Streetwise Professor

September 17, 2020

The Projection Election

Filed under: Politics — cpirrong @ 6:11 pm

One of the Democratic drumbeats in the final days of the 2020 campaign is that Trump will refuse to concede the election, and that the military will have to evict him from the Oval Office. Indeed, the mannequin at the head of the ticket says that he is “absolutely convinced” that Trump will not concede and that the military will be needed to secure the transition of power.

This is pure projection. The Democrats have made it known publicly that unless Biden wins by a landslide, that the country will descend into civil chaos, with mass protests and rioting. This is something befitting Don Corleone: “Nice little country you got here. Shame if anything happened to it. Keep that in mind when you vote.” Particularly chilling in the aftermath of months of a twisted version of a Rodney Dangerfield joke: I went to a protest and a riot broke out. (Is that deliberate messaging?)

No, really. This is a thing. Operating under the Orwellian name of the “Transition Integrity Project,” leading Democratic figures (e.g., John “password is my password” Podesta), their funders (including He Who Shall Not Be Names Unless You Want to Be Called an Antisemite), and supposedly conservative fellow travelers (e.g., Bitter Bill Kristol) have “war gamed” (their phrase) four election scenarios. Only under the Biden landslide scenario does the country avoid a slide towards civil war.

The Hag of Chappaqua has also weighed in, croaking that Biden “should not concede under any circumstances.” Any circumstances.

The party has readied over 600 lawyers to descend on every contested state and major municipality on November 4. You think Florida 2000 was bad? What happened then and there will happen–only worse–in every state that Trump wins.

Wins on November 3, that is. One of the arguments will be that mail in votes have yet to arrive or be counted, thereby precluding declaration of a winner. This will give time to sow more chaos, pressure more judges, and maybe even manufacture more votes, a la Richard Daley for Kennedy in 1960 or “Landslide Lyndon” in the 1948 Texas Senate race.

Some have compared the TIP “war game” to the blueprint for “color revolutions” authored in 2005 by throne sniffing academic, and former pitiful ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. And indeed, the similarities are quite pronounced.

McFaul gave a wink and a nod on Twitter last week:

“Trump has lost the Intelligence Community. He has lost the State Department. He has lost the military. How can he continue to serve as our Commander in Chief?”

(I would link to the Tweet, but the little weasel blocked me in July 2016 for mocking (a) his nauseating defense of Hillary’s handling of her emails, and (b) his inability to master the incredible intricacies of Google to figure out who I am.)

In sum, the Democrats have broadcast, quite openly, their post-election plans. They argue a priori that Trump cannot win. If he gets more electoral votes, it’s because he cheated, or suppressed the vote, or hijacked the USPS, or on and on and on. That is, they reject anything but a decisive Harris-Biden—whoops, Biden-Harris–victory as illegitimate, and in the event will use any means necessary to make the White House a memory care facility.

All this talk about Trump not conceding, and having to be ejected by the military, is just preparing the battle space. When he contests their Operation Chaos, they’ll shout: “See, we told you! He isn’t leaving! He must be removed!” Gaslighting in its purest form. Projection in its purest form.

All of the hysteria over the USPS is another example of preparing the battle space.

You might argue that some Democrats have said that only if Trump doesn’t concede the election, military intervention would be required. But given that the Democrats clearly and openly reject any Trump victory as illegitimate a priori, such a contingency will arise under any scenario even where Trump can legitimately claim victory. Because the Democrats believe that “legitimate Trump victory” is an oxymoron.

In sum, the Democrats have clearly threatened–and continue to threaten–insurrection unless they win. Meaning, vote right. And if you don’t, your vote won’t count.

We are staring into an abyss. The past four months have just been a pale preview of what waits in store in November.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

46 Comments »

  1. I put in a good word with McFail for ya! You should be in any moment now

    Comment by The Pilot — September 17, 2020 @ 6:23 pm

  2. I’ve been thinking the same nightmare. The mail in votes are prime meat for false contest. November will be make-or-break time.

    The only winning scenario is if a Trump victory is so totally overwhelming that no mail-in recount chicanery will seem in any way plausibly credible.

    My nightmare includes that progressives are highly organized, even if poorly armed. The rational and the Trump supporters are heavily armed, but unorganized. If it’s groups swarming against individuals, the groups win.

    A possible counter is to station armed Federal marshals at every single voting place. With several hundred armed standby rapid-response teams stationed around the country ready to meet Antifa/BLM who attempt to violently interfere with the vote.

    And teams to inspect every post-office and count the vote-containing boxes. No votes allowed to appear after November 11, unless they’re from overseas military bases.

