Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Archimid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Elon Musk predicted 1000km, OUR EV got 1200 on a single Charge

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 25, 2017, 06:40:31 PM »
I posted this in the wrong thread. Re-posting here where it belongs.

Mann and mainstream science assume that civilization is the default state of the world. They also assume humans are inherently different and apart from the rest of nature. That's why they can hold in their minds massive extinctions for the world while humanity suffers from linear and insignificant harm.

I don't think that is scientific at all. Modern civilization  has existed for only a few generations.  This whole thing is just an experiment that could fail at anytime. That's what the science and history indicates. Civilizations fail, animals go extinct. To survive this we will have to wrestle nature into submission.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: July 25, 2017, 06:38:46 PM »
I just realized I posted this in the wrong thread. It was meant for the Climate porn vs alarmism. I'm going to re-post it there. If anyone reply I'll answer there. My apologies to the gods that be.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: July 25, 2017, 06:33:14 PM »
Scientists Can See Zika Coming by Tracking the Climate

From the ashes of a devastating Zika virus outbreak last year, scientists are piecing together how it happened, and they’re using climate variables to get ahead of the next pandemic.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: July 25, 2017, 06:31:22 PM »
rboyd, at this point I believe geoengineering is inevitable. It is scary for sure, but no more so than climate change.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: July 25, 2017, 02:48:25 PM »
Mann and mainstream science assume that civilization is the default state of the world. They also assume humans are inherently different and apart from the rest of nature. That's why they can hold in their minds massive extinctions for the world while humanity suffers from linear and insignificant harm.

I don't think that is scientific at all. Modern civilization  has existed for only a few generations.  This whole thing is just an experiment that could fail at anytime. That's what the science and history indicates. Civilizations fail, animals go extinct. To survive this we will have to wrestle nature into submission.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: July 23, 2017, 01:52:49 PM »
Nice animation.

the progression of dust w/ historical hurricane formations for each month of the season.

Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: July 22, 2017, 09:26:40 PM »
Trump considers anyone who shares an opinion with him an expert. What a freaking fool.

Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: July 20, 2017, 05:06:48 PM »
I’m a scientist. I’m blowing the whistle on the Trump administration.

I am not a member of the deep state. I am not big government.

I am a scientist, a policy expert, a civil servant and a worried citizen. Reluctantly, as of today, I am also a whistleblower on an administration that chooses silence over science.

Nearly seven years ago, I came to work for the Interior Department, where, among other things, I’ve helped endangered communities in Alaska prepare for and adapt to a changing climate. But on June 15, I was one of about 50 senior department employees who received letters informing us of involuntary reassignments. Citing a need to “improve talent development, mission delivery and collaboration,” the letter informed me that I was reassigned to an unrelated job in the accounting office that collects royalty checks from fossil fuel companies.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: July 20, 2017, 03:59:09 PM »
Thank you Ned W.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 20, 2017, 12:17:00 AM »

Make NO MISTAKE....Donnie is "all in". 

He is not going to resign. To get what he wants he needs the GOP to surrender check and balances to him.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:50:15 PM »
I would be so surprised if we get another record hot year. My guess is that the 2016 record might not be broken for years or even decades if the Arctic holds. What will not happen is a reversion to mean temperatures. Temperatures will hover at late 00's, early 10's temperatures. I think we should maybe be putting that message out now to weaken the "No warming since 2016" bs that is soon going to start.

I really hope I'm not wrong about that.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 18, 2017, 01:12:17 PM »
Irational fear, bad. Rational fear, good.

There is plenty of reason to feel fear about climate change and that can be very good. Fear triggers a response. If the response is appropriate to the threat then fear helps us survive. If the response is  inappropriate it puts us in danger.

Remember a few years ago the Ebola scare?  People that succumb to their fear like Trump were calling for border closings. People that handle their fear appropriately like Obama called for a medical and educational response.  Because of this, the Ebola problem is under control. Imagine if we would have closed the borders and let Ebola spread around the world.

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 18, 2017, 02:41:00 AM »
Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

Why would people think things or repeat statements that are known to be false or irrelevant? I am convinced that for the vast majority of people, they are not intentionally being incorrect. Something must be forcing them to be wrong. What could that be? Why are people so willing to believe and repeat lies?

