Wow. I never thought I’d hear “President Elect Trump”. Or at least seriously doubted it.
So what happens to:
- Paris Climate Agreement? Obama signed the “agreement”. Our constitution stipulates the Senate approves treaties and they certainly haven’t approved this one. Trump doesn’t like the “agreement”. Are we bound by it? Probably not. We’ll see in what way this becomes toast.
- Obama executive orders entered under his “Pen and Phone” policy? Let’s hope many of these are reversed quickly.
- Unbridled executive power? Let’s hope Trump either doesn’t follow Obama’s example in exercising it when he couldn’t have his way with Congress. Or failing that, that Senate and Congress reign it in– in part, by realizing that bills shouldn’t pass quite so much decision making on over to the executive branch. Actually: let’s hope for the latter either way. We need checks and balances just as much now as we needed them over the past 4 years.
- Obamacare? Should be toast. Let’s see what comes.
- What else?
Update
The NYT has an especially good breakdown of which groups voted for HRC vs Trump with gains/losses indicators on the right hand side side. If I’m reading right, Trump did win the higher income vote and did not win the lower income vote; this is typical for GOP/Dem candidates. Interestingly, relative to past voting patterns for GOP vs. Dem it looks like Trump made substantial gains at the lower income levels. From NYT
Gary Johnson got 4% in Illinois.
But I thought the Donald said the system was rigged. So how did he win?
Obviously, Trump is a master at rigging the system in some Yuge undetectable way.
Anyone know if Hillary is giving concession speech? Somewhere?
Lucia,
So no automatic place on the ballot for the Libertarians. There seemed to be a swing away from the small party candidates in the last few days.
SteveF,
Except for Ross Perot, there always is.
Trump could probably tear up the Iran nuclear deal as well.
Lucia,
I am sure she will eventually give a concession speech. I’ll opt for reading the transcript… had enough of the sanctimonious hectoring that passes for speeches.
DeWitt,
“Except for Ross Perot, there always is.”
.
And that is why we have all had to suffer through the long running Clinton soap opera of scandal, lies, and corruption. It would have been better if Bush the elder had secured a second term, and sent Bill and Hillary back to Arkansas to drag $100 bills through trailer parks. At least the Clinton headaches are finally over.
CNN is saying ‘soon’, with respect to the concession speech.
[Edit: Apparently Obama will speak at 12:15 on the election as well.]
SteveF,
If she doesn’t give it soon, she will prove she had the wrong temperament to be President.
That’s not to say Trumps is right. But… crimeney. If she can’t give a concession speech, how the heck would she have dealt with real challenges?
CNN claims her campaign wasn’t really prepared; still setting up risers for people to sit on. According to them HRC is ready to go as soon as the venue is ready.
marc bofill,
The venue was ready last night. The candidate was the problem.
She hasn’t left her hotel room yet!!
I am curious to see Clinton’s manner.
SteveF, Lucia, Yup.
[Edit: Oh. Leaving her hotel now.]
Her campaign. Look, they could have written this last night.
Hi.
I lost.
You don’t like me. You really, really don’t like me.
Dang.
Bye.
Lucia,
I would never have even contemplated she had a suitable temperament. Nor Trump after his campaign antics.
Lucia,
That concession speech, if given last night, would have been excellent…. especially the ‘bye’.
Not going to listen to Obama either… just the transcript.
They didn’t have a speech written, because they figured they wouldn’t lose.
It would be awesome if she said something like ‘The people have spoken, the bastards.’
Buying puts on Tesla might not be a bad idea.
SteveF, I assumed they would switch away from Johnson. I think the polls were accurate, it was the voters who changed their opinion.
Twitter reports her caravan is on the road….
Someone at Fox News was saying last night that there were two speeches being prepared even before it became obvious that things were going pear shaped.
According to the reporting last night, Hillary had already prepared BOTH a victory speech and a concession speech. I just think she couldn’t do it.
DeWitt,
I think most of Tesla’s subsidies are from California, not Federal (could be mistaken).
You tube live stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-B6AtuNlMY
When did Romney deliver his concession speech? Like Clinton, he thought he was going to win until the votes came in.
The youtube stream is playing “ain’t no mountain high enough”. I think Hillary found one that was too high for her.
A person is on the podium…
Paul Ryan on CNN now, climbing back on-board the boat he jumped off of last month. Well, to be expected I guess. :/
Steve F pointed out:
“And that is why we have all had to suffer through the long running Clinton soap opera of scandal, lies, and corruption. It would have been better if Bush the elder had secured a second term, and sent Bill and Hillary back to Arkansas to drag $100 bills through trailer parks. At least the Clinton headaches are finally over.”
Exactly right on the first part, and I hope to God you are correct on the second.
WGN is now covering Ryan giving GOP message.
Hillary is the worst loser evah!
lucia,
You are correct. The only important federal subsidy is the $7,500 tax credit for a purchase. Pretty much all of the rest comes from California and Nevada. Tesla issued stock to pay off the DOE subsidized loan to keep the government from exercising stock warrants.
Security guys are moving around….
Ryan left his stage… Evidently HRC approaching her podium.
Tim Kaine at podium.
Right off the bat: “She won the popular vote…”
Democrats aren’t going to really accept the results, are they?
Ok… Hillary to podium.
Black pantsuit; blue lapels and blouse. Chelsea and Bill by side.
She’s tweeting the speech. Maybe typing it in explains the hold up?
Not a bad speech overall.
Ok… she’s finished. Not too bad.
Not a bad speech overall, indeed. Interesting that both Trump and Clinton gave speeches that were much more gracious and statesmanlike than what we were used to on the campaign trail.
Yeah, I thought that was pretty decent and gracious.
Here is a quote Maureen Dowd used in her NYT essay this morning:
“As Salena Zito had presciently written in The Atlantic: “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally”.
Here is a quote from Dowd regarding how her family- mostly conservatives, apparently looked at the election:
“Hillary’s closing line in the campaign was that she was the only thing standing between her and the abyss. But to my conservative family, Hillary was the abyss while Donald was the baseball bat to smash Washington.”
Maureen Dowd, whom I generally deeply disagree with but respect for her more serious writing, is on to something. Her observations help explain both why so many on the left are so freaked out over Trump, while also giving insights on why a majority of Americans trust Trump, in a spectrum from reluctantly to enthusiastically.
Obama up next. Let’s see if he does as well.
Yeah. I have to go out. So not going to watch Obama.
It was kind of HRC, kind of robotic with some good parts where she seemed like a human. The best thing she could have done was tear up the script.
It seemed to be live tweeted. Either voice recognition or she had to follow it to match tweets.
CNN seems to be having a group therapy session on TV for us. Well, all part of eventually reaching acceptance I guess.
Did Hillary win the popular vote as Tim Kaine said?
Maybe, but not according to the current count at realclearpolitics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2016_general/president/
The media continues to slice and dice this election through the prism of identity politics, when this was arguably about class. When all you have is a hammer….
Obama’s off to a pretty good start.
There are times I really like Obama, especially when he doesn’t take himself so seriously. This is one of those times.
Obama when he wants to be (not pushing crazy quasi-legalistic policies) can be quite gracious as he is being today. Wish Obama in practice had followed the rule of law, which he just referenced in his talk.
JD
Niels A Nielsen –
They’re still counting votes in a number of states, mostly blue. The expectation is that those will push the Dems over the top in the popular vote though they will have no effect on the electoral college.
Obama knocked that one out..of…the…park.
Niels, if you are there. What is the reaction to Trump in Europe?
JD
ABC News brings up birther issue, saying Trump questioned whether Obama was a citizen. Under the unfortunate provision in the Constitution, you can be a citizen but not eligible to run for President if you weren’t born in the US. Why is it so hard to get this simple provision correct? Classic Left wedge issue politics.
JD
“There are times I really like Obama, especially when he doesn’t take himself so seriously. This is one of those times.”
So what that is all of two, three times you have liked him?
Niels A Nielsen,
It is hard to see how Trump doesn’t ultimately reach 306 electoral college votes.
.
The popular vote totals will be extremely close (+/-0.1% or less) no matter which one actually ends up with more.. Neither will come close to reaching 50% of total votes.
As with Brexit, Glenn Greenwald nails it.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
The reactions of the establishments in Europe to Trumps victory are generally ones of disbelief. Much like the reactions of liberals in your country just less informed.