    I hope Trump and his team have some plan to preempt the plans to disrupt the vote.

    I don’t believe Trump “has lost the military.” The rank-and-file and, I believe, most of the officer corps support him. He’s done nothing but good for them. Trump has lost some generals and admirals, though (one such apparently lives in Trinidad, CA). One hopes some of them may receive a visit from a colonel or captain or two, who may speak clearly and forcefully to them about sedition and treason.

    I never thought I’d speak of the US in terms one once reserved for banana republics. The Progressive left is solely responsible for us having been brought to this state.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 17, 2020 @ 6:56 pm

  3. If the US shared the habits of France then 1789 – Civil War would be called the First Republic, Civil War to Woodrow Wilson the Second Republic. You are suggesting that the Third Republic is about to be overthrown (by force of arms, if needs be). Presumably the replacement regime will claim to be a Republic. After all Augustus claimed to be running a Republic.

    Anyway, this reminds me of the half-joking enquiry – is it better to be a crowned republic, like Britain, or an elective monarchy, like the US? If the “elective” part becomes hollow the question loses its point.

    Comment by dearieme — September 18, 2020 @ 5:34 am

  4. Yeah but Trump isn’t averse to a bit of ballot manipulation either, what with him imploring his supporters to vote twice. But I guess that’s okay because, err, he was joking?

    The question is, will you guys accept the result if Biden wins by anything other than a landslide? Magnanimous is the face of defeat? I very much doubt it. To be honest it’s a foregone conclusion there’s going to be trouble irrespective of the result.

    @Pat: Maybe you should offer up your services as an election invigilator (armed, of course). It might be a fun day out of the office – you may even get to shoot someone.

    Comment by David Mercer — September 18, 2020 @ 8:13 am

  5. I guess this one way to look at it. It’s not how I see it.
    I can’t watch Fox or One America News Network – without getting the hebbie-jeebies – though I probably should experience alternative realities more often – since I gave up Pot 35 years ago. However, I do get President Trump’s Twitter feed, and noticed the “imploring his supporters to vote twice.” A clever gambit he’s pulling – As David Mercer commented above.
    I thought when I read that – clever scoundrel – he’s setting up the stage to discount the election. He’s implanting the notion amongst his cadres – that he can’t lose fairly… by showing it could be done to vote twice – some joke – what a kidder! He’s discounting all the extra Covid-19 mail in ballots in advance. He’s making America – what again?
    So, what do I think in all this election maneuvering. The problem is primarily Trump. Not the feckless Democrats…

    Comment by howseth — September 18, 2020 @ 10:45 am

  6. The problem is primarily Trump. Not the feckless Democrats…

    I’d have less trouble accepting that if I had seen armed Republicans storming a Federal courthouse and attacking police officers, howseth. Even guys in MAGA hats, like the ones who attacked Jesse Smollett.

    Comment by dcardno — September 18, 2020 @ 11:33 am

  7. @The Pilot–What? You admit knowing him?

    Seriously, the guy is the most detestable type of academic. Supercilious yet slavish to those in power. I would seriously enjoy kicking his ass.

    Comment by cpirrong — September 18, 2020 @ 11:36 am

  8. Vote in person, the Democrats are just realizing too late, they screwed up and fell in to Trump’s trap-again, pushing mail in ballots, Trump took care of this three years go, are you willing to go to jail for vote fraud?

    That’s why you are seeing them tell everybody to vote in person.

    Real simple, vote in person, Trump gets 270 election night, declared the winner that night, game over. ( Trump will win MN, NM, NV, CO, NH and all four in ME, in addition to all the states he won in 2016, and has an outside chance in NY and NJ-scandalous I know)

    Comment by Joe Walker — September 18, 2020 @ 12:07 pm

  9. dcardno – You’re cherry picking your assaults – I mean c’mon man! – there are plenty of reports of right wingers armed with guns – and contributing to the mayhem (I’ve seen videos, but so what – anyone can find these to support whatever side you are taking. I’m not fan of violent protests and looting – I personally do not hate the police – and especially, after the protesters points of been made forcefully: There are conniving S.O.B’s where ever you look…and the identity politics has gotten extremely tiresome – but there is indeed inequities that need to be addressed – could we do it in America without the guns?

    Comment by howseth — September 18, 2020 @ 12:08 pm

  10. errr no… Biden is absolutely convinced that the military WOULD escort Trump from the WH IF Trump lost but didn’t accept the result. not WILL

    This is a massive difference, Mr. Professor. Pretty weak for a native speaker.