Google Robot factory raises sterile mosquitos, automated device will release a million per week

Verily, the life sciences arm of Google’s parent company Alphabet, will release about 20 million lab-made, bacteria-infected sterile mosquitoes upon Fresno, California.

Verily’s male mosquitoes were infected with the Wolbachia bacteria, which is harmless to humans, but when they mate with and infect their female counterparts, it makes their eggs unable to produce offspring.

Bonus, male mosquitoes don’t bite, so Fresno residents won’t have to worry about itching more than they usually would.

Note: I revived this thread to share this link. Couldn't find a better fit for it, but it certainly fits in this thread. I noticed most of the solutions  threads are energy related. That's understandable since energy is the main cause of the climate change problem and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Regrettably  prevention is already too late for some.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 16, 2017, 09:34:45 PM »
Let me see, Trump met with Russians who promised him dirt, Trump wins, then Trump fires the director of the FBI investigating the meetings and then says the Russians were not hacking and we should work with them in an international cybersecurity task force.

Yeah, just like Iraq.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: July 16, 2017, 02:46:54 AM »
More U.S. counties are finding Zika-carrying mosquitoes

Two types of mosquitoes are the primary transmitters of Zika, dengue, yellow fever and chikungunya viruses. Based on updated data collected through 2016, research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 38 additional counties -- primarily in Texas but as far north as Illinois -- documented the presence of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, Zika's main vector. That's an increase of 21 percent compared to an earlier 2016 survey.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: July 16, 2017, 12:14:26 AM »
‘The permafrost is dying’: Bethel sees increased shifting of roads and buildings

Along the main thoroughfare here, drivers brake for warped asphalt. Houses sink unevenly into the ground. Walls crack and doors stick. Utility poles tilt, sometimes at alarming angles.

Permafrost in and around Bethel is deteriorating and shrinking, even more quickly than most places in Alaska.

Since the first buildings out here, people have struggled with the freeze and thaw of the soils above the permafrost. Now those challenges are amplified.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 15, 2017, 03:21:42 AM »
On the flip side, the Pacific side SSTA's seem warmer in 2017. The Atlantic side seem cooler in 2017 but somehow more ominous.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 15, 2017, 02:54:25 AM »
The first attachment is from July 10 to July 14 of 2016. The second attachment the same dates but for 2017. They are both Nullschool Temp at 850 hPa. It looks warmer in 2016. 

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 14, 2017, 04:03:10 PM »
The absolute best reward for someone sounding the alarm for climate change is that in 30 years the adaptation and mitigation of climate change was so good that it is no longer a problem.

Ideally, 50 years from now an uneducated 30 year old would read the W-W article and laugh, because climate as he knows it is a solved problem. He would read the predictions of doom and think us stupid. That is a total and complete success for a climate change alarmist. 

Science / Re: "climate porn" vs. "not alarmed enough"
« on: July 14, 2017, 02:47:23 PM »
From around 1976 to 2016 the Earth's temperature rose around 1C. With that 1 C rise glaciers disappeared, sea ice diminished, sea level rise accelerated, jet stream patterns changed, corals were devastated and both floods and drought became more extreme. At just 1C airplanes can't take off, heatwaves paralyzes cities, important infrastructure is burned, man made water barriers break, and the seasons lose their seasonality.

If that first 1C was merely sustained for the next 40 years all those things will get worse as natural patterns that existed for all human history degrade and break. But it is not likely to be sustained. It is likely to rise. The next 1C  will be different than the first 1C.  The irreversible changes that have already occurred at 1C will compound with the extra heat on the way to 2C to create even more irreversible change.

To me the paradise we live in is a result of billions of years worth of fortunate events. I believe life is  simply a way for a planet of our planet's composition and at our distance of the sun to lose energy into space. It is extremely unlikely that the events that lead to life on earth are repeated anywhere in the galaxy, perhaps the universe.

If life is iterated for 500 million years and the climate supports it, by pure dumb luck humans may emerge. If humans, like any other species, find themselves in a favorable environment the population grows until the environment is no longer favorable.

The beginning of the Holocene was a highly favorable environment for humans. The planet was warm enough to be mostly ice free, but not too hot as to contain too many uninhabitable zones. Humans had been around for hundreds of thousand of years, so they had accumulated some knowledge. The fact that the temperatures remained about the same for the next 10,000 years provided a favorable environment for long enough for humans to settle and grow into the dominant species of the planet. All a happy coincidence.