One (yes 1 out of 179) member of the Danish Parliament openly supported Trump! The political corruption of Hillary Clinton is barely known by anyone here. The crazy statements by Trump on the other hand are endlessly repeated by the media.
The reactions of the political establishment in Denmark is very similar to the reactions to president Ronald Reagan whom our prime minister at the time called a “mad dog”.
In some media I have found traces though of introspection and reflections on some of the more probable reasons for Trumps succes other than the “racism”, “misogynism” or low intelligence of “deplorables”.
Congratulations with you new president. I hope he will make your country “great again”.
I have to admit that I agreed with Julian Assange when he said that your choice was much like choosing between acquiring Cholera or Gonorrhea. I hope I will be proven as wrong about Trump as the Danish prime minister was about Reagan.
For those with short memories, the stock market fell 5.3% the day after Obama was elected in 2008, the largest change ever after election day. It is currently up 1%. All this is rather meaningless in the big picture unless you are a day trader.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-the-stock-market-tends-to-perform-on-and-after-election-day-2016-11-07
FYI: The largest ever stock market drop after election day occurred in 2008. It’s up 1% at the moment. These things are rather meaningless in the grand scheme.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-the-stock-market-tends-to-perform-on-and-after-election-day-2016-11-07
The Climate Change Effect(?):
Leading Coal Producing States:
Republican Margins in 2008, 2016
WY: +33%, +48%
WV: +13%, +42%
KY: +16%, +30%
PA: -10%, +1%
IL: -25%, -26%
Hard to write this one off as racism. In particular it might have been a deciding factor in PA switching sides.
Maybe the D.C. Court of Appeals will accept they won’t get a Supreme Court that will uphold the “Backdoor Sedition Act” exception to New York Times v. Sullivan in cases involving government darlings…and finally issue a ruling in Mann v. Steyn. Faster than Deep Thought in the Hitch Hiker’s Guide series.
(‘course Trump’s own pronouncements on the subject are not exactly encouraging, but from what I’ve seen and heard of his proposed nominees list, there’s no one on it that would do this.)
I don’t know what people liked. Yea, they were gracious, but too long. I don’t remember concession speeches being like State of the Union, or Clinton or Bush speaking at all. Obama’s just sounded like he was lecturing grade schoolers about transfer of power.
Length of youtube Obama speech video: 19:59. (but there are quite a few dead minutes before he starts… I’m waiting.. waiting typing comment as I wait.)
Length of Clinton concession speed: 36:43
Length of Trum acceptance: 19:07.
Obama’s was really only about 9-10 minutes. Lots of dead time that was not edited out.
Ok… around 5 minutes into actually speaking Obama is now talking about how wonderful is own administration is, and how great a job his people have done. Uhmm….. ummmhhh…
Technically not political. Except someone took William Shattners tweet as being political
You get the agony.
Then you get the ecstasy.
Then you get merciful release.
Why did Obama need to speak at all? For that matter his victory speech in 2008 was probably the shortest ever, like he was just tired after the campaign.
Well, colour me puzzled. Obviously about Trump, who is clearly a bigoted racist sexist sociopath who has told way more lies than Hillary. But more about this forum. I thought it was a gathering of reasonable people with open minds, who weighed up the evidence as to the extent of global warming. Possibly I was fooled by the presence of Nick Stokes, which lent the forum respectability. But re the US election there has been no dialogue here, just people pointing out how awful Hillary is. I’m starting to wonder if there’s a correlation between lukewarming and support of bigoted racist fools?
Also, re the speeches. Trump was not remotely gracious. He sounded like a bad actor, or possibly a robot, programmed to sound gracious. Obama was genuinely gracious. As was John McCain in his concession speech in 2008
Winston: “Trump was not remotely gracious. He sounded like a bad actor, or possibly a robot, programmed to sound gracious”
.
Is that what you have told your children? So that when they meet a person who are gracious to them they will worry if that person is just acting gracious or possibly a robot programmed to sound gracious.
.
In my book graciousness is also to be able to give people a break even if you don’t like them or find them unpleasant.
I think Trump was being gracious and I was pleasantly surprised by that.
.
To paint an image of other people as monsters, evil or “deplorables” without the ability to even be genuinely gracious that is frankly very ungracious. I have met behaviour like that in my country (Denmark) and I am seeing it in your country too.
Hi Neils, to correct a misapprehension, the USA is not my country – I’m an Englishman living in New Zealand, where just about everyone is totally baffled by Trump. I have only one child, not children, but I hope I have helped my child to distinguish between despicable lying and dangerous egomaniacs such as Trump, who pretend to be gracious in order to further their own interests, and people who are genuinely gracious – and here I think of John McCain and his concession speech when he lost to Obama, which, much though I disagree with McCain’s politics, is one of the most genuinely gracious things I’ve ever heard.
Ok, Winston, I’m sorry I mistook you for an American.
I will just note that I am teaching my children that they should love their enemies while I don’t blame them for being unable to do that. I also teach them that love can take many shapes and forms.
.
I teach them to accept and be thankful for any graciousness or kindness they are met with – in particular from people they don’t like or even find “despicable”. I teach them to seriously consider good and positive interpretations of the things people say or do and to prefer those interpretations whenever possible. In particular when confronted with people they don’t like.
.
On another related note: Paradoxically, I have found that people who are intolerant of other political views or different perspectives on things are primarily found among those who describe themselves as tolerant, liberal, progressive and inclusive.
Winston,
Nonesense. We also discussed how awful Trump is.
For what it’s worth, many here are also baffled by Trump. I am baffled. I think he is a pig and I have said so repeatedly.
Lucia:
.
Yes, and you didn’t prefer Hillary over a pig.. A truly awful choice you were given in this election.
No I did not prefer Hillary over a pig. I did not prefer the pig over Hillary. As it happens, I voted for neither.
Has anyone here thought about Trump’s exposure in the New York fraud investigation?
j ferguson,
Not specifically. Trump seems to be involved in so many suits. I think at a minimum the guy pushed the edge of fraud. Wouldn’t be remotely surprised if he went over the bounds.
I have no idea what happens to suits if he is a sitting prez. We had the issue of subpoena -ing prez in civil suits when Bill Clinton was president. It’s not a pretty thing.
I supported Trump, still do. [Edit: In fact, I voted for Johnson, but I supported Trump.]
I’d address the substance of Winston’s argument if I felt like there was some point. I don’t think there is. It’s not interesting to me.
*shrug*.
j ferguson,
This is, btw, what popehat (who dislikes Trump intensely) has to say:
https://popehat.com/2016/06/01/lawsplainer-is-there-anything-unusual-about-judge-curiels-orders-in-the-trump-university-case/
Now: One can point out that “puffery” in marketing is not exactly the most straightforward, exemplary marketing technique. But, right or wrong, it’s not considered fraud. If it was, people wouldn’t be able to promote things like “our donuts are the best in the world” and so on. He also discusses the RICO charges. (Popehats view is RICO in civils suits is often just crap extra thrown in. Which it is.)
I suspect Trump marketing was similar to all sorts of “self help”, “learn to make money in real-estate” courses and so on. ( Rich Dad, poor dad anyone?) The advice isn’t necessarily bad or useless. But the promotion of “wealth management” or “investment” advice can often get rather…. “puffy” and involve sales of all sorts of borderline useless books, seminiars, coaching and so on. Most avoid using the word “university” which makes it sound a bit more “educational”, but still… the entire category is generally “puffy”. I don’t doubt Trump would take puffery to a higher level than most.
I think an article in this morning’s Chicago Tribune gives some insight into where the MSM will be going with the Trump win Tuesday.
Before I start I should make my views on Trump abundantly clear. He is a caricature of most of our politicians in that he promises what he cannot deliver, exaggerates what government can do to change people’s fortunes and does a lot of outright lying. These are strategies of many politicians with the difference that most have learned to nuance the presentation in order to give their defenders something to defend. With Trump that may well be different in that what he does is hardly concealed in a slick delivery. I am reminded of Obama’s outright right lies about Obama Care and Clinton’s vague references to and poor remembrance of the reasons for and operations of her private server that were never truly called to task by the MSM.