    Reading comprehension 0/10
    Partisan bile 10/10

    Try again

    Comment by [email protected] — September 18, 2020 @ 12:33 pm

  11. I’m glad someone over there is paying attention to this, and taking it seriously.

    The next question is, why are the Dems and the unspeakable Kristol-Frum rattle-throwers threatening to turn over the board if they are checkmated? If Trump wins again, they stand to lose everything – witness the increasing panic over Durham’s slow, methodical investigation (with Barr and Durham, Trump may finally have found his Grant and Sherman). And so they have nothing to lose by going full retard. Remember, they’ve already thrown everything they can at him, in increasing desperation, and none of it has left a mark.

    What is it that they are afraid that Durham will uncover? When is civil disorder a better alternative to losing to Trump? That’s the thread to pull.

    Seriously hoping the US comes through this. It’s going to be bumpy.

    Comment by Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break — September 18, 2020 @ 5:57 pm

  12. @Joe Walker,

    Some good Scotch talking there!

    Comment by The Pilot — September 18, 2020 @ 7:06 pm

  13. @4 David, you never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity to seem intelligent.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 19, 2020 @ 12:40 am

  14. SWP, it seems you’re deemed dangerous enough to be targeted by Dem (and dumb) trolls.

    Comment by Tatyana — September 19, 2020 @ 11:53 am

  15. Wow Craig just challenged Mike McFaul to a fight! (unless of course he meant he’d like to rhetorically kick his ass). Maybe I’ll PM Mike on Twitter to see if he’s up for it. I don’t know about any of you but I’d pay to watch that. Who knows, maybe a Vegas billing could be on the cards.

    @Pat: I meant to add that I was glad to hear you haven’t caught up in any of those conflagrations in Cali. That said I did wonder if you’d been out there shouting at people, Frank Drebin-like, that they had nothing to do with global warming.

    Comment by David Mercer — September 19, 2020 @ 11:58 am

  16. @15 David, none of the fires got near Stanford. But thanks for your good wishes.

    In other news (for you) the fires had nothing to do with global warming. It’s too funny, you thinking they did. No real surprise there, though.

    Warmer worlds have always been wetter worlds. Over all of geological history, David. Until climate models arrived. Then everything flipped, because warmer due to industrial activity is special warming. Industrial global warming behaves differently, because, well, capitalism.

    You know what caused the fires (apart from lightning and arson)? Fifty years of forest mismanagement caused by environmentalists using law to stop selective logging, stop brush clearing, and stop controlled burning.

    The fires were caused by people who think like you, David.

    And climate change? No one knows what they’re talking about. Not the IPCC, not Al Gore. No one. The whole AGW thing rests exclusively on climate models. And climate models can’t tell us anything about the effect, if any, of CO2 emissions on the climate.

    Any impact of CO2 is so tiny, that climate models can’t resolve it. And that’s a fact.

    I’ve recently looked at the most advanced CMIP6 models. They can’t tell us anything about CO2 emissions and the climate either.

    How is one to blame wild fires on global warming when one knows squat about causality? The recent warming is indistinguishable from natural variation. The Eemian was warmer than now. The Medieval bloody Warm Period was warmer than now. The Holocene Thermal Optimum (HTO) was much warmer than now, for more than 1000 years. Why didn’t everything go extinct 8000 years ago during the HTO? Especially the polar bears?

    And here’s a brain burner for you. You know all the science behind global warming? It’s non-existent.

    It’s pseudo-science all the way down, David. Climate models can’t predict climate. The global air temperature increase since 1900 is unknowable. Paleo air temperature reconstructions have no known connection to temperature. It’s that bad.

    Maybe you should get angry about being so thoroughly gulled.

    And angry about the thousands upon thousands of excess Winter fuel poverty deaths in the UK, with all the blame on your pointless insane energy policies. And angry about the greedy tax-farming fat cats making money from unsustainable unreliable expensive wind farms and PV solar. And angry about all the slashed birds and exploded bats.

    EnviroNGOs: the worst plague ever to hit humanity.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 19, 2020 @ 10:39 pm

  17. What is worrying is that beating the rioters back and some mass arrests of them after they refuse to concede the election will not change a damn thing long term. The American Left is utterly totalitarian, with its mainstream elected leadership like Schumer and Pelosi openly threatening violence should they not get their way. They differ from the Antifa thugs in tactics they use, they do not burn down businesses, but their mentality and end goals are the exact same. There is no going back from that.

