1. Obama targets Flynn, Biden provides the pretext (Logan Act)
2. Comey gleefully ambushes Flynn in the first days of the new administration
3. Strzok and Pientka don’t make it clear Flynn is a target
4. Strzok and Pientka apparently say Flynn didn’t lie
5. Lisa Page and one of her stable of lovers incl “First we F*ck Flynn” McCabe doctor Flynn’s 302
6. Weissmann, a pathetic thug pretending to be a lawyer, uses the 302 to threaten Flynn and his family in a continuation of the failed coup d’etat led by Mueller. Flynn – a patriot – refuses to roll over on POTUS
7. Flynn’s own attorneys – DC big wigs – betray Flynn
8. Brandon Van Grack, apparently Weissmann’s apprentice , never discloses exculpatory evidence and deceives the court about targeting Flynn’s son
8. Flynn pleads guilty before corrupt judge Contreras who has personal relationship with Strzok
9. Sullivan takes over the case and , in a 180 degree reversal from his oversight of the Ted Stevens case, becomes a formidable Flynn adversary and calls Flynn a traitor in open court.
Yeah, it’s a conspiracy.regitiger says:
June 25, 2020 at 6:42 pm
In the “spirit” of BOGEYFREE, I have roughly formed A LIST…of conspirators/co-conspirators.
I would invite anyone here to add to the list …I will call it the OBAMAGATE CRIMINALS. (OC)
The Coup manufactured against this president and his associates AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act in American history.
The following list of persons are likely conspirators directly involved in this coup or aided and enabled it by intentionally ignoring red flags and are thus named co-conspirators:
(there is no order priority in this list)
OBAMAGATE CRIMINALS (OC):
Sir Richard Dearlove
Stefan “The Walrus” Halper
James E. Boasberg
The planet radiates the heat it receives back to space.
If it gets closer to the sun and hotter it radiates more back.
As it cools at night it radiates less as it’s temperature drops.
It is not a battery and it does not store heat in the oceans selectively
of its own accord.
It follows the rules of physics.
Where we run into problems is in how the energy moves and transfers between the 3 different layers of the earth, atmosphere, ocean and earth; gas, liquid and solid.
Each substance is penetrated to a certain degree and vary in the degree they heat up to and how they distribute the heat they receive brpefore sending it back to space, which it must do.
We have a TOA radiating temperature that is mutable only in that the atmosphere has GHG that temporarily absorb a tiny fraction of the energy when receiving sunlight in the daytime.
A very small amount and only as the sun rises overhead.
This gives the atmosphere the temperature as the GHG transfer some of that energy to the O2 and NO2.
– This process is incredibly quick and once established (Peaked) cannot keep taking energy energy out and storing it somewhere. In fact after maximum insulation and temp rise for the next 18 hours it is radiating that heat back to space commensurate to how high it went up in the first place.
With more CO2 in the air, and everything else being equal (practically it never is), the air temperature curve moves ever so slightly over to the new level of GHG.
A doubling of CO2 produces a 1C temperature rise overall.
The nights become a little warmer, the days a little warmer, but the amount of sunlight coming in and out overall does not change.
This may sound like heresy but either you follow the physics or you do not.
Either energy in equals energy out and this applies everywhere; to snowball earth, the moon , the planets, etc or it doesn’t.
Over any 24 hour period there cannot be any real TOA discrepancy at all.
The oceans did not invent lithium batteries to store it in.
There are no batteries.
The ocean is not a battery.
The atmosphere is not a battery.
TOA imbalance demands a battery, science denies a battery.
This misunderstanding needs to be corrected one person at a time.
June 23, 2020 at 4:31 am
“With increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, there is an imbalance in energy flows in and out of the earth system at the top of the atmosphere (TOA): the greenhouse gases increasingly trap more radiation and hence create warming (Solomon et al. 2007; Trenberth et al. 2009). “
“model-based estimates of TOA energy imbalance [from the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4)]“
Why do we have to use a model when we can easily measure it with satellites one may well ask rhetorically?
If, I repeat if, we can easily measure it with satellites we would not need to use models. Roy could just give us the monthly and yearly figures.
We use models because the satellite constraints mean the figures are extremely unreliable, large SD, hence we can use models and plug in just the right parameters to give an imbalance matching our imbalance theories.
“TOA measurements of radiation from space can track changes over time but lack absolute accuracy.“
But the models used are based on OHC.
“Most ocean-only OHC analyses extend to only 700-m depth, have large discrepancies among the rates of change of OHC, and do not resolve interannual variability adequately to capture ENSO and volcanic eruption effects,”
So there we have it, an unphysical idea that the earth can do something no other celestial body can do, store energy every day in a battery and warm up the whole world.
Even though it has been warmed and radiated that warmth every day for 4 billion years according to the rules of physics.
Adding extra GHG causes a constant storage of energy from the sun, which when humans add it Grows an arm and a leg and works as a thousand year battery.
No matter that the rest of the universe demands that energy back, earth resists.
The earth’s atmosphere gets hotter with GHG not because of storage batteries but simple physics. It absorbs (delays in transit) an extra small minute amount of energy for 6 hours a day as the sun heats it up. Then it radiates more than it receives back to space for 18 hours while the sun heats up the rest.
The ocean absorbs a little bit more as the air is a little bit warmer, not much and then radiates it back as well.
The planet sums it all up and sends it all back out equal to that in.
Apart from that little insulated house.
I get the point that there are
Events caused by Anthropogenic effects
Events caused by Anthropogenic Climate Change
and that the general effect of the latter will cause more harm than the more localised effect of the former.
Attribution of either is complicated leading to a moral and scientific issue.
Are you looking for Causation or Blame?
One is a scientific approach and one a moral approach.
One can of course do both, find a cause and find blame in the same event.
This is helped by using story line approaches as they incorporate a moral lesson in their very definition.
“given that an event has occurred, how might climate change have influenced this event?”
“The claim is that in trying to separate the human influence from the natural variability of weather, extreme event attribution creates a new nature-culture divide.”
People have looked for causation in weather for ever. A rare event, did something I did cause that weather effect? People have always wanted to attribute causation and blame their actions or lack of them to explain misfortunes and occasionally good luck.
Once you attribute Blame or Causation to human action you open a divide between those who want to believe [naturalists] and those who want to understand [culture/science].
“The problem here is that extreme event attribution typically tries to understand how the event might be different because of anthropogenic-driven climate change,”
Even here what you are saying is that extreme events are natural and that in your view human causation might make it worse.
I say worse because if human causation ever made things better you would not feel concerned to investigate it further.
Hence the problem of trying to prove that rare extreme events are ever capable of offering proof of climate warming.
“if we don’t distinguish between natural and anthropogenic influences, how do you then avoid people simply concluding that it’s natural, or using this to argue that it’s natural?”
Hence the crux of the matter, do we tell them a story line to emphasis how bad we believe it may be and only choose, always, the bad side of that story line for emphasis?
– Or do we tell them the truth.
There will be a number of consequences that will become self evident in time.
We cannot prove this conclusively now but believe it to be so.
We are working on improving our attribution to everyone’s satisfaction.
We are not looking to blame or shame anyone.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 6, 2020 at 11:35 pm
ATTP are we reading this the same way?
“The key results are that for long-timescales (many decades) internal variability contributes little to the total uncertainty (essentially, it averages out).”
I do not see this as the key finding, rather a statement of the parameters being put in.
By definition internal variability is defined as fluctuations around some predetermined real value.
As time goes by the fluctuations balance out and the true value is revealed shed of dross. In other words it must always reduce to zero
Atomsk’s Sanakan @AtomsksSanakan. May 27
“Update thread citing published studies, along with comments debunking Judith Curry’s cherry-picking in the service of ideologically-motivated denialism on hydroxychloroquine:“
Missing in action. Why?
Lancelet study Chloroquine Debunked
New England Journal of medicine. Debunked same author
Most of the studies you quote have been extremely hastily put together with pal not peer review and rushed into print.
They all have massive flaws consequent.
As they fall apart, one by one, will you guarantee to return here and issue a mea culpa for your mudslinging?
The fact that you’re still willfully ignoring the fact that previously reputable Journals have thrown science out the window is expected from a committed ideologue.
How to redeem a scrap of integrity, if you ever wanted.
Be more skeptical in the right way.
Put up lists of both sides.
Just for fun and fairness.
There are papers out there for hydroxychloroquine.
Give their references too.
As an aside, Atom, I was extremely unbelieving at first based on my medical training. Chloroquine was an antimalarial drug. And a cramp treatment.
Viruses and bacteria or parasites are extremely different and require different mechanisms of treatment.
The medications being for totally different reasons would normally never treat both types of life forms.
My rationale for non belief was based on science, what I had been taught up until that moment.
That changed when I learnt of the mechanisms of interfering with viral RNA reproduction in cells. Scientifically proven.
Are you aware of that?
Of course you are, petal.
Research dating back to 2004 or earlier as an antiviral.
Are you aware of that?
If not, why not?
Why knock the study of it as a helpful treatment when we have precious little else?
You show a great interest in scientific topics.
You certainly have a skeptical mind, with blinkers on.
If the drug does work you would have to thank Trump for helping promote it.
Guess your attitude is best summed up by better millions die than Trump gets any credit, even if vicarious ( He did not invent it though he might take credit).
What a great and commendable attitude, man.
WordPress.com / Gravatar.com credentials can be used.