I think what we are and will be seeing from the MSM and the ruling intelligentsia is a major put down of all things Trump and Trump voters and perhaps even an exaggeration of the detrimental effects of things Trump – given the few remaining constitutional limitations and reality that are still available to check government power – that is far beyond what they have done for Obama and would have done for Clinton. I can only lament here that they failed to apply this scrutiny to their favored politicians and also be concerned with the lack of limitations of government power when their political favorites are in power.
There is a Tribune piece by Garrison Keillor titled, “Good luck with this Republicans” where the key take away line is: “The uneducated white males who elected him (Trump) are the vulnerable ones and they will not like what happens next.” I could remind Garrison if he were a listening man that inner city blacks have continued to vote in huge percentages for his party, the Democrats, despite their plight in cities that are overwhelmingly run by Democrat politicians. Also what about the other side of the coin with asking Republicans when they will be getting more minority and women voters and asking the Democrats when they will be wooing the uneducated (Keillor’s term) white males for their votes.
#DraintheSwamp has begun.
Seems like the groundwork for a Christie role in the administration is being laid.
Lucia,
.
So. I know nobody advocates for or approves of this, and it’s not a good subject for jokes. Needless to say I condemn this utterly. But it seems there may be sentiment out there that the solution to all of our ‘problems’ is to have Trump assassinated.
Political discourse sure has taken a nose dive into the sewage this cycle.
You might end up with a VP assuming the Presidency after all.
[Edit: The GoFundMe pages in question appear to have already been removed.]
I don’t want Trump assassinated. Though I did say I wanted him to win and for Thor to subsequently strike him dead with a lightening bolt. That said…. I didn’t think he’d win. I didn’t know who would win.
It doesn’t seem quite right to actually wish a person to die once it’s getting to “not hypothetical”.
I do anticipate I will prefer his SCOTUS picks — though that remains to be seen. I do want to see Obamacare gone– it’s badly designed. (What do I want in it’s place? Dunno. I don’t design this sort of thing. Perhaps people having health care accounts from which they can draw? I’d need to read details to know if that’s better.)
I would like to see a prez who doesn’t take vast executive power. I don’t know that Trump is that person– I’m sure Hillary was not.
But I don’t want Trump or any president assasinated. That’s not a good thing. Wishing it is unwise. Planning it is–I think– treason. (Although, perhaps whether it’s treason depends on goal. Might not be overthrow of govt.)
Lucia,
Yeah, I understood that & think everybody did.
.
I ‘get’ that many people are severely disappointed in the outcome of the election; that they are angry, confused, frightened, what have you. The protests around the country seem pretty pointless to me (and some seem destructive; another step in the wrong direction taken by the Left in recent times, but I digress), but if they allow people to blow off steam and come to grips with the fact that Trump is President Elect, so be it.
.
But advocating for assassination? That’s well past the line.
Lucia, I was thinking of where Trump is in the New York investigation at the hands of their attorney general. One might think that something which cannot mature before he takes office would be dropped at this point, but…
NY Trump case looks like a political prosecution by the NY AG who is also going after EXXON. Judge Curiel case, Trump achieved his primary goal with calling the judge biased because he’s Mexican of having an excuse if the judge ruled against him, while putting pressure on the judge to not do so. The judge postponed, and Trump won the election. It looks like he could settle now, claiming it is just to avoid the hassle and he would win if he wanted to.
Lucia,
You might want to rethink your plan. Pence is turning into a mini-me .
The old guard wealthy democrat reactionaries like Garrison are as predictable in the politics as he is in his publicly funded stale show.
He does not understand the demographics of Trump’s support, he deceives himself about what Trump represents. he kids no one when he pretends to be in touch with anything that actually fits the definition of “progressive”.
Bezos sees Trump as a threat to the vertical monopoly he has built at Amazon and so buys himself a newspaper to run interference against anti-trust investigations.
He has no guiding principal except to make America safe for Amazon’s profit margins.
Garrison needs to keep Public funding because his show would get relegated to channel 789 at 4AM if he had to hack it in the private sector.
Warren Buffet likes carrying oil in his very profitable trains instead of in safe and efficient pipelines.
And etc.
I think Americans like the idea of a billionaire focusing his greed on making America better than it was instead of one trying to make America safe for their narrow investment.
I just turned on a national sports radio show going to get lunch and the host was regurgitating and defending a long rant that all white people who voted for Trump are stupid racists.
I’m wondering why a sports talk show host would do that.
Andrew
From a friend of mine, tongue firmly in cheek:
Andrew_KY,
Because he can.
I guess. I tend to prefer sports talk when I tune into sports talk shows as opposed to tuning into sports talk shows and getting political agitation.
Andrew
RB,
“Seems like the groundwork for a Christie role in the administration is being laid.”
.
Well, if I were one of the convicted underlings, and I was facing prison time, then a plea bargain to take down Christie might seem tempting. If you are convinced Christie directed those underlings in their misdeeds (and maybe he did), can you suggest a reason why they have taken the fall without ever seeking a plea agreement?
.
I think a more credible argument against Christie is that he has very bad judgement in choosing staff and/or he created an environment which encouraged unlawful acts by his staff. Like, ‘Who will free me from this troublesome priest?”
SteveF,
I am not convinced Christie directed them since there is no public evidence to that effect. What both federal and defense lawyers agreed on was that Christie was aware of the bridge closings as it was happening. Even as the federal prosecutor agreed that Christie was aware of the bridge closing as it unfolded (contrary to Christie’s denial), he told the jury that they only had to decide whether the two underlings were guilty of the crimes they were being charged with.
RB,
You didn’t answer my question: why would the underlings not have looked for a plea bargain if Christie was responsible? If Christie “was aware” as this was happening, then why would not reversing the underlings decisions not lead to him also being prosecuted? (Not rhetorical questions.)
SteveF,
I believed i answered your question. There was no evidence to indicate that he directed it, although there is evidence to indicate that he was aware of it while it unfolded. I don’t know whether not reversing the underlings’ decision is prosecutable, but the federal prosecutors admitted as much.
RB,
So are you suggesting the Obama administration’s DOJ decided to go easy on Christie? Maybe they didn’t see anything Christie did (or did not do) which could be considered unlawful.
SteveF,
It does look like the DOJ did not find anything prosecutable for Christie and Hillary.
My low opnion of the MSM was raised somewhat by this introspection.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/
Kenneth,
Unfortunately that will go down the memory hole like Bernard Goldberg’s books Bias (2003) and Arrogance (2004). News organizations don’t hire people who don’t think like themselves, with a few token exceptions. If everybody around you thinks like you do, it’s unlikely there will be any significant introspection.
Kenneth,
That article is a small step forward.
The real step would take place when the news organizations set standards of behavior that requires the reporters to adhere to a code of conduct that prevents collusion, when editors have the moral integrity to report both sides of the story, when the Soros run indoctrination programs are disavowed.
Kenneth,
The author or that piece (Will Rahn) is absolutely correct in his analysis, but I sure hope he has his CV in order. Main stream journalists are essentially 100% ‘liberals’. Very few liberals ‘do’ introspection. What they ‘do’ is what Mr Rahn describes… arrogance, sneering, put downs, ridicule, and moral indignation toward anyone (absolutely anyone) who questions their political views, priorities, or judgement. I wish it were otherwise, but Mr Rahn probably doesn’t have much of a future at CBS News.
Since there is some “in hindsight” analysis being mentioned, what do people think now about whether debates matter. I’d made the point here that people like to think that they matter, but they really don’t. NBC seems to have come to the same conclusion.
I think debates matter. If Trump had a narrow loss, the conventional wisdom in 4 years would be that the first debate decided the 2016 campaign. Trump was at a tie, fell back by 8, and never came back.
The stories about the debates not mattering tend to claim that Hillary won all 3 debates.
I do not agree with that premise.
RB,
I think the debates do matter. But the rules aren’t the ones used in high school debating societies.
The debate certainly mattered in 1960. I remember listening on the radio. Nixon took Kennedy to the cleaners on substance. But those watching on TV didn’t seem to pay much attention to substance, it was all image.
I think debates matter. If the candidates can be watched without becoming nauseous, they are good to watch. This year, I stuck with transcripts. Where I think they could be improved is on the side of the journalists….. absolute, sworn…upon penalty of death… neutrality (or as close as you can get to it) has been missing for a very long time, and that takes away from the value. On balance, I hope the debates continue, but neutral presentation and questioning will make them more valuable.