    From university professors and medical professionals, through the Big Tech barons and upper echelons of Pentagon and intel agencies, to the press and Democratic politians, these illiberal scumbags simply refuse to accept that in democracy, you lose half the elections. You are out of power half the time and you have to suck it up. The apolitical people, who do not consistently vote for one side and thus decide the winner every time, simply get tired of the scandals and corruption that inevitably accompanies every administration, whether left-wing or right-wing. And after one or at most two elections vote for the other side or sit home, handing the opposition victory.

    And so what do you do with these elites once their brownshirts in the streets are arrested or beaten into submission? Their minds will not change, their hatred will not subside. I would rather be governed by local Communist Party than some supposed moderates in the oxymoronically named Democratic Party of today.

    I thought the best case scenario was America going the Israeli way, where after the 2nd Intifada, the Left made itself unelectable with its insistence on giving land to PalArab terrorists in exchange for promise of peace. That was so idiotic after the pullout from Gaza to almost anyone outside of Tel Aviv, Netanyahu was cruising to victory by simply declaring he opposes such course of action. But Israeli Left is nowhere near so violent and cannot rely on their fellow brownshirts sitting in DA offices and simply letting them back on street every time they get arrested…

    I do not see a way out of this that does not involve bloodbath. And I am not convinced even bloodbath in the streets would be enough, without a virtual complete purge of the illiberal, ends-justify-the-means ideology that drives these outbursts of violence from every major institution in the US.

    Comment by deith — September 21, 2020 @ 3:10 am

  18. Assuming that these are real (-ish) contingency plans for Biden, or the Democrats, or allies or whatever, then I have to assume that they are admitting to a real probability that they will not win the election.

    Which strikes me as being a distinctly peculiar stance to take, with under two months to go. Not exactly likely to appeal to the undecided, is it?

    Comment by Chris Oakes — September 21, 2020 @ 12:53 pm

  19. @Pat: You’re beginning to channel Trump, all this stuff about forestry management being the cause. Typical reductionist – and politically convenient – guff. Does this explain those parched (unforested) landscapes across California and beyond going up in flames? (or are you lumping anything with vegetation together as ‘forestry’?). Also, I thought the Federal govt was responsible for great swathes of forest in Cali/Oregon etc? If forest management is to blame, what’s been stopping you from getting on top of it these last four years?

    By the way, you forgot to include gender reveal parties as a cause. Are these a left thing too? I thought the American right loved any excuse to blow sh*t up.

    Comment by David Mercer — September 21, 2020 @ 1:08 pm

  20. @18 David, I’ve lived many decades in CA, remember? I’ve seen environmentalists use law to destroy logging, to prevent forest clearing on the grounds of endangered species, to stop controlled burns. The National Parks were exempt from such draconian enforcement and remained managed. Likewise some forests that are managed on NA reservations. See Jim Steele’s discussion here and Paul Driessen’s discussion, here.

    Jim Steele was Director of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus.

    In case you don’t know, much of central and southern California is semiarid. Ten-year droughts are not unusual. Forests become dry and burn. It happens regularly. When forests are managed, fires burn cooler and lower. The upper canopies are not involved.

    What’s been stopping forest management? Every governor since Jerry Brown’s first term. Abuse of environmental law.

    Trump is correct about forest mismanagement. As he was about hydroxychloroquine, as he was to remove the US from the Kyoto protocol, and as he was about the Obama administration spying on his campaign.

    Recent climate warming has nothing to do with CA forest fires. Swallow hard, David, and realize you’ve been gulled. Get angry about that.

    Reductionism, by the way, is the secret of success in science and engineering. All of our reliable knowledge has come from the reductionist enterprise. Reductionist science is why we no longer burn witches, rationalize racism, and honor freedom of thought and conscience.

    You know what that means, don’t you David. It means that everything you believe is wrong.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 21, 2020 @ 4:48 pm

  21. @ Pat: How you twist and turn… It may surprise you to learn that I toured California extensively last summer, stopping in both Yosemite and Inyo National Forest (I even drove past your place of work, en route from Mountain View to Half Moon Bay). The latter was partially affected by the recent Creek fire, which you’re no doubt aware consumed a good portion of the neighbouring Sierra National Forest. Suffice to say both areas were like tinderboxes. Not much evidence of management (controlled burns, understory clearance etc) in either.

    According to the LA Times all 18 of Cali’s national forests are (or were) closed due to the ongoing fire risk (but I guess you knew this too). Perhaps the US Forestry Service is yet another part of the deep state, deliberately mismanaging their portfolio to embarrass Trump?