By taking energy stored in millions of years worth of ancient forests and dead dinosaurs and use it to grow our civilization we changed the chemistry and energy balance of our lucky utopia. We changed it haphazardly and thinking that we could change the Earth indefinitely. What will be the result of our changes? Chances heavily favor bad results.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 13, 2017, 03:28:06 AM »
The new FBI Director, Christopher Wray believes that Mueller is not conducting a 'Witch Hunt':

"Wray Says Russia Probe Not a ‘Witch Hunt,’ Pledges ‘Independent’ FBI"

What do they expect him to say?

"I will end all investigations regarding Trump. That was the plan all along."

or perhaps:

"I am loyal to Trump not the constitution."

Is not like Trump picks have credibility. The National Security Advisor was sacked for lying, the Attorney general lied under oath, let's not even mention the in laws. These people will say anything that saves their skin.

I went up to 3.5 to 4.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 10, 2017, 01:54:58 PM »
Funny how 2010 has the record PIOMAS volume loss (virtually tied with 2012). I imagine that was at least in part due to the loss of the old ice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 10, 2017, 01:43:08 PM »
Recent temperature anomalies from the lower atmosphere and around the tropopause from N60 to N82 according to:

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 09, 2017, 08:48:59 PM »

"I'm DUMBFOUNDED" Sen. Lindsey Graham ANGRY Reaction To Trump's Putin TWEET

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: July 09, 2017, 08:47:37 PM »
 I wonder for how long those particles will remain in the atmosphere? That looks like a lot of force.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 09, 2017, 08:38:41 PM »
Trump tweet.

"Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded.."

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 08, 2017, 10:10:29 PM »
Let me see, publicly egg on Russia to hack the elections and after the win, forgive everything. The collusion is clear. Trump will destroy the American security apparatus and delivery it into the hands of Putin.  He is doing it in such an in your face way that people are dumbfounded.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 08, 2017, 04:21:59 PM »
This melting season looks to me like a recovery year. Compared to 2016 there seems to be a lot less energy accumulated in the atmosphere and the Atlantic ocean side. The Pacific Ocean side looks worse than last year inside the basin, but the Pacific Ocean looks a little cooler. According to nullschool, the atmosphere above the ice seems also colder than last year by a significant margin. 

Yet the arctic is at near record low levels. I think that is due to the mild winter and subsequent thinner, younger ice. I think that to reach record low levels in extent double and triple century drops must happen in the next 3 weeks. That's unlikely but the thin ice is a big uncertainty.  I think that if the big drops happen or not, this melting season will finish early, grow strongly for a little then back to the new normal timid growth.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: July 07, 2017, 09:54:51 PM »
Thank you VeliAlbertKallio. That a was a great post.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 07, 2017, 02:02:05 AM »
Clapper: ‘No Evidence Whatsoever’ Anyone But Russia Meddled In Election

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Thursday said he saw no evidence that any entity except Russia interfered in the 2016 election, despite President Donald Trump’s equivocation on the matter.

“As far as others doing this, well, that’s news to me,” Clapper said on CNN. “We saw no evidence whatsoever there was anyone involved in this other than the Russians.”

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 06, 2017, 07:30:00 PM »
Can you imagine the world we would live in if we applied the same standard of law to the governors that we apply to the citizens? The horror.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 06, 2017, 12:34:00 AM »
Zeug if you think for a split second that Trump's brand of isolationism will lead to less wars, you haven't been paying attention. Trump requested a 10% military budget increase and is looking for a fight. Anyone will do. He needs more wars, more imaginary monsters to scare the people so he can offer them protection.

Trumps brand of isolation is mainly political (away from Europe and democracy and towards kleptocratic governments) and economical (trade wars).

About the cost of war. IMHO the Afganistan war was justified and backed by the whole world. Getting Bin Laden had to be done and the Taliban wasn't having it. The US had to act. That Bin Laden was eventually caught in Pakistan by Obama without a war, is a whole different topic.

 The Iraq war was a great act of aggression by the United States, a war fought under false premises, without global agreement. After seeing the little bit I saw of it I'm convinced that the Iraq war was a crime against humanity. People like Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld should be tried for those crimes. The world is still dealing with the disastrous consequences of that war.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 05, 2017, 05:42:48 PM »

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 05, 2017, 03:36:55 AM »
Sea Surface Temperatures anomalies 2016 vs 2017.