RB
On this
The poll number may never have been right.
Hillary may not have had the lead when they though she did.
They should have know this was not going to happen. Politician’s can endorse but they can’t just “transfer” their popularity to someone else.
Obviously he could if non-white voters didn’t turn out. This should have been obvious.
Uhmm.. no.
Actually, I think they do. But you have to be careful to understand what “winning” means. It’s not the equivalent to “my highschool teacher gave me an A for thoroughness”.
A small band of partisans didn’t do this.
Actually, he may have paid a price. For all you know he would have won by more if he’s released his tax returns.
But really, you didn’t think someone saying Hillary is corrupt and deserves jail wasn’t going to benefit from that? Well… wrongo!
Interesting. It seems to me that people’s interpretation of debate performance is either confirmation bias or viewing it as a game show independent of evaluation of ability to govern. Hard to say.
He already (most likely) had that target audience .
RB,
I don’t think it’s independent of evaluation of ability to govern.
The target audience of people who think Hillary is corrupt and got a free pass is large. Even many who don’t think she belongs in jail still don’t mind someone saying they think she does.
Lucia,
I’m saying that that particular target audience would vote for him even if there was no debate where he says it (i.e., confirmation bias).
RB, you forget that many Sanders supporters were chanting the same types of things about Hillary earlier this year. There were plenty who disliked her that voted for her and many on the fence that didn’t.
Since we are partly talking about the potential criminality of Clinton’s email server, here is what a judge and former prosecutor who commented at climateaudit had to say:
“.
Phil Howerton
Posted Nov 7, 2016 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Reply
First comment: when Hillary said that there was no classified e-mail on her server, anyone with a grain of sense had to know that this was a bald-faced lie. How could she, as the Secretary of State of the United States of America, have conducted her business for four years with one server NOT HAVE CLASSIFIED E-MAIL ON HER SERVER?
Second comment: I have been in the criminal law business since 1980. First as an assistant district attorney for five years during which I tried hundreds of felony cases and eight death penalty cases. Then as an assistant public defender for seven years during which I tried hundreds of felony and misdemeanor cases, including three death penalty cases. For the last twenty plus years I have been a judge, almost exclusively in criminal courts. I can tell you that Comey’s “rationale†{including his statement that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case} for not recommending to the justice department that there be an indictment was absolutely preposterous. There is no requirement in the statutes that there be a specific intent to violate the law. {See Andrew McCarthy in NRO on this}.
Third comment: I don’t know what the hell went on here but it sure smells to high heaven. Whether the justice department and the rest of the Obama administration put the pressure on Comey, or what, we obviously do not know. We can only surmise. At the very least, Comey has trashed his reputation and ought to resign.”
…
My own two cents is that even if it is debatable whether Clinton’s actions were criminal, it SHOULD be a criminal violation for a high official who has to handle classified information to put her email account on a private server.
JD
The MSM forgets Hillary was an extremely unappealing candidate who needed to rely on her huge funding, super-delegates and MSM to get past Sanders, a socialist underdog with genuine sincerity. Well, Trump was an underdog too, a political outsider. In a change election where there is large dissatisfaction with 8 years of economic under-performance, foreign policy fiascoes and crumbling Obamacare the many people want some sincere whip#ss.
RB, I agree that frequently people evaluate debate performance independent of ability to govern and score on points like it’s debate team.
I remember seeing a news article declaring Clinton(Bill) the winner of the first debate, with exact scores given from professional debate moderators or something like that. The only problem is everyone who was watching knew that Ross Perot ran circles around the other two.
I thought Trump won the first because he showed he wasn’t crazy, a factor in ‘ability to govern’. Others saw too undisciplined. I’m OK with saying that was a clear Clinton win.
The second debate Trump threw the book at Crooked Hillary and pointed out that Predator Bill would be entering the White House with her. That also is an evaluation of ability to govern, and I would give Trump a clear win.
Not sure how to score the third. In terms of ability to govern, he failed to do anything, but an opening half hour that was perfect for winning Pennsylvania.
Ron Graf,
My question had to do with whether the debates were changing anybody’s mind formed outside of the debates, not about Sanders supporters or what caused Hillary to lose. Anyway, it looks like people mostly still believe debates had an impact on this election’s outcome.
Lucia,
“The target audience of people who think Hillary is corrupt and got a free pass is large. Even many who don’t think she belongs in jail still don’t mind someone saying they think she does.”
.
I don’t think the Clintons or their lackeys should go to jail. I think fine of $175 million would be more suitable.
On the topic of debates though the first GOP primary certainly had its memorable moment. Megyn Kelly’s book excerpt is interesting:
I think debates are more show time and have little intellectual content or are not even informative. They are a media spectacle.
Have the candidates write a position paper and let their opponents reply and finally a reply to reply by the candidate. Even minor candidates could be included.
The debates are in essence a major put down of the intelligence of the voting public and present the message that they need a circus in order to pay attention. If indeed they do at least we should find out.
RB,
Do you believe Trump arranged for someone to poison Megan Kelly?
Do you believe the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered?
Do you believe the moon landings were faked?
Do you agree with Podesta that aliens regularly visited Earth in the past?
Your comments are becoming either wildly unhinged or obtusely tongue in cheek. Not sure which it is.
SteveF,
You were always nuts. I did nothing of the sort.
SteveL, why do you accuse RB of being engaged in conspiracy theories? Sounds like rather than engaging his ideas, you wish to engage in ad hominem attacks and make people think he is unreasonably kooky.
Don’t blame SteveX. I used the Thought Computer I built in my shed to take over his mind temporarily. I didn’t want to do it, but the Illuminati sent Elvis to threaten me again, same way they did when I was going to expose the lunar landing hoax. I was frightened. Elvis can be a scary dude. Or was it Jim Morrison? They sort of look the same to me. At least it wasn’t space aliens this time, I don’t think I could take getting probed again…
.
Meh. Needs work.
RB
Then what you are saying is incorrect. Both candidates stank. But some would not have voted for him if they had not been reminded of Hillary’s emails and so on.
Or, if you think not, you must think Comey’s announcing the FBI case was reopened could never have made any different to anyone. I didn’t disapprove– but I never claimed it couldn’t make any difference.
SteveF:
.
Steve, I think I remember RB attacking my credibility in the same way. I feel wounded.
.
But if you have to know, I would give Foster murder a 95% chance but only a 5% chance it could have been solely the Clintons without underworld or CIA involvement. On ET I would give 99% chance we are not alone in universe, 95% chance of visitation. I know — but you never studied it, obviously. The moon landing being faked is something that is brought up by those to slander by association topics that are actually legitimate yet controversial.
.
That Trump poisoned Kelly to get out of a tough question seems silly. If he knew it was coming he could have prepared to charm her or turn it around that he respects women by not coddling them.
Trump could have replied, respectfully Megyn, I don’t beleive women need men defenders or woman defenders in this age of gender equality. Rosie O’Donnell needs no help.”
Kenneth L Fritsch,
I alone claim to have the lowest opinion of the MSM, please do not attempt to take my throne, ha ha. Yes, this is a startling admission in that article: “Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it†feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.” From a major media outlet no less.
The reaction from the media has kind of been all over the place but there has been some genuine introspection several places. A half hour audio segment by 3 NYT reporters at 2:30 am on election night (can’t find link at the moment) had an admission that they thought they had “failed their readers”, and not for the usual we didn’t take down Trump early enough nonsense, but for not understanding and reporting on the basis of his support.
On the other hand, reading Vox or The Puffington Host leads to howling fits of laughter on their take as they prepare for the end of civilization as the morlocks rise from the pits of darkness, or something.
I’m not sure speculating that the best case scenario (for the right) is Trump being assassinated by a left wing nut job is so evil, especially when British public television released Death of a President in 2006 about the imagined assassination of a sitting president. That was evil. It won an award from the Toronto Film Festival.
The Secret Service should be awake and alert in my opinion. Lighten up on the partying for a while.
“I’d address the substance of Winston’s argument if I felt like there was some point. I don’t think there is. It’s not interesting to me.”
Well, to be honest, I’m somewhat astonished that anyone thought I’d put forward an argument, as opposed to a concatenation of statements.
Right now, I just want Trump to close his twitter account!