    Incidentally, I wouldn’t consider myself to be a paid-up climate change believer, more someone who is sceptical of those ideological, agenda-driven fanatics on both sides of the debate. As such I’d lump you with the likes of XR.

    Comment by David Mercer — September 22, 2020 @ 6:22 am

  22. Pat Frank, do you have a blog? I’d like to subscribe.

    Comment by Tatyana — September 22, 2020 @ 10:01 am

  23. @20 David — you accuse me of twist-and-turn, and then go on for 3 paragraphs avoiding all mention of any salient point.

    The Forest Service would be happy to properly manage the forests. They have been restrained from doing so for goingon 50 years by progressivist governors, judicial injunctions following abuse of environmental law, and by the judicial, legislative and regulatory havoc caused by environmental NGOs.

    Lumping me with XR merely demonstrates your ignorance, David. I’ve published peer reviewed work demonstrating my case fully.

    Climate models are predictively useless, here.

    The global air temperature record is so ridden with unaccounted measurement error as to be useless, here (900 kb pdf) and here.

    The whole climate change claim rests entirely on pseudo-science, here.

    Never has there been a group so incompetent as climate scientists. They appear to have no understanding of how to evaluate data quality. Their entire corpus of data is analytical garbage.

    I actually know what I’m talking about, David, and have demonstrated that knowledge. Very unlike XR, isn’t it (or you).

    @ 21 thank you for the very nice compliment, Tatyana. 🙂 But I have no blog.

    I can recommend you to the Watts Up With That science blog, though, where I have posted many analyses of the nonsense that is climate (so-called) science, or to Willis Escehnbach’s Skating Under the Ice critical look at everything blog, and Jim Steele’s Landscapes and Cycles.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 22, 2020 @ 11:05 am

  24. Craig, sorry to bother you again, but your spambot may have eaten my last comment.

    It included about four links, which may have set off automatic alarms.

    Thanks

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 22, 2020 @ 4:19 pm

  25. Well, let’s try again.

    @20 David — you accuse me of twist-and-turn, and then go on for 3 paragraphs avoiding all mention of any salient point.

    The Forest Service would be happy to properly manage the forests. They have been restrained from doing so for goingon 50 years by progressivist governors, judicial injunctions following abuse of environmental law, and by the judicial, legislative and regulatory havoc caused by environmental NGOs.

    Lumping me with XR merely demonstrates your ignorance, David. I’ve published peer reviewed work demonstrating my case fully.

    Climate models are predictively useless, here.

    The global air temperature record is so ridden with unaccounted measurement error as to be useless, here (900 kb pdf) and here.

    The whole climate change claim rests entirely on pseudo-science, here.

    Never has there been a group so incompetent as climate scientists. They appear to have no understanding of how to evaluate data quality. Their entire corpus of data is analytical garbage.

    I actually know what I’m talking about, David, and have demonstrated that knowledge. Very unlike XR, isn’t it (or you).

    @ 21 thank you for the very nice compliment, Tatyana. 🙂 But I have no blog.

    I can recommend you to the Watts Up With That science blog, though, where I have posted many analyses of the nonsense that is climate (so-called) science, or to Willis Escehnbach’s Skating Under the Ice critical look at everything blog, and Jim Steele’s Landscapes and Cycles.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 23, 2020 @ 11:28 am

  26. @Pat. Sheesh your filter is way off – I’m sure Craig is heartily sick of our to-ing and fro-ing. If it helps I rarely if ever look at your links. It’s not like I’m peer-reviewing your contributions.

    @Tatyana: Please don’t encourage him. PS You’re such a toady, aren’t you?

    Comment by David Mercer — September 23, 2020 @ 3:57 pm

  27. @23 Not to be concerned David. In my many years of arguing religion and science with creationists, I never expected them to read actual evidence either. The resulting extreme cognitive dissonance might be fatal to them, after all.

    I wrote for the non-posting lurkers.

    Arguing politics and science is pretty much the equivalent.

    It’s ironic you accusing me of being ideological, when: 1) I base my views on published peer-reviewed science (including my own), and; 2) you’re the guy who views Tommy Robinson with more horror than you do the British epidemic of Muslim rape gangs or the 10’s of thousands of excess British dead from Winter fuel poverty. There’s ideological irrationality for you.

    Exchanges with you are hardly unique on this blog. Were Craig tired of my fro-ing to your to-ing, he could solve the problem by merely banning you.

    But I suspect he enjoys our cheerful banter.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 23, 2020 @ 4:50 pm

  28. @Pat. Don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate the effort you put into your posts, especially when they are unintentionally hilarious (I assume) e.g. you basing your views on your peer-reviewed papers (I guess it would be churlish not to). It’s just they do stray into TLDR territory.

