was saying these things.  At this moment I have no evidence to decide which is right.  So I ask you Senator McConnel, which is it?

Was it that you could not stand a mere female saying something about a fellow man and you thought in this new age of Trump no one would dare call it out?

Or was this just you exercising your power in a small petty way to embarrass a fellow senator you happen to be at odds with?

On being a Snowflake

Recently it has become quit vogue with many in the conservative set to call those to the left of them “Snowflakes”.  They mean it as an insult, and unfortunately too many of my fellow progressives and liberals are taking it as such.  They should not.  We need to  ware it with pride as a symbol of our innate strength.  Here is why.

Yes, individually snowflakes are easily destroyed.  Just a little blast of heated rhetoric and we all to often melt. But when we come together we are a force to contend with. When we are blown by the winds of discontent we become a blizzard that blind and freezes anyone foolish enough to appose us. But we don’t need the wind, we just need to stand togeather as one. We are mighty, we have weight and perseverance. An when someone is dumb enough to make a noise that movies us we rush down the mountainside and  bury them. We are both beautiful and silent in are coming and we are relentless in the persuit of our goals.

We come as the promise of the rental of spring after the fall of summer. We are the sign of the rest need for the coming spring. Our passing brings the clear fresh water of the lakes and streams that Roar with our great energy.  We are Snowflakes, we come in flurries we came in blizzard.  We stay and protect the weak safe and snug in there homes while the predictors walk upon us and bother us not.

We are Snowflakes and we are mighty!

Two weeks in, and counting

It has now been two weeks since Donald Trump has been President and our great experiment into having amateurs running the Administration of the USA.  I really shouldn’t call most of the people in the administration Amateurs, some of them have very respectable resumes.  People like Reince Priebus, who’s politics I hardly dislike, has avery impressive resume. But others like, Stephen Bannon, have no practical experience at all.  Just the kind of person I’d select to be a participant in an experiment in have non-politicians running an administration.

So what can we see so far?  Quit a lot, but just how significant any of it is is hard to say.  Like all experiments in Political Science there can be a great deal of  noise an furry signifying nothing (or very little).  We have had much a do about all the Executive Orders coming out of the White House these past two weeks.  But just what do they mean? An what about the actions that have gotten much less play in the media? Actions like making Stephen Brannon a member of the National Security Council Principles and removing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director National Intelligence from that same group? Or the attack where we lost a navy seal and a young girl died?

If I was someone who placed any worth in conspiracy theories I’d be looking for what was being hidden.  But I’m not, so all I’m going to say is.  When faced with an exceedingly complex problem, the simplest explanation is often the answer.  Never credit malice (or evil intent) where simple  stupidity (or incompetence) will suffice.

In either case, simple incompetence or conniving intentions, we need to keep our eyes open and be ready to act.  Both bad intentions, or stupidity can cause great damage to our country.