Pretty good lefty rant about the election. Applies to the CAGW “settled” argument too, IMO. https://www.facebook.com/JonathanPieReporter/videos/1044777035645189/
TerryMN,
That was classic. That was the best 6 minutes I spent all week.
I think even Winston might learn something from it, but probably not.
Off-topic:
A new paper, Friedrich et al., claims ECS is 4.88 K/doubling (+/-0.57) based on paleo data.
The Independent is breathless. Michael Mann commented that the new paper appeared “sound and the conclusions quite defensible…And it does indeed provide support for the notion that a Donald Trump presidency could be game over for the climate…By ‘game over for the climate’, I mean game over for stabilizing warming below dangerous (ie greater than 2C) levels.â€
James Annan is less impressed: “I don’t think it is really that credible in terms of overturning established consensus.”
On topic – saw a facebook post about a petition to ask electors to vote for Clinton.
Wow, people, get a grip. Really.
[Edit: The New York Post has an article on the topic.]
TerryMN –
I’m with Tom Sharf: that was a brilliant rant. Best 6 minutes of the week for me as well. Thanks.
Winston,
My mistake. Thanks.
TerryMN, that was a great video. Amazing that it just occurred to someone on the left that shutting down debate with PC enforcement instead of engagement is not persuasive.
.
Will a Trump presidency be a wake up call to the left to end of PC, guilt shaming, consensus enforcing insults? I give it 5% chance unless Trump makes a point to appeal for open debate on campuses, transparency in government, including data produced by publicly funded climate research.
Kelley may be doing a Captain Queeg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlV3oQ3pLA0
HaroldW,
That paper is nothing short of amazing. How the authors manage to ignore the evidence all around us, the historical evidence in the paleo climate record, and still get published in an allegedly serious peer reviewed science journal is extremely entertaining.
hunter –
Well, there are a lot of new journals, and that trend will continue as long as publication quantity remains an important metric in academia.
One thing I would not have noticed (but Annan did) is that the Independent spoke of “one of the most respected academic journals”, confusing “Science Advances” with “Science”. Rookie mistake.
In thinking more about consensus enforcement, I have heard that part of the explanation for the beneficial economic effects of immigration is not only the introduction of new ideas but perhaps the overall societal tolerance of new or controversial ideas. Part of making America great again might be to have less tolerance for Stephen Lewandowsky’s argument.
The New York Times published a review of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly’s memoir, Settle for More, after obtaining an early copy of the book scheduled to be published on Nov. 15. Kelly disputes The Times’ characterization of two sections of her book; one which implies she said someone leaked Trump her first question in the first primary debate; and another that implies she thought she may have been poisoned the morning of the same debate.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/11/megyn-kelly-book/93628498/
My tablet limits the length of my posts so here is link to the comment. NYT is notorious for twisting facts and comments to fit an agenda and unfortunately that practice is copied by many journalist writing currently.
Kenneth,
Thanks. The willful disinformation from the NY Times is but a symptom of the intellectual dishonesty of that organization. At the time of the debate, Kelly described her illness as ‘stomach flu’ (probably a rentavirus infection) which, by no coincidence, often spreads quickly in winter… I had it myself this year not long after Kelly. I did not accuse my wife of poisoning me, even though I almost certainly caught it from her! The suggestion Trump had Kelly ‘poisoned’ is absurd on its face, and confirms the NY Times is most suitable for starting the fireplace and wrapping fish guts. And the repetition of such tripe tells me RB is not worth engaging.
There was an article in today’s WSJ about an auto parts manufacturer who opened a plant in Mexico that resulted in increased business for his plant in the US. An expanding Mexican economy will mean less illegal immigration. Tearing up NAFTA would be a mistake.
Kenneth,
Yes, the NYT and other MSM players still cannot perform business planning 101 and honestly consider why their market share, revenue, brand value, etc. are tanking.
HaroldW (Comment #155645)
Harold, thanks for the link. After a fast read I see a SST to SAT fudge factor discussed and using the RCP 8.5 scenario. I did not see the time estimated to reach the equilibrium temperature. Harold you are a careful reader. What was your take on a quick read. Look forward to Inc Lewis and/or Steve McIntyre doing an analysis.
SteveF, the NYT is a bible for lots of liberals I know, just like Rush Limbaugh is for some conservatives who have given thinking for themselves.
There are different arguments with trade agreements. I have been a free trade defender almost forever. Given the outcome of this election I think a minor “nuance” needs to be more carefully considered. Many people including myself use a simple measure, if it increases GDP over time then it is a win. This is a very strong argument. I think we just heard from a lot of people whose personal GDP does not increase with free trade, perhaps it is just a scapegoat argument.
GDP also increases if we didn’t have that bothersome social security, medicare, or food stamps. Something has to be done about the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector or the social turmoil is going to continue. Apple has $231B in cash, they could have survived with on shore manufacturing, for example.
I’m not an expert here, automation has probably removed more jobs by far than off shoring. The last thing a Trumpster typically wants is government handouts.
Make no mistake, the same voting block will likely decide the next election and is up for grabs. There are times when uber capitalism should be restrained for better social outcomes that are not measured by GDP. Do I sound like a socialist now? Someone give me a gun and a bullet.
I grew up in WV and have lived in FL for the last 30 years, I know what 30 years of no progress looks like compared to progress. It’s been uneven. That doesn’t mean it was unfair, but it also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do something about it. It’s unclear what to do.
The NYT (just like my local Tampa Bay Times) is an excellent newspaper, except when they cover red/blue tribal topics in which case they lose their way. Their coverage of the anthrax attacks after 9/11 for example was by far better than anyone.
NYT Public Editor: Want to Know What America’s Thinking? Try Asking
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/public-editor/want-to-know-what-americas-thinking-try-asking.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthe-public-editor&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0
Kenneth,
Given up thinking is the common thread. The melting ‘snowflakes’ marching to protest an election outcome obviously never learned to think in the first place. Elections have consequences, as does a very broken educational system.
I’m pretty sure the new ECS model was written by the same people responsible for the recent Brexit / US election polling models.
I was a free trade supporter for a long time, but now I have my doubts. As near as I can tell, the standard pro free trade arguments are for economies at equilibrium. So they may reasonably apply to trade between the states, or between the U.S. and Canada. But the economies of Mexico or China and the U.S. are obviously not at equilibrium, so I doubt the usual arguments apply. It seems to me that free trade between economies at very different levels of development moves them towards equilibrium with each other. That would make the richer country poorer and the poorer country richer. The latter is fine with me, but not at the sacrifice of our own citizens’ lives. But maybe I am thinking too much like a chemist.
.
I realize that economics is not a zero sum game and that trade can make both countries richer. My point is not to deny that, but to recognize that there would also seem to be an aspect of trade that consists of a zero sum transfer. So it is not clear that trade always benefits both trading partners. That is especially true when there are powerful entities (multinational companies) that are on both sides of the transaction, i.e., trading with themselves.
Kenneth Fritsch (#155665) –
I haven’t read the paper yet (although I’ve downloaded it and hope to read it this weekend). But I thought the reaction was interesting. There are some who cheer reflexively for any paper or computer program which predicts disaster, and others who are more thoughtful. Annan is one of the latter group.
My local paper, The Chicago Tribune is in my view not even a good newspaper. I subscribe to it because She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed wants to read it. The headlines of articles do not even support the details below it. Sometimes the most important and counter point part of the article is left as the last line or paragraph. Like 60 Minutes on TV I am certain that many articles in the Tribune start with a conclusion and then go backwards to obtain evidence for it. When you know more about a particular topic than the journalist writing about it is rather easy to see this approach being used. It is a lot like the adversarial lawyer’s arguments where you can get a brilliant argument for one side but nothing on the other. Nothing particularly wrong with this if, like the case of the lawyer, we are told that this is how the system works. The problem with newspapers and network TV is that the claim and expectations of, at least some people, that the facts are being presented and the reader is intelligent enough to make her/his own conclusions is really not borne out with the kind of reporting I see.
The Chicago Tribune picks political candidates for electoral offices and even has a little compact list for the voter to take into the voting booth. I have written to them about how patronizing this is of its readers and in effect a putdown of their intelligence and awareness of the facts of the election.