    Once again you’ve misremembered a previous exchange. Also, given how you embarrassed yourself over that TR story, I steer clear of mentioning him again if I were you.

    Finally, why would Craig ban me and not you? After all you’ve placed far more demands on him than I of late. Regarding your latest cry for technical help, don’t you have a backchannel to him e.g. via Parler or that weirdy right-wing think-tank you work for?

    Comment by David Mercer — September 24, 2020 @ 12:42 pm

  29. @25, David, regarding my work reaching TLDR status for you, if you can’t stand the evidential heat then stay out of the analytical kitchen.

    Regarding Tommy Robinson, you stand condemned by your own words, in our conversation here, starting at #22.

    You dismissed Muslim rape gangs widespread across Britain and the UK’s excess Winter fuel poverty deaths, instead focusing on Tommy Robinson as though he were the greater evil. A display of hopelessly deficient morality, David.

    Inspection of that conversation shows it’s your embarrassed modesty that should be on display, not mine.

    weirdy right-wing think-tank“? You mean Heartland? I don’t work for them. I reviewed parts of, and contributed my work to, their most recent book, “Climate Change Reconsidered.” You know, another of your TLDR challenges. No money changed hands.

    It’s really amazing, David. You offer all sorts of eccentric social and political views unsupported by any evidence of having factually researched the given issue.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 24, 2020 @ 1:32 pm

  30. I’d much rather discourage you, D.Mercer. You are boring, argument-wise and not very bright as far as debaters go.

    Comment by Tatyana — September 24, 2020 @ 3:15 pm

  31. @Pat: Err, comprehension not your strong suite? I clearly stated “I reject both”. It’s there, in black and white (comment #25). Also I thought I’d absolved myself regarding your much beloved Winter Fuel comment, remember? Recall I stated that I’ve been trying to vote in a political party who would sort this problem for the past 4 elections but alas your political ilk have got the nod every time and, surprise surprise, absolutely nothing has been done about it. For someone so allegedly adept at research, you’re pretty poor at retaining even the barest level of information from our exchanges.

    Yup, Heartland, that’s the one. Isn’t your picture on their website, alongside that of the Pence creature? Hopefully they don’t do any work for Middle Eastern clients, lest your views on Arabs and pederasty come to light. That could be a tad awkward to explain away.

    @Toadyana: By contrast your contributions are…well, non-existent, beyond your cloying sycophancy.

    Comment by David Mercer — September 24, 2020 @ 4:20 pm

  32. Mercer:
    1) I am the appreciative public. And you don’t cut it
    2) The only thing you contribute is comic relief. And we don’t laugh “with” you.
    3) Sycophants are usually rewarded…P.Frank ignored my question

    Comment by Tatyana — September 25, 2020 @ 1:45 pm

  33. @29, I didn’t ignore your question, Tatyana. My response to you was at the end of a longer comment that got caught in Craig’s spam filter. I’m still hoping he frees it.

    But quick answer, I don’t have a blog, sorry. 🙂

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 25, 2020 @ 4:05 pm

  34. Pat Frank: pity (& maybe you should. It would be pleasure to read)

    Comment by Tatyana — September 26, 2020 @ 5:19 am

  35. @Tatyana: So you’re the one! Cool.

    Why don’t you buy the book Pat contributed to? I’m sure at least some of the proceedings go to causes you believe in (such as Mike Pence’s pension fund).

    @Pat: The strength of your denials regarding your exact connection with Heartland is telling. Are you worried IRS deep state operatives monitor this blog?

    Comment by David Mercer — September 26, 2020 @ 5:25 am

  36. @32 David you never fail to indulge your weakness for fatuous political hostility.

    Your ignorant criticism of “Climate Change Reconsidered” is fine example of the nonsense to which your political addiction leads you. You criticized it without having read a page. True foolishness, David.

    About Heartland: what exactly did I deny, David? I mean exactly. Can you make your accusation factual? Here’s an obvious prediction: once again, your criticism is from ignorance.

    I wasn’t paid for the work I did for Heartland on “CCR,” David. Perhaps motivation by professional integrity is beyond your ken. Well that, and my detestation for the noisome scientific crock that is AGW.

    Here’s another conundrum for you: I’ve paid out of pocket to make some of my published work on climate open-access; including two papers in Energy and Environment, for example. I’ve lost several thousand dollars pursuing the climate enterprise and making my work freely available. Will you make that more grist for your derogation mill, David?