The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 05, 2017, 03:01:17 AM »
The proof is in the Putin. So far Trump is maneuvering the US towards isolation. Trump has kissed up to Putin in a manner that defies belief. Trump has fought Obama sanctions and congressional  sanctions for the Russian meddling. Trump has publicly declare admiration for Putin at every chance he gets. Trump even publicly and proudly declared that he hoped the Russians hacked the elections.

Everything indicates that Trump has been closely coordinating with Russia for some form of 21st century cooperation. So far the only thing I have seen the US potentially gain is access to oil for Exxon. The US, through Trump is giving up it's place in the world, is pushing our allies away and closing up to the rest of the world. Oh, I nearly forgot, and is letting Russia have millions of miles of new coasts through rabid climate change denial.

Does that sounds like a good deal for the US? Of course not, but I bet it is a fantastic deal for Trump. Plenty of evidence indicates that Trump is going to receiving serious emoluments for destroying the US, and through climate change, the world.

I seriously think that these two madmen either severely underestimate how climate change will affect them personally or they know what's coming.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 03, 2017, 12:06:39 PM »
I'm still waiting for your standard for evidence in an international, cybernetic and highly political issue. There is nothing you will consider evidence of something you don't want people to believe.

I'm still waiting.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 03, 2017, 03:01:00 AM »
Saw this at Reddit, I thought you might appreciate it. It is a novel visualization of Global, Arctic and Antarctic sea ice area from 1978 til present.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 03, 2017, 12:15:22 AM »
Terry, those are indeed the three possibilities, but #2 is not real. Russian agencies have a cyber security corps that rivals that of the NSA and Trump's accomplices did everything they could to hide the trail. The trail doesn't even have to be invisible, if it is just not usable in court, it is secure enough.

I think option 3 is the most likely one, the NSA, FBI and all involved agencies have evidence, mostly circumstantial, but they will not release any of it unless they have enough to make a criminal case. And that is incredibly difficult in any case. In this case is even more difficult because as we have all seen, POTUS is obstructing justice and the GOP lacks the balls to defend the country.

The heated media environment created by Trump, and the avalanche of lies and misinformation launched by Trump and the right wing media complicates matters even further.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 02, 2017, 11:34:59 PM »
Of course Zeug, whatever you say. I'm still waiting for your standard for evidence in an international, cybernetic and highly political issue. There is nothing you will consider evidence of something you don't want people to believe.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 02, 2017, 04:05:22 PM »

An allegation, or a hypothesis for a science analogy, is not evidence of itself. You present evidence in support of an allegation, or a hypothesis, in order to prove the fact of the matter.

You are misleading again.

"An allegation, or a hypothesis for a science analogy, is not evidence of itself."

That is true.

"You present evidence in support of an allegation, "

And there is plenty of evidence to support the allegations: See Glenn Greenwald's link I posted above for the most clear of them all:

That is a report by the NSA, reported by Glenn Greenwald, where the hacking attempts are presented as clear as possible. Top get better evidence than that you will need the actual bits of the computer systems in questions and several degrees in computer science. There is no doubt about it. Russia attempted to hack the US elections.

I know your fallacious argument. You are now going to claim that report is not evidence, that is just an allegation by the NSA, followed by an allegation by Glenn Greenwald. If this was a scientific debate you would have a point, but this is no scientific debate. This is a legal and political debate about top secret spying activities. Evidence will not have the same standard as an open scientific debate.  You maliciously exploit that fact to confuse others.

That's why I challenge you to give me an example of what you consider evidence. My bet is no evidence will be good enough for you.  NONE. In the same token there will be no source that could possibly convince you otherwise. NONE. You go ahead insult me all you want, I know exactly what you are doing. 
For the obstruction charges there is even more evidence, there are public confessions from Trump himself, and the actions that Trump has taken speak for themselves. The thing is, these actions and confessions are so in your face and open that they almost become normal. 

Here is Trump confessing to firing Comey for the Russia investigation:

Is a confession evidence? I imagine that according to your fallacious logic a confession is just an allegation.

The collusion charges are the real tough ones. It is clear that there is no evidence of collusion that directly involve Trump. That is perfectly expected. Trump uses other people to commit crimes for him. I bet his tiny hands are clean. However, those surrounding Trump seem to be dirty as hell, starting with Flynn, who is by all definitions a criminal.  Following Trump you have Page, Manaforte, Kushner. The allegations against all of them are very damning, but there is yet no clear evidence of collusion, but there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence.  Maybe through the course of the ongoing investigation evidence emerges, but it will be tough to find it.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: July 02, 2017, 12:07:23 AM »
Science division of White House office no longer staffed: report

The science division of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy reportedly had no staff members as of Friday.

Sources told CBS News that the last employees in the division, three holdovers from former President Obama's administration, all left the White House this week.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 01, 2017, 09:16:16 PM »
There are consequences for exaggerating the story*. There are worse consequences for ignoring the truth. 

The truth as I see it is that Trump plan is a coincidence of interests between Russian/oil interests and confederate flag waving Americans. He took maximum advantage of that coincidence and is now delivering for both. A small but significant minority of Americans stand to gain a lot, most Americans will lose and the usual minorities will lose everything. The world will continue on.

* only for honest people, crooks like Trump can exaggerate to their heart's content. They cover up lies with more lies. Fake gold everywhere.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 01, 2017, 07:44:33 PM »
Neven, hacking voting machines, hacking private servers of Secretaries of State, manipulating media and botnets are all parts of coordinated attempts to influence the elections.  From the reports, hacking voting machines was attempted but unsuccessful. Some methods had more success than others.

The point is not what method was used to swing the elections in favor of Trump, the point is that there were attempts at all. In different times this could have been an act of war.  That is not to say that the US is not guilty of doing very similar things and worse in free elections all over the world, specially in South America. They We are guilty of that for sure.

But that is not the world we want. Elections in every country must be held freely so that hopefully  the voices of the people are heard and the common good is served.

Even if the US is guilty of the crimes Russia committed, the practice must be stopped. Now is as good a time as any.

But leaving aside whether it was a hack or a leak, a hack by whom, etc, the content of what was released also counts for something, right? And it's the content that was so damaging to Clinton, with good reason. Why has this been glossed over so casually? Because the establishment controls the mainstream media.

She lost the election and if she wasn't one of the privileged she would have been in jail. Frankly, even now, even after this monster Trump is destroying so many people's lives and so many other
vital structures, I'm still glad Hillary lost. In my book that was a close a thing as divine justice as we'll get. In my book, she deserved to lose for two reasons only. She voted for the Iraq war and the patriot act.

The rest of what she did is trivial.

The point is that I don't care about who is doing it, whether it's ugly Trump or beautiful Obama. As a matter of fact, if Obama or Hillary would've won elections through collusion with some foreign agency, I'm pretty sure nobody would care. This annoys me to no end.

Well to be fair Obama didn't try to destroy alliances forged over decades of intimate cooperation. Obama also didn't collude to destroy science, Obama also didn't publicly asks for the Russians to  meddle with the elections.

Not at all, I can come up with a few names. People at The Intercept, for instance, like Glenn Greenwald. Journalists at The Guardian, who are known for this kind of work (Panama Papers, etc). There are plenty of good, independent journalists in Europe, and probably still some left at the WP or NYT. I don't know all of them.

I also admire Greenwald.  Here is what he had to say about Russian election hacking attempt:

Later Greenwald wrote another equally good piece, clearly scolding the media for being sensationalists. Obviously in this matter being sensationalist can be dangerous. Greenwald shines once more.

I think Greenwald is right in both accounts and I don't see any inconsistency between the two arguments. Russia did meddle in the elections and some of the media are reporting sensationalist news. Tell me something new. That is as expected, but the evidence (as good evidence as one can hope for in this case) is clear.

That's all. I'm not a Kremlin puppet

Since I don't know you, I assume that you might very well be. But if you are, your obvious primary mission is to get to the truth behind the rapidly vanishing Arctic sea ice and you are doing and excellent job. As such, you are the kind of Russian super secret agent that I like, even if we disagree. ;)

Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: July 01, 2017, 04:20:13 PM »
I think that if something like a red vs blue for climate change was done fairly, with authentic scientist, mathematicians, engineers and policy experts in both sides, plenty of time for rebutal, and public commentary welcomed,  the debate of climate change would be over. We could get on debating what to do about it and doing something about it.

But given the propensity of Trump and his accomplices to lie and deceive this might be just a farce. They'll load the dice on their favor. They'll get some luke warmers on the blue team and rabid deniers on the red team. The rules will also heavily favor the red team. I wouldn't be surprised if the referees are the Lamar Smith types.  At the end, they will deceivingly conclude that global warming is real and man made, but that no action is required. That way they get what they want. Delaying action to prolong profits.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 01, 2017, 03:53:06 PM »
I don't need video evidence of a Russian hacker sitting behind a computer hacking voting machines. I would need a variety of people to check the paper trail (just like scientists checking NASA data) and establish a discrepancy.

That is exactly what happens in the federal agencies. Analysts, agents, supervisors, lawyers and many other bureaucrats comb through the data and report it. Methods and proof are closely guarded for security reasons but the conclusion is public. In any other debate (except for climate change), the testimony of the collective works of the agencies is accepted as proof.

For example The NSA director says the Russians meddled in the elections:

The DNI director also said it happened:

The CIA director also said it happened:  (jump to 34:02)

Now you are saying all this people are lying in some elaborate deception that must necesarilly involved thousands of agents over many government agencies working independently and together.  I don't believe that for a second. 

So your litmus test, "I would need a variety of people to check the paper trail" is met, but to you the people checking the paper trail are lying.

You say
Investigative journalists with a proven track record, if they still exist.

So by your own admission, it is unlikely that a person with enough credibility exists for you to believe it. That could be interpreted as regardless of who say it, you won't believe it. I think you must examine your objectivity.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 01, 2017, 01:12:10 PM »
One more piece of "not evidence" to add to the pile. Remember kids, nothing happened here, ignore this and give good ole Trump the benefit of the doubt.

The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians

I’m writing this piece in the spirit of Benjamin Wittes’s account of his interactions with James Comey immediately following the New York Times story for which he acted as a source. The goal is to provide a fuller accounting of experiences which were thoroughly bizarre and which I did not fully understand until I read the Journal’s account of the episode yesterday. Indeed, I still do not fully understand the events I am going to describe, both what they reflected then or what they mean in retrospect. But I can lay out what happened, facts from which readers and investigators can draw their own conclusions.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 01, 2017, 12:47:14 PM »
I'm not sure you understand the difference between a factual proof based on evidence and a factoid based on hearsay, which is surprising since this arctic forum community is founded on a scientific approach to evidentiary proofs indicating the probable reality of ongoing anthropogenic climate change. It's the deniers who are reduced to misrepresentations and confusions about how science works and what constitutes a proof, its evidence and its probable factual truths.

When NASA says the Earth is warming I believe them. I'm sure they have no  "hard proof". They only have sparse instruments all over the world and in space that return what to me and almost everyone else are meaningless numbers. Some folks in a building and NASA get together and turn all those meaningless numbers into a model that produces a number which they call the Global Temperature. To climate change deniers that does not constitute proof. They say the models are wrong or that scientists can't be trusted or whatever excuse is convenient to them at the moment. To me it does constitute evidence.

It is the same with Russiagate evidence. There are multiple reports from multiple sources gathered by maybe thousands of people in the intelligence agencies. In some room, in some government building analysts get together and piece together all the sparse reports and secret evidence into a coherent picture. That coherent picture was deemed good enough to publicly call out Russia, enact sanctions, sack the National Security Adviser and initiate an official investigation.

To me that is as hard evidence as can be found. Yet to you that is not evidence. So I ask you again, since you conveniently avoiding answering the question, to give an example of what constitutes evidence in this case. For example you could say that evidence would be a video recording of a Russian sitting on his computer hacking away some election server. The video should include the screen recording of everything the Russian did. It should also have  a log of all outgoing traffic from the terminal, a trace of the steps that connect him to the election server, and verification from the server side that the action did have the effect wanted by the hacker. That would be iron clad proof. That would also be impossible to obtain. Even if it was obtained it would not be public.

But of course, since you do not trust the intelligence agencies, if they were to release such proof you would say it is fake. That level of proof must come from somewhere other than American or European intelligence agencies. What source would be acceptable to you? A confession by the hacker himself? Wikileaks? the Chinese? The KGB? What source would you trust in this matter?

The same for interference. I believe that asking for personal loyalty, firing the FBI director overseeing the investigation and then attempting to influence the testimony with intimidation is obstruction of justice. You obviously don't. Please tell me what is your standard for obstructing justice?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12