Most younger people get there news from the electronic media and it is the older generations that keep traditional TV and Newspapers in business. Most of that attraction with older people, in my view as one of them, is that they like to continue doing things as they did in the past. Without that morning paper and a cup of coffee or the Sunday night watch of 60 Minutes their world would change dramatically.
WGN is a radio station that had many older listeners and some would call into a talk show and asked inane advice from the host about everyday life situations. Other stations with younger audiences would make great fun of these shows. Most of these stations have given up on the older generations but I think that network TV and major newspapers are stuck with them and are just as patronizing of them as ever.
The internet can provide more information from all sides of an issue if the users are sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable to use their own judgment about the information they are obtaining. It is there that I see some hope for the future for more independent thought even when realizing that the internet can also more readily accommodate group think.
Kenneth Fritsch: “Nothing particularly wrong with this if, like the case of the lawyer, we are told that this is how the system works. The problem with newspapers and network TV is that the claim and expectations of, at least some people, that the facts are being presented … The internet can provide more information from all sides of an issue”
.
I think that the idea of an impartial press is relatively recent, roughly mid-20th century. It used to be that newspapers made no pretense of being impartial, every city had multiple newspapers, and if you wanted more than one side, you bought more than one newspaper. The ideal of impartiality seems to have been associated with the consolidation of the media into 3 networks and a small number of major media; I suppose it was partially driven by the need to justify near monopolies.
.
Of course, the near monopolies led to group think, which led to hidden biases and finally to open bias. And now they will pass from the scene as the internet takes on the role filled by all those newspapers of a century ago.
The key is how do you know when you are being fed an agenda, and when are you not? If you can’t tell the difference then you lose trust. 60 minutes is a good example. I watched it for years and thought it was great stuff…until they covered a subject I had in depth knowledge on…and it was a total slant job. Distressing. Editors are responsible for not violating user’s trust. If you read what the NYT’s editors have to say (hint: don’t), then you know what the problem is there. They need to get out of the “make the world better through social change” by using media influence business. Unfortunately red meat sells newspapers.
Kenneth,
The claimed warming in that paper is (of course) tilted by assuming the worst case 8.5 scenario… which is very unlikely. The other weakness is (based on only a quick look) that the sensitivity is from ancient paleo data analysis, which is always an eye-roller… I mean how do you account for a different alignment of the continents, ocean passage through what is now Panama, different mountain heights, etc. It seems to me mostly mambo-jumbo; James Annan is right to be… ahem… skeptical. I think this kind of paper gets published only to help maintain the ‘credibility’ of extreme sensitivity, which is the principle basis for alarm, and is mostly a reaction to recent empirical studies showing sensitivity near the low end of the IPCC range (1.5 to 4.5). I expect at some point Nic Lewis or Steve Mc will review it and point out its weaknesses… but that is a bit beside the point. The issue is publishing more truly scary projections for the alarmed to cite as ‘balancing’ low empirical estimates, not how credible the scary projections are.
Kenneth, I used to get calls from Tribune salesmen, and I told them that I just read the paper on the website for free.
Sun-Times seems to be a better paper.
Tom Scharf,
60 Minutes report on unintended acceleration did it for me, although it was more of a last straw than an epiphany.
The only Republican nominee to support Trump was the one who saw the Clintons’ corruption up close.
This is funny:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2016/11/10/donald-trump-and-the-new-morlock-nation/
PLOS.org evidently ran post titled “Donald Trump and the New Morlock Nation “. It’s gone.
Lucia,
It’s funny in a pretty sad way. So the gal thinks I must be stooopid…. based only on how I held my nose and chose between two very flawed candidates. Based on that rant, I am pretty sure she is neither very smart nor much able to evaluate intelligence in others. Someone at least a little smarter than her must have insisted it come down.
I don’t think “Ricki, Ph.D.” grasped that the scenenario she was describing was going to come off as denigrating. Reading comments, she seemed to think it was just some sort of neutral hypothetical noting she started out talking about plants.
Lucia,
Thanks for directing my attention to the comments. It’s a lot funnier now. 🙂
It is not a ridiculous argument. She just repeated The Bell Curve.
I was expecting her to at least be clever about it, and say that the Trump supporters are more likely to be reproducing because they are happy with the election results.
For all the terrible things Chris Cillizza has written this year, this has to be the worst:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/the-remarkably-thin-democratic-bench-just-got-badly-exposed/
Biden would have wiped the floor with Trump, that I have no doubt. He was also wise to not run if he wanted to have some actual fun times in the rest of his life. Clinton was probably the only person Trump was going to beat. Although I think one thing we learned here is most people will vote for a turnip if it has the correct letter by its name, which isn’t as crazy as it sounds.
Dear Lord. Having to endure a cRaZY Uncle Joe campaign and presidency would have sent me right over the precipice.
Andrew
Amusing in a very morbid way:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/11/video-shows-group-beating-man-in-chicago-yelling-you-voted-trump-and-dont-vote-trump/
Let’s all pretend for a second what would happen if it was Trump supporters beating up a Muslim who voted for HRC. I think it would be getting a little wider exposure. Sigh.
Tom,
.
I worry about incidents like this. Sooner or later, I think it’s conceivable that Trump supporters will start to hit back. Mainstream media will seize on this as proof of the violent and racist nature of Trump supporters.
.
I’m starting to think I need a concealed carry permit and a personal webcam like the sort cops wear.
Tom, I don’t see how he beats Hillary in the primary.
For both Biden and Bernie, they have their own crazy factor.
Biden’s would probably be outweighed by Trump.
SteveF (#155680), Kenneth(#155664) –
Well, I’ve done a quick read of Friedrich et al. As SteveF says, they’re using RCP8.5 for projections, which tells me to skip that part. So let’s move on to the sensitivity which they calculate.
First, a quick numbers check. Their main result concerns ECS, but they adjust for a bulk heat capacity for the ocean and derive a transient response (TCRP) of ~0.74 K/(Wm-2). CMIP5 forcing figures have current forcing at 2.4 Wm-2, from which one can expect that current temperature anomaly is ~1.8 K. Hmmm…not a good match with observations. They say their value of TCRP “is in good agreement with a recent estimate for the transient climate response” (citing Rohling et al., “Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity”, Nature 2012). That paper was new to me, but its conclusion is “a fast feedback (Charney) climate sensitivity between 0.8 and 1.0 K W-1m2”. But that’s ECS, so they should be comparing to Friedrich’s estimate of S, which was 1.32 K W-1m2. Hmmm…not such a good agreement. [Aside: how did the peer reviewers miss that one? Or am I off-base here?]
The needle is moving in the wrong direction, but let’s press on. The method involves comparing proxies (often alkenones) to the output of a climate simulation sampled near the proxies’ location, over multiple glacial-interglacial cycles, about 700 Ka. In the Supplementary Materials, Figure S2 contains 14 such comparisons, color-coding blue for proxies, red for simulation. Graph (A) (ODP982, subpolar North Atlantic) shows proxies varying from 9-16 °C, simulation ranged over 8.5-13.5 °C. But Friedrich shifts and re-scales axes to make the two curves line up quite neatly. (B) is IODP306, also subpolar North Atlantic, proxies range 8-20 °C, simulation 16-18 °C. Again, the rescaling of axes, in this case 6:1, and the curves match well. (C) is ODP1082, subtropical South Atlantic, proxy range 15-21 °C, simulation 27.4-28.6 °C, scale factor 5:1. (D) is ODP1090, subpolar South Atlantic, proxy range 4-16 °C, simulation 7-11.5 °C, scale 3:1. (E) is OPD1143, South China Sea, proxy range 25-29 °C, simulation 27.4-28.6 °C, scale 3:1. At this point that I could not continue to suspend disbelief; it requires a greater mind than I to believe that the simulation is representative of reality. [I will also confess that I stopped believing in Tinkerbell, thus I feel partially responsible for her current state of ill health.]
Bottom line — I’m with Annan on this one. Case not proven.
Using RCP8.5 sure seems to be a primary indicator of propaganda. It was low probability to begin with and with Paris, China, and the shale revolution one would expect that the default assumptions would change. It would be interesting to know if they attempted to justify the use of RCP8.5?
HaroldW,
Thanks for that summary. I had thought they covered a wider range of time.
“Aside: how did the peer reviewers miss that one? Or am I off-base here?”
.
Shorter answer: the reviewers were not looking for accuracy. Longer answer: the search for dramatic scare stories to be published in ‘scientific’ journals about global warming never ends, and never will. It’s politics.
Tom Scharf: “It would be interesting to know if they attempted to justify the use of RCP8.5”
No justification, it was just thrown out there. No other RCPs were mentioned.
HaroldW,
Climate models have negligible regional skill. Using a simulation, i.e. model, to estimate local temperature behavior is not valid.
Why should we consider the exit polls as more reliable than the rest of the polls?
People are reporting Trump did better among Hispanics than Romney, but it is 29% vs 27% well within the margin of error. Same with blacks, though this is a larger difference.
Latino Decisions is declaring that they have a larger poll showing a much smaller level of support for Trump. However, should we consider that there might be shy Trump supporters who won’t say Trump in a poll taken by ‘Latino Decisions’? Similarly the black vote in exit polls is reported as 83-8. Perhaps it is more like 83-14.
HaroldW (Comment #155645)
Harold, I have taken some time to read the paper which you linked in the post referenced above. It uses in my view a rather complicated method for estimating cold and warm phase ECSs using paleo temperature reconstructions and climate models.
I have not been able to get my head completely around what the authors have done here but they adjust (scale) the surface air temperature (SAT) variations based on the proxy data for sea surface temperatures (SST) variations and on climate model data for SAT and SST for the locations of the proxies. They appear to obtain a single ratio. I have done some calculations in this area have found that the ratio of SAT to SST warming depends on the how much warming (cooling) has occurred and at what rate. I would suppose what the authors did would work if they were using only two points in time for their calculations but that does not appear what they did in my first readings of the paper.
What is readily observable and understood is the paper is titled: “Nonlinear climate sensitivity and its implications for future greenhouse warming” and indeed the authors found a non linear relationship that they describe with a quadratic polynomial fit. The scatter plot showing the non linear trend of SAT anomaly versus radiative forcing anomaly is shown in Figure 3 of the paper. I was going to blow-up that graph and link to it this post, but my scanner was not working this morning so I would advise those with older vision like mine to look at the graph blown up in a pdf file.
Now look at the non linearity of the scatter points including those above the so-called cold phase and intermediate phase and into the warm phase. It is apparent that the non linearity of the polynomial fit was not extrapolated into the warm phase. I had to wonder why after calling the attention to the non linearity of the ECS that the authors would use a linear fit for 2 segments of the curve.
To my eyes it appears that a non linear fit to all the observed data would have the temperature (SAT) rising at an ever accelerating rate and asymptotically approaching a forcing not much beyond what we already are experiencing with (gasp) run away temperatures. I would like other opinions on my view of that graph and data but if I am correct I have to speculate that the authors did not want to show that their data and methods resulted in absurd conclusions or were afraid to tell its readers that the end is near and mitigation would have to turn to geoengineering in the form of an immediate application of aerosols to the atmospheres.
Kenneth,
“I have to speculate that the authors did not want to show that their data and methods resulted in absurd conclusions or were afraid to tell its readers that the end is near and mitigation would have to turn to geoengineering in the form of an immediate application of aerosols to the atmospheres.”
.
The relative stability of temperatures over most of the last 30+million years, in spite of (likely) relatively high CO2 levels suggests that very high (‘run-away’) sensitivity is likely wrong. The authors certainly are aware of this.
HaroldW I just looked upstream here and saw your post describing what you read in the paper. I think in view of that I should direct my question to you and your take on my view of that scatter plot in the paper. I would have been delighted to have the data that the authors used for that scatter plot to do my own non linear fitting. Maybe I should do an email to them.
Kenneth,
There are free-ware programs which let you digitize a scatter plot pretty easily. (eg plotdigitizer.sourceforge.net)
.
You add a tiny bit of uncertainty through the digitizing process, but I have found it quite accurate if you are reasonably careful. And a lot easier than trying to extract teeth from a (climate scientist) hen.
Thanks, Steve, I’ll give those programs a shot.
I do like to get a discussion going with the authors of some these papers as it gives insight into their thinking and what they know about a topic. I cannot recall being turned down by any authors. Most of the communications were shut down after I asked “too” many questions in subsequent emails.
SteveF, I downloaded a couple of plot digitizer programs and both would require me blowing up the scanned plot such that I could distinguish the individual dots and then I would have to put a mouse pointer on everyone. I am too retired (lazy) to do this before I give the corresponding author a shot at giving me the data. I just sent him an email.
Kenneth Fritsch –
I agree with asking the authors for data. No guarantees they’ll send it, of course, but I’ve had generally good responses.
The paper contains this statement:
I was surprised that the supplemental information was so sparse.
It would have been a simple matter to supply both proxy data and simulation data. Perhaps the proxy data is available if one reads each cited paper and follows to an archive. And perhaps the simulation data is all archived or derivable. But it is inconsiderate to any readers not to provide the information in a digest. [Or a turnkey script.]
Harold, I was also disappointed in the supplemental information provided by the authors. I have been looking at the proxy data from individual temperature reconstructions – as that is always a starting point for me in analyzing these papers. The papers often do not get into the details of the individual proxy/reconstruction nor discuss any inconsistencies found there.
Obtaining and adjusting the temperature and forcing data that went into the Figure 3 scatter plot would be a monumental task (at least for me) and prone to error. I do have another route if the authors do not provide the data and that would require me to digitilize, not the scatter plot, but the plots from Figure 2 that lists the global SAT and radiative forcing anomalies.
MikeN,
The sample size in exit polls is a whole lot larger. The estimate was 85,000 people polled at 1,000 precincts and an additional 16,000 people by telephone to take care of early voting. A sample size of 100,000 means a confidence interval of plus or minus 0.3%. So a difference of 2% should be highly significant.
Kenneth Fritsch –
I was a little curious about data availability, so I checked out their archive for the long (~800 Kyr) simulation. I found the file, which recorded simulated surface temp averaged over 1000-year intervals, on a 32 (lat) x 64 (long) grid. Which surprised me because the LOVECLIM description mentions 3° by 3° ocean horizontal resolution; the archived data is much coarser. Also, there apparently is a polar keyhole: latitude cells are spaced apart 5.5 or 5.6 degrees, but 32 lat cells uniformly spaced would be 5.67 apart. The extreme-lat cells are designated as 84.8 degrees, suggesting a keyhole for the last couple of degrees. Not a big thing — no proxies are there — but one might expect an explanation in the file’s metadata.
Here’s a self-assessment of LOVECLIM (same source as above):
The ad hoc compensations in Friedrich et al. do not convince me in the least, especially when contrasted with the ECS for the LOVECLIM model given in AR5 (WG1 Table 9.6), which is 2.0 °C/doubling. Just under that table is written, “There is thus still low confidence that the regional LGM model-data comparisons can be used to evaluate model climate sensitivity.”
Harold, I think the authors might argue that they are estimating a non linear ECS that changes with background state and that the model ECS may well be estimated as some average for a different temperature range. The paper also notes”the model simulation tends to underestimate the magnitude of temporal SST variability..”. I suppose that underestimation means it is different than that obtained from the proxies.
It is my opinion that there are a number of assumptions and adjustments in the paper that in and by itself makes the conclusions very uncertain.
DeWitt, I think samples lied to the pollsters. The shy Trump voter I think is real, and I submit as evidence my predictions for the election result, calculated with that assumption.
I think it is reasonable to think exit polls are more reliable than Latino Decisions, which also claims a very large sample. However, I think the shy Trump voter is still in effect in the exit polls, particularly with black voters.
MikeN,
Given what happened to some Trump voters, it would make sense to lie. New Jersey had the largest discrepancy between exit polls and actual results. It still went for Clinton, but by about half the margin predicted from exit polls. There are some flaws in the system too. For one thing, they ask too many questions. I doubt I would stop and answer twenty or more questions. They’re probably still under-sampling early voters too, and the response rate for phone polls is notoriously low.
I can see lying about who you voted for, but if you’re going to bother to answer the questions at all, I’m not sure you can use that for the other issues like the relative importance of the economy to terrorism or immigration.
I’m mostly skeptical of a topline number reported as 80-8 black vote, and 65-29 Hispanic. That is a larger ‘other’ than the overall election results for all voters.
Kenneth Fritsch (#156138) —
Yes, Figure S2 of the Friedrich paper shows that the variability of temperatures in the simulation is much less than that implied by the proxies, with examples going at least as high as 6:1. Figure S3 also shows the ratios clearly.
The LOVECLIM1.2 ECS cited in AR5 (2.0 K/doubling*) applies to the current state, so it should be comparable to S_warm of Friedrich, which is estimated there at 4.88 K/doubling. Their argument is that the model underestimates variability by a factor of Γ ~ 2 (compared to proxies), so one should multiply the model’s ECS by Γ as well. There’s also an adjustment for SAT-to-SST ratio, which factor (Ω) does not appear to be provided in the paper.
*Friedrich gives “~2.30 K” per doubling as the LOVECLIM model’s ECS, citing Tachikawa et al.. Looking at that reference, I couldn’t find any value of 2.3 there, but a 3.2 K per doubling for a related (iLove) model. Not sure how Friedrich came up with the 2.30 K value. If you’re corresponding with the authors, you might ask them.
HaroldW and SteveF, I have done two data extractions from the scatter plot in Figure 3 in the paper being analyzed here. In the first I extracted data from what I considered a representative sample of the individual dots from all the observed SAT versus forcing points. In the second I merely took points from the fitted quadratic curve where the yellow dotted line can be observed.
In both cases I obtained excellent fits of the data to quadratic polynomials. I extrapolated the fitted polynomials to 8 W/m^2 which is the radiative forcing anomaly at 2100 using scenario RCP 8.5. From that extrapolation the temperature anomaly derived for 2100 was from the first extraction 20 degrees C and from the second extraction it was 15 degrees C above the pre industrial (PI) mean. Extrapolating the authors linear regressed temperature for a 8W/m^2 that I see in Figure 3 results in a 10.6 degree C for the equilibrium temperature increase over the (PI) mean. (Please note that – given the ocean heat uptake – these values are not the predicted temperature increases for 2100 using the RCP 8.5 scenario).
The difference in the my two extractions may have something to do with my failure at taking a representative sample from all the points in my first extraction, or more likely as view things that the authors yellow fitted polynomial curve did not use the data in the warm region. In order to convert these results to a TCR and what the temperature in 2100 would be predicted from these derived SAT/Forcing curves requires an adjustment for ocean heat uptake efficiency. Using the RCP 8.5 scenario those temperatures in degrees C above the PI mean are 5.9, 7.1 and 8, respectively, for the linear regression extrapolation in the paper under discussion, for extrapolation of the quadratic polynomial determined from my second data extraction and for the extrapolation of the quadratic polynomial determined from my first data extraction. These are back of the envelop calculations but my calculation agrees with the authors derived 5.9 degree C value.
I have not as yet heard from the corresponding author and if this exercise is even approximately correct I somehow think I may have already asked too many questions to get answers and data.
Kenneth,
Thanks for the update. How many data points are there on the graph you want to digitize?
The authors conclude a TCR of 5.9C in 2100? YIKES!
.
OK so lets see…5.9C above pre-industrial means something like 4.8 above today. 4.8 C/8.3 decades = 0.58 C per decade… four times the rate of warming over the past 40 years. I wonder if the authors really believe that… I sure don’t. That conclusion doesn’t even pass the ‘giggle test’.
Kenneth, HaroldW,
The biggest weakness of the paper is that the authors assume their model of forcing changes do to ice age/interglacial climate changes (ice albedo, dust, etc) over the past 780,000 years is a reasonable representation of what those forcing changes actually were.
.
I see no reason to believe their forcing models are correct, nor even close to it. IMO, it is just more of the same ‘scary story’ strategy ‘to capture the public’s imagination’ that climate scientists have been using for 25+ years.
.
We have actual instrument measurements of temperatures since the 19th century, and a reasonably good estimate of how forcing has changed since then (IPCC says 2.3 watts/M^2 is most likely); the best empirically estimated TCR is on the order of 1.4 C per doubling, not the crazy number the authors calculate (2.7C per doubling).
SteveF (#156205) —
If it makes you feel any better, their 2100 estimate for RCP6.0 (5.5 Wm-2 forcing in 2100) would be something like 4.1K above pre-industrial, or only 0.36 K/decade (2-3x recent rates). But RCP8.5 makes for more exciting numbers.
SteveF, I extracted 102 points for first extraction and 18 for my second. I am fairly certain that the authors did not use the warmest forcing/temperature data points in determining their quadratic polynomial fit and that is why their fit gives a delta T of 15 degrees C and mine where I use all the points gives a delta T of 20 degrees. They actually report their warming using an extrapolation of a linear fit which gives a delta T of 10.6 degrees C. I am also quite certain that the authors resorted to linear regression after claiming a non linear ECS so that their warming at year 2100 would not be absurd but just high enough to be believable (by some) but at the same time alarming. Also remember that extrapolating that quadratic polynomial fit beyond 2100 continues a warming at an ever accelerating rate.
I agree with you that using these temperature proxies over that time period leaves a lot of uncertainty in the results. Using the extreme temperatures through inter glacial periods does probably work better with these proxies where I would expect the percent error should at the extremes to be greatly reduced. My next step is to look at the individual temperature reconstructions used in the paper. That analysis usually is in my view the most telling.
HaroldW,
Not much better. The choice of the 8.5 scenario for the headline blurbs is typical exaggeration. OK But more troubling is the lack of critical thinking by both the authors and the reviewers. The best and most reliable empirical data says the analysis in this paper is almost certainly wrong…. but that seems (yet again) to make no difference…. as always, an extreme projection is the only thing that seems to matter to climate scientists. Where were the reviewers who should have said ‘Wait a minute, empirical data makes these results implausible.’
I looked at the trend ratios for 35 CMIP5 RCP 8.5 models for global SAT and SST and found that ratio to be 1.44 with a standard error of 0.01 The ratios are very nearly the same for three period trends for the time of 1861-2100, 1970-2015 and 2016-2100. The same ratio of the LOVECLIM model used in the paper under discussion here was 1.95 which is 35% higher.
Note also that the ratio of the standard variations of the proxy SST to the modeled SST was 1.97 and the authors assumed that the proxy results are the truth or close to it and do so without any discussion of why the proxy variations are correct or perhaps that neither the models or the reconstructions are correct. A look at Figure S3 in the Supplemental Information shows that the ratios of standard deviations for 63 proxy to model comparisons vary from 6 to 1 and that even in closer proximity the ratios can vary significantly. That observation I would think would put some doubt in place about the accuracy of the proxy variations over 784,000 years of inter and maximum glacier events.
With the global temperature change over these 784 k years estimated from only 14 proxy sites and those sites varying considerable in variation over glacial periods, I would think that the authors would be required to make an estimate of the sampling error (from lack of spatial coverage) in their results. I see no indication of that being done in this paper. Unfortunately you will not see that estimate made in other temperature reconstructions.
I have been doing a careful reread of the Friedrich paper, and in particularly, in attempting to understand the methods used in that paper to estimate the uncertainty in the global SAT temperatures derived from only 14 proxy locations. I have just about given up attempting to figure out what the authors have done and how well the methods account for the sparseness of spatial representation. I understand, I think, the resampling they do but that will not alone determine spatial sampling error. Using PCA to reduce the dimensions and then basing the uncertainty on that analysis does not allow me to track the sampling error – or whether the effect is included in the analysis.
What is of interest is that earlier in the paper the authors parenthetically announced that all uncertainties that they presented in the paper are for plus/minus 1 standard deviation. Their uncertainty for the SAT temperature is reported as plus/minus 1.5 degree C. That is a huge uncertainty when considered as the more normal 95% confidence interval which in this case would be greater than plus/minus 3.0 degree C. The authors also add together standard deviations by straight addition and not in quadrature which should be the case if the standard deviations are from independent sources.
HaroldW, if you are still reading here I would like to hear what your take is on how the authors have dealt with the uncertainty estimation. The link below is to, in my view, a much better paper on this subject by Annan and Hargreaves:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/LGM_temp.pdf
I was also concerned about whether the RCP 8.5 CMIP5 SAT/SST ratios for 1861-2100 would be comparable to the PI-LGM warming, since the glacial ice fields in North America and Scandinavia in the LGM would have been much colder than the remainder of the globe. The Annan paper indicates that that cooling/warming has little effect of the global mean.