    As for your snark about basing my view on my own papers (your 25), why would I (or anyone) not do? My papers show that I did the work. The work demonstrates an unambiguous result.

    Having done the work and found the result justifies the point of view, David. Imagine that: knowing something to be objectively correct. A concept and project foreign to someone whose chief joy is biased polemical attack.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 26, 2020 @ 10:03 am

  37. @Pat Frank. Sorry. Libertarian that I am, I have freed your comments from my evidently leftist, Critical Theorist, spambot.

    Apologies for the delay. I’ve been teaching “in” Switzerland (via Zoom, from my home, sort of like the way Joe Biden campaigns) and due to the time difference have been living a vampire existence.

    Comment by cpirrong — September 26, 2020 @ 1:46 pm

  38. Thank-you Craig. Your help is very appreciated. I figured you were away, from the extended silence. Now broken, I’m interested to see. 🙂

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 26, 2020 @ 2:32 pm

  39. @Pat: Err, where exactly did I discuss the book?? I only hawked it to your new admirer, y’know, just trying to drum up a bit of business for you and your chums at Heartland (you’re welcome). Apart from that, nada.

    Re Heartland, why go to the trouble of explaining the nature of your relationship and that no money changed hands? A straightforward acknowledgement would have sufficed – or even just ignore it altogether. After all, I was only intimating that some alternate means of communication might have been more appropriate, rather than the comments section on this blog. It came across like you were concerned (or embarrassed?) about this information coming out.

    And yes, it’s all very worthy using your own hard-earned to promote a cause you believe in. Well done. FWIW, I’ve done more than my fair share of pro bono and charity work, and have self-funded trips to conferences of personal interest to me, including one on net energy (coincidentally in the US). And yes I do conduct extensive desk-based research on subjects of personal interest; alas climate change isn’t one of them.

    A final word of advice: don’t post angry. It’s never a good look (re Tatyana).

    Comment by David Mercer — September 27, 2020 @ 1:39 pm

  40. @39, David, did you truly mean to imply that a, “weirdy right-wing think-tank, put out a scientifically credible book? So credible as to raise money for a Mike Pence pension fund?

    There. Your criticism of CCR exactly.

    You also supposed, not intimated, that I work for Heartland (your #28). Working for an organization typically involves salary. Then, after I explain that I do not work for them, and receive no recompense, you fly off with accusations of denial and over-reaction. Amazing. Honestly, your arguments never rise above short-term opportunism.

    I don’t care who knows that I contributed to Heartland’s CCR. Heartland is an honest group. You won’t be able to find a cause for shame or attack in any of their publications. Heartland merely has received slanderous attacks for its stand about climate. Slanderous attacks that have either bamboozled you, David, or are useful for a cynic’s review. You can choose which description fits your case.

    My cause is the integrity of science, David. Science, and reason based upon it, have given us every worthwhile value.

    Have you published any of your work, David? I’d like to look at the outcome of your personal interest.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 27, 2020 @ 4:35 pm

  41. @Pat: I wasn’t aware that your weirdy right-wing think-tank had published the book until you told me so. You’re making connections which don’t exist.

    Also, ‘work’ is a very general term. I have worked for several charities and voluntary organisations for no recompense. I also work in my garden and garage. As I said, a simple acknowledgement would have sufficed. Say what you will but your response was telling.

    And finally, no I haven’t published anything. Why should I? I’m not an academic or professional researcher. My research is for my own enlightenment, nothing more. That said, I handle myself quite well at the conferences etc I’ve attended e.g. by holding peer conversations with expert attendees.

    Comment by David Mercer — September 28, 2020 @ 5:31 am

  42. You use of the term “work” was telling, David. In #28, you wrote, “that weirdy right-wing think-tank you work for.

    If one means to imply a temporary or casual relation, one typically writes that as,’did some work for.’

    Even your “work in my garden or garage” implies casual tasks. You’d never say, you work for your garden. ut work for is what you used.

    Work for means is employed by, at least here in the US.

    The Free Dictionary: work for (someone or something)
    1. To be an employee of some person, group, or organization.
    2. To work in exchange for something, as a sum or salary of money.
    3. To have a particular goal, cause, or purpose at the heart of one’s labor. (NB: work for a cause, here, not an organization).

    You’ve no way out, David.

    Too bad you’ve not published anything. Perhaps not knowing the challenge of scientific review, explains your blind equation of me with XR despite my having rigorously demonstrated my view.

    Congratulations on being a peer. I know that’s a coveted station in the UK. (trap here)

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 28, 2020 @ 8:37 am

  43. @Pat. You clearly haven’t chatted with any of those XR protestors then, have you? Certainty is one thing they possess, and their arguments are supported by all manner of scientific ‘proof’ too. As I said, the broader arc of climate change as a subject just doesn’t interest me per se so I haven’t researched it extensively. That said, were I a betting man I know which side of the argument I’d likely place my wager, a choice made not so much by weight of evidence, but more the character – and calibre – of a few individuals who have researched this topic in depth whom I respect. On this basis Heartland just doesn’t cut it, particularly given their backers and their blatant wider political agenda (I see Obamacare is in their sights – nice). They could go up in my estimation a quantum if they were a single-issue scientific lobby group, but they aren’t.

    As for my research, I suspect your desire to see some output is more driven by an urge to find a stick to beat me with. Sorry to disappoint. No doubt it irks you that you know absolutely nothing about me, other than my name (contrary to what Craig may believe) and what I post on this blog.

    If you want to put stuff out there and indulge yourself hereabouts, fair enough, but as you said, if you can’t stand the heat…

    (Oh and please do explain your peer/Peer trap. It’s been a long day and I really can’t be ar5ed thinking what it could be)

    Comment by David Mercer — September 28, 2020 @ 10:49 am

  44. @43, David, “and their arguments are supported by all manner of scientific ‘proof’ too..”

    No, they’re not. I’ve assessed that so-called science in analytical detail, David. It’s not science.

    The whole AGW corpus is a subjectivist narrative decorated with mathematics. My papers demonstrate that fact.

    CO2 warming is the big assumption. That assumption is granted the status of unimpeachable evidence. And every global warming study is confirmatory of that assumption. They are made to be so.

    There was a huge embarrassment when deep ice cores revealed that the rise or fall of CO2 trailed behind the rise or fall of air temperature through every single ice age — seven of them — across the last million years.

    AGW science insists that CO2 is causal — and so its rise and fall should lead, not trail — the rise and fall of air temperature. But the opposite happened. In normal science, so thorough a disconfirmation would require abandonment of the theory.

    But in pseudo-science, theory disproof is not allowed.

    So, they scrambled to hand-wave it away — the CO2 did trail, but, ummm, it caused the temperature rise to be greater than it otherwise would have been.

    Totally ad hoc and physically meaningless.

    the character – and calibre – of a few individuals who have researched this topic in depth whom I respect.” Right. You choose the priest who tells you that god wills what you already believe.

    ObamaCare, so-called, was an unconstitutionally imposed tax. Its writer, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, boasted that he made it too complicated for the stupid American people to understand what had been done to them. Video here. Note his contempt for Americans.

    “CBO” in that video is the Congressional Budget Office. Gruber consciously set out to trick them, and torpedo mandated legislative financial and procedural oversight, in constructing ObamaCare. He deserves being chased out of town.

    Opposing that travesty does not seem unreasonable. Your charges against Heartland are unspecified and without content; politically disposed calumny that does not rise even to the level of talking points.

    Finally, why should we not see the quality of your thought, David? I have exposed my own. None of my papers on climate so-called science have been successfully challenged. Challenged, yes. Successfully, no. They all remain standing and unscarred. I’d put in links to prove that, but the post has two alrready, so that Craig’s spam filter would likely intervene.

    And in the face of physical disproofs, you choose to stand with the priests.

    The peer trap was my deliberately equivocal use of the word. A semiotic analogy to your work for, later claimed to mean worked on.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 28, 2020 @ 3:10 pm

  45. @Pat: “Why should we not see the quality of your thought..?” There you go again, provoking another genuine laugh-out-loud moment. I’ll tell you why not – because 1. Life is too short, 2. The few notes I do make are generally handwritten and probably illegible to you, and 3. I really can’t be ar5ed (a subtle but important variation of point 1). And who is we? Everyone else deserted this thread weeks ago.
    There were too many other points in your previous to give a point-by-point rebuttal, suffice to say you’ve already covered much of the ground before. I know exactly where you stand. Repetition makes you sound monomaniacal.

    A suggestion: why don’t you set up a blog (per Tatyana’s request)? It would save contaminating Craig’s blog with our blather.

    Comment by David Mercer — September 29, 2020 @ 10:45 am

  46. @45 David, you addressed nothing of import from our previous exchange. As usual.

    Laughter is no answer to a put up or shut up challenge.

    I don’t recall you ever grappling with substantive detail — where the informational devil resides. Certainly not in this thread.

    Comment by Pat Frank — September 29, 2020 @ 11:06 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress