Forum: Author Hangout

Oh dear, that's an unfortunate typo in the heading.

Oops.

And there's no way to edit the heading. :(

Oh dear, that's an unfortunate typo in the heading.

Oops.

You cancel cultures by flushing them down the drain, or when you apply boric acid to them, stifling their prolific progenerations!

But technically, Switch, it should only be offensive when capitalized as a proper noun (i.e. "Wop! Wop! Dirty Stinking Wop bastard!"). Hope that helps, if not, it gives my degenerative side a chance in the sun for a change!

But technically, Switch, it should only be offensive when capitalized as a proper noun

I wasn't serious. I was reflecting on the absurdity of cancel culture.

I was reflecting on the absurdity of cancel culture.

That already shows more intellect than those supporting cancel culture, as the term means absolutely nothing at all.

No one supports cancel culture.

Haven't you heard of 'no platforming'? What are the no platformers doing if not cancelling the culture of people who they disagree with?

AJ

How are people on social media complaining about a show that gives an individual a spotlight to spout hate and bigotry unchallenged canceling anything? Their opinions should not be silenced.

Oh, it goes much more than that.

Just a few years ago when J. K. Rowling spoke up that the push to allow transgender athletes into women's sports endangered actual women in sports, many called for her publisher to cancel her contract and not publish anything else by her. There was even a petition to have her royalties stripped and sent to transgendered organizations.

Adam Rubenstein was an editor and opinion writer for the NY Times, and he spoke up in support when some called for National Guard to be used to restore order in some cities. He was let go over an opinion piece when people started to scream he was a "Fascist".

Gina Carano came under intense fire last year when she said in her Twitter she was a Republican, and compared being so in Hollywood was similar to being a Jew in Nazi Germany. Immediately calls started to cancel the show she was in, "The Mandalorian". Disney in order to stop the attacks fired her.

Matthew Yglesias co-founded liberal web site Vox, but came under fire when he criticized "Groupspeak", and attacks increased accusing him of being "Extreme Right Wing" (he was always a moderate liberal).

But there are a great many others. They are doing far more than just "spotlighting hate and bigotry", they themselves are hate and bigotry. All they are really doing is calling for the silencing of anybody that does not openly support their views.

You are a prime example of a cancel culture cultist.

I don't think it's an example of cancel culture. It's offering an opinion and explaining why he thinks the other opinion is wrong. All debates do that.

Cancel culture is when he would try to have everyone gang up on the other person for their views if those views differ from his.

I was reflecting on the absurdity of cancel culture.

There was a worrying story in the media last week.

The BBC published an educational guide to climate change (aka Global Warming). The guide listed nine reasons why climate change might be beneficial. They were forced to delete them. Apparently, although diverse opinions are encouraged, they mustn't diverge from the school curriculum and they definitely mustn't provide any ammunition for climate change deniers. (No, I didn't get that last part.)

AJ

nine reasons why climate change might be beneficial. They were forced to delete them.

Great.

People say, "Listen to the science." I guess they mean only when the science agrees with their opinion.

Therefore, when someone says, "Listen to the science," I generally assume they (a) don't know the science and (b) likely don't have the habits of mind and study that would let them "know" a complex and often contradictory field of science.

The moment I hear anybody say something like that, or "All scientists agree" or "Science has proven", I know they are blowing smoke up my ass.

Decades ago, Michael Chrichton said it quite simply and perfectly.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

And when I hear for the "Cancel Culture" to shout out any scientists that do not agree with that belief, that tells me it is less about "science", and more about "belief". More like a religion in fact. "Do not question, accept anything we tell you. Heretics and apostates must be destroyed!"

Chricton was wrong there. Science means always following the evidence, and always being open to contradictory evidence.

And I am not going into this with you any longer.

Of course, you know the man was a scientist, right? As in, he was at the top of his class when he got is BA in Anthropology at Harvard, and went on to become a Medical Doctor after holding a lecture series at Cambridge.

His post-doctoral fellowship was at the Salk Institute. He later became involved as a staff writer at MIT, and most of his books were deeply involved with science.

So forgive me, but I am going to take him at his word over yours. And come on now, "Quantum Mechanics"? This alone gives me an idea of your age, because I remember being taught the old "Atomic Model", and many in the scientific community scoffed at the idea that "Quarks" or anything smaller could ever exist.

Doctors are not scientists.

*shakes head at that statement and simply walks away*

*shakes head at that statement and simply walks away*

Doctors do not receive a PhD, and can have an undergrad degree in literally anything. In the US, so long as they pass the MCAT, a degree in philosophy is just fine. Granted, it will be tough to pass the MCAT without chemistry and biochemistry, but you could.

The first two years of US medical school involve learning anatomy, body systems, physiology, diagnostic skills, and generally how to be a doctor. The second two years are clinical rotations (i.e. practical, hands-on work). (Note: the US program is 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school; many countries use a six-year system, eliminating two years of classroom work).

Physicians are trained in a pattern that is more similar to the skilled trades than how the usual doctoral candidate is trained. A physician ('medicus') has what amounts to a vocational certificate for medicine, and is called, at least in the US, by a title appropriated by the medical community from PhDs. They are, technically, physicians, not Doctors the way, say a PhD astrophysicist or PhD biochemist is.

(In England, for example, surgeons are called 'Mr.' or 'Miss', NOT 'Doctor'. Ditto for dentists.)

Medicine even has the trappings of a vocational trade - apprentice, journeyman, master; they're just called medical students, Resident Physicians, and Attending Physicians.

Yes, there are some physicians who DO receive PhDs in addition to their MD, but those are rare. But most doctors are not 'scientists' as the term is usually applied (to individuals doing research via the scientific method).

This is not to disparage physicians in any way (though I yank the chains of my physician friends this way quite often), simply to draw a distinction between a research scientist and a 'medicus'.

Doctors do not receive a PhD, and can have an undergrad degree in literally anything. In the US, so long as they pass the MCAT, a degree in philosophy is just fine. Granted, it will be tough to pass the MCAT without chemistry and biochemistry, but you could.

Well, he did his post-doctoral research fellowship at the Salk Institute. Do those who do not have a Doctorate normally do a post-doctoral fellowship at such a prestigious organization? Or become writer at MIT?

Of course, silly me. I simply happened to always like that quote. But here is the funny thing, I never looked into his actual beliefs in this subject. And wow, it was quite interesting that he was also critical of the "Man Made Global Warming" hype.

So I think this is pretty much done. I see people screaming that Bill Nye must be listened to in this, because he of course is the "Science Guy". Therefore, a Scientist who must be taken seriously.

With his BS in Mechanical Engineering. Yep, that's it. He worked at Boeing for a few years, then won a Steve Martin look-alike contest, and went into doing stand-up comedy. Then did short clips for Mickey Mouse Club and Back to the Future cartoon before getting his own show.

Dolph Lundgren is more of a "Science Guy" than he is. After studying at Washington State and Cornell, he returned to Sweden where he got his degree in Chemical Engineering at the Royal Institute of Technology. Then getting his Masters in Chemical Engineering at the University of Sydney. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to attend MIT for his PhD, but he started to date Grace Jones and the acting bug bit him.

However, if this discussion and others are saying that "Only PhD holders are 'scientists', then about 90% of the "scientists' who make all those claims need to be scrubbed from their list of those who support man made global warming.

This is exactly the "moving goal posts" that I see all the time, and it freaking drives me nuts. Some like me pose some serious questions, and the result is deflection, evasion, and often attacks. But OK, fine. I will take your silly game and flip it. From now on, any "scientists" can therefore be ignored if they every try to give an opinion on this, unless they have PhD.

Happy now? Just having a BS or MS is not enough, be a full "Doctor", or shut up. But if an MD with a Masters is not a "Scientist" (according to some), but a TV entertainer with a BS in Mechanical Engineering is, then we really do have a strong case here for selectively picking and choosing what one is.

They definitely move the goal post on a frequent basis. There is no need for a PhD to ask questions. I'm still trying to figure out how the hell the world got to a place where only PhD's are considered qualified to answer some questions. That couldn't be further from the truth.

You both missed the entire point of my post, which was about how doctors are trained.

You read a lot into what I wrote that isn't there, and wasn't intended.

Well, he did his post-doctoral research fellowship at the Salk Institute. Do those who do not have a Doctorate normally do a post-doctoral fellowship at such a prestigious organization? Or become writer at MIT?

Did you miss where I wrote:

Yes, there are some physicians who DO receive PhDs in addition to their MD, but those are rare. But most doctors are not 'scientists' as the term is usually applied (to individuals doing research via the scientific method).

I didn't say 'all', nor did I move any goalposts. I simply pointed out that most physicians are NOT scientists because they aren't trained that way.

But most doctors are not 'scientists' as the term is usually applied (to individuals doing research via the scientific method).

They all have college degrees, normally at a Masters level in physiology and other specializations. And what is the difference between doing a medical diagnosis and following the "Scientific Method"? I do not care if somebody is trying to figure out why planets revolve around a star in a certain way, figuring out why an individual is suffering certain symptoms, or a mechanic trying to figure out what is wrong with a car or a computer technician why a computer does not work. The basic steps to figure out what is wrong and how to correct it are all the same.

If somebody has a Bachelors Degree or Masters on the human body and its inner workings, I find it almost insulting that somebody would consider them to NOT be a "scientist".

They all have college degrees, normally at a Masters level in physiology and other specializations.

In the US, they have a Bachelor's degree, usually in science, but it doesn't have to be. I know a surgeon who received an undergraduate degree in psychology with a minor in biochemistry. They also have an MD, which is not a Master's degree, or really equivalent. Two full years of medical school is practical, hands-on training, with a focus on diagnostic skills, not research or analysis.

I see a scientist as someone who does research and analysis, not someone who treats patients according to their training.

I see a scientist as someone who does research and analysis, not someone who treats patients according to their training.

And exactly how many Medical Doctors have a BA and not a BS?

Here is the thing, it does not matter what you think. I see claims that "ten thousand scientists" sign some petition on Climate change. Does not matter what they actually do, generally the only requirement is that they all have a BS or higher. Yet, is any says they question things, they are then torn apart mercilessly.

This is the very "Cancel Culture" that started this thread. The selective dismissal and attacking, only because the individual does not agree with one of the sides.

Notice, I have NOT been the one dismissing people here. Yet some are really trying hard to dismiss others, for some really silly reasons. Claiming they are not "scientists".

Like the guy who spent 2 years on his post-Doctoral fellowship at the Salk Institute. If that is not "doing science", then I would love to hear an explanation why. It is only one of the most highly respected Research Institutes in the world, and in addition to the founder has racked up an amazing 11 other additional Nobel Prizes in the last 56 years.

Yet, somehow somebody that spent 2 years there in Biological Science Studies is not a "Scientist". As I have said, being very selective in dismissing people, based more on their own views than anything else.

And exactly how many Medical Doctors have a BA and not a BS?

A third, or more.

This is the very "Cancel Culture" that started this thread. The selective dismissal and attacking, only because the individual does not agree with one of the sides.

Except I didn't do this. I simply pointed out how medical education works. It is far different from a PhD program in the hard sciences. YOU assumed I was disparaging doctors. I simply pointed out that most doctors are not researchers. My family physician is very good at helping me maintain my health and dealing with minor complaints. She's not a research scientist by any stretch of anyone's imagination.

I objected to the blanket statement that MDs are scientists. With evidence.

A third, or more.

Well, I will call BS *laugh* on that, and call for a reference. Because I actually did look before I posted that quetion.

You first need to do a Bachelor's (undergraduate) degree in a related Science subject (popular choices are Biology and Chemistry) before you apply to a medical school.

https://www.mastersportal.com/articles/1801/what-are-the-entry-requirements-for-medical-schools-in-europe-and-the-us.html

In fact, in every country listed (and they list many), all seem to require a BS in some science, normally Biology or Chemistry. And most seem to have at graduation the MD having an MS degree as well.

SO let's just say I am from Missouri, and need to be shown that 1/3 of medical doctors have only a BA when they enter medical school. Because all the references I saw said the exact opposite.

I referred to a study by the Association of American Medical Colleges that showed 1/3 of admissions were for non-science majors.

Here's a link to the latest data I can find:

https://www.aamc.org/download/321496/data/factstablea17.pdf

Slightly over half of all admissions were from biological sciences. 15% were from humanities, and 30% were 'other' which does not include biological or hard sciences (both listed). That means 45% did not have science degrees.

The numbers I cited above for 2011 were 34%. So fewer have science degrees now than the original study I cited.

These are numbers for actual admissions, any 'requirements' on your list notwithstanding. The admissions data supports my point.

I referred to a study by the Association of American Medical Colleges that showed 1/3 of admissions were for non-science majors.

In the UK, a science degree preferably covering biology is virtually obligatory. Confusingly that can be a BA in Natural Sciences from Oxbridge.

AJ

In the UK, a science degree preferably covering biology is virtually obligatory. Confusingly that can be a BA in Natural Sciences from Oxbridge.

Which was one of the reasons I pointed out that the US system is different. Much of that is covered in my series 'Good Medicine' which is thoroughly researched.

Did you perhaps divide the applicants figures by the Total Matriculants? - that would give figures closer to what you gave.

My math was off. 29% don't have science degrees. That still supports my point that you don't need a science degree to get into medical school in the US.

Total matriculants: 22,239

12,845 - Biological Sciences
2,240 - Physical Sciences
784 - Specialized Health Science

Total sciences - 15869 (71%)

832 - Humanities
1991 - Social Sciences

Total Humanities - 2823 (13%)

156 - Math and Statistics
3,391 - Other

Total Other+Math/Stats - 3547 (16%)

So I think this is pretty much done. I see people screaming that Bill Nye must be listened to in this, because he of course is the "Science Guy". Therefore, a Scientist who must be taken seriously.

With his BS in Mechanical Engineering. Yep, that's it. He worked at Boeing for a few years, then won a Steve Martin look-alike contest, and went into doing stand-up comedy. Then did short clips for Mickey Mouse Club and Back to the Future cartoon before getting his own show.

Non-sequiter. I never claimed Bill Nye was a scientist (I knew he was an engineer).

However, if this discussion and others are saying that "Only PhD holders are 'scientists', then about 90% of the "scientists' who make all those claims need to be scrubbed from their list of those who support man made global warming.

I also never said only PhDs where scientists. I said MDs did not hold PhDs (doctoral degrees) despite being doctors.

And again, doctors are not trained as scientists. They are trained for their vocation (and licensed for it like all vocational trades).

A PhD is not enough.

A PhD in English is not a scientist.

And I am NOT the one making this claim at all. My wife for example holds dual degrees. A Bachelors in Nursing, and a Masters in foreign languages. I have even known at least one Doctor (with a PhD), who also went to Law School and also has a Masters in jurisprudence and is a lawyer.

It must also be remembered that a lot who have degrees also hold multiple ones. Especially if they are in some fields which require almost constant educational hours. That is how my wife got her secondary one, as a nurse she had to take so many hours of secondary education a year. Some in her field, others could be of her choice.

But I find it disturbing that some apparently dismiss somebody with an MD and a Masters degree is not a "scientist", yet somebody with a degree in Computer Science is.

Or are you also arguing that somebody with a BS should also count as somebody with a Liberal Arts degree? I do understand the difference between the two, and I would agree that in most cases, somebody that is in Liberal Arts is not a "scientist". But the very BS degree itself stands for "Bachelor of Science". And that is the degree all Medical Doctors have.

But the very BS degree itself stands for "Bachelor of Science". And that is the degree all Medical Doctors have.

Not true. You can get into medical school with a BA degree.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) surveyed every medical school First Year's primary undergraduate major in 2011. The study found that only about 51 percent of students who enrolled in medical school that year majored in a biological sciences discipline. In addition, approximately 13 percent majored in physical sciences, mathematics, or statistics. However, the most surprising fact is that roughly 34 percent of these students majored in a field unrelated to any science discipline such as the humanities and social sciences.

Or are you also arguing that somebody with a BS should also count as somebody with a Liberal Arts degree? I do understand the difference between the two, and I would agree that in most cases, somebody that is in Liberal Arts is not a "scientist". But the very BS degree itself stands for "Bachelor of Science".

I'll give you a very personal example of a BS degree NOT being a 'science' degree. I have a BS in history with a minor in theology.

Yes, that's correct - a BS in liberal arts.

You were relying ion Chricton as an authority. I was asserting that he is not an authority. I have read his books as well as his arguments against man-made climate change. I like some of his books, but they are not literature and I find his arguments lacking.

Actually, I was just repeating a quote. And I was not even aware of his stance at the time. He could have been for it, and I still quoted have made that quote because it is relevant.

But your obsessions is his stance, and trying all you can do in order to dismiss him because of it. Classic "Cancel Culture". You just can not resist doing it just because of something you do not agree with him on.

they are not literature

I think 200 million copies sold of his novels and twelve motion pictures made of his works would tend to indicate that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, and climate change has been going on for a LONG time. All we really need is a couple of good volcanic eruptions to screw things up. It's amusing to read through the sites that tell us the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the last mini ice-age, but that it was the result of multiple volcanic eruptions. Then have those same sites tell us that volcanoes don't affect our climate, it's all man's doing.

I think Inigo Montoya was right - You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

I think 200 million copies sold of his novels and twelve motion pictures made of his works would tend to indicate that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

I think Inigo Montoya was right - You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Not to mention one of the most successful TV shows in history. Which ran for 15 years, and won 23 Emmy awards. Most people tend to forget that ER was created by him as well, as it is a much more serious show.

Which ran for 15 years, and won 23 Emmy awards. Most people tend to forget that ER was created by him as well, as it is a much more serious show.

Now, now - you're not supposed to use facts. After all, those don't matter.

I was just thinking of something. Remember when Talking Barbie came out and said, 'Math is hard.' The outrage over that? Now, they want to cancel math because they're claiming math is racist.

It's amusing to read through the sites that tell us the Maunder Minimum had nothing to do with the last mini ice-age, but that it was the result of multiple volcanic eruptions.

Hell, I wonder how many even track such things. Like the fact that the Yellowstone Caldera had over 400 earthquakes in June. If that baby goes, welcome back Ice Age!

Honestly, I have largely been ignoring "climate predictors", because they have been chasing the data for years. They were doing it in the 1970's when colder than average temperatures had them screaming "New Man Made Ice Age!", and they are doing the exact same thing now.

And laughingly enough, many are the exact same ones that were predicting the Ice Age by the 1980's.

Like the fact that the Yellowstone Caldera had over 400 earthquakes in June. If that baby goes, welcome back Ice Age!

I got a kick out of the Harry Turtledove novel, Supervolcano. He's really good with alternative histories, but when you actually get something scientific in there, not so much. Yellowstone caldera goes, and everything from the Mississippi river to the Rocky Mountains is covered in ash. That's ... not going to end well. Granted, it's really not that likely to happen, it's more likely that Yellowstone will simply have some nice lava flows.

I got a kick out of the Harry Turtledove novel, Supervolcano. He's really good with alternative histories, but when you actually get something scientific in there, not so much. Yellowstone caldera goes, and everything from the Mississippi river to the Rocky Mountains is covered in ash. That's ... not going to end well. Granted, it's really not that likely to happen, it's more likely that Yellowstone will simply have some nice lava flows.

Oh, it will go way beyond that. And it will release some massive ashfalls, but most believe that will be the "end event", and it will not open with that.

It must be remembered, that no "supervolcano" has erupted in recorded history. And the evidence is clear in the fossil record, but geologists are still arguing the order that events will happen in.

Will it start with a huge eruption of ash that will cover 2/3 of North America? Or will that be the "After Game Celebration"? And after it finishes the eruption it is the collapse of the lava dome into the caldera that creates that?

To be honest, both sides have a good case. But the Ashfall Fossil Beds are in North East Nebraska, and this is not even from an eruption from Yellowstone.

That was actually from 12 mya, from the Bruneau-Jarbidge caldera. That was actually the location of the current Yellowstone Caldera over 5 major eruptions ago, when it was at the Oregon-Nevada-Idaho border. Over 400 miles West of where the hotspot and caldera is today.

And even more frightening, is that the hot spot may just skip another eruption at Yellowstone altogether. It is still moving East (point of view, it is stationary and the NA Plate is moving West over it), so it may well pop up 100 miles or more farther away with little notice.

This is actually something I have watched closely all my life. I made frequent trips to this caldera, and the nearby fossil beds. WHich by the wat are unrelated to the Bruneau-Jarbidge event, those are 2-4 mya and were lush tropical plants. In fact, some of my best selling fossils from those beds were palm trees (in addition to the fish of course, and fragments of turtle shells).

But I have to admit, I love being told over and over that I know nothing about science. At the time I was doing that, the very concept that Yellowstone was a giant caldera was only barely being accepted. And a few "wild eyed radicals" had already speculated that it had been moving for millions of years, that would not be accepted for another decade or more.

And many now wonder if there are even older calderas, but lost to geologic forces farther West of Bruneau-Jarbidge. But this was literally in my "backyard" growing up, and my science teacher (one of the radicals that believed the "moving caldera" theory) frequently took us on tours of that ancient caldera, and the fossil beds in the region.

One thing about growing up in Idaho, it is a geologists paradise. And that was an interest of mine for as long as I can remember (stating after going through a major earthquake in 1971), most of my trips involved studying geology.

And knowing from when I was an early teen that the very area I lived in 2-3 million years before was lush and tropical in setting with palm trees already told me that the climate was vastly different than it is today.

Yet, those that scream I am a "science denier" I find hilarious. In fact, I actually say the opposite, that the planet at normal is much hotter than it is now, and has bounced to and from such long before humans even evolved, and were still little primates jumping from tree to tree.

At the time of the fossil beds I normally excavated were formed, Idaho was a lush paradise, and Australopithecus had only recently started to make a life on the ground for the first time. I even laugh when I see documentaries about Lucy and other Australopithecus, and they look through the area and imagine what it was like for them at the time. Yet, always with current plants, and not what it was likely like at that time 2 mya.

I've noticed that nearly everyone who quotes the "Maunder Minimum" only has a vague understanding of what it is and how it's determined.

There are also rather accurate records of sunspot activities dating back to then as well. That being the point - low to no sunspot activity means less solar energy being put out means cooling on the third rock from the sun.

The BBC published an educational guide to climate change (aka Global Warming). The guide listed nine reasons why climate change might be beneficial.

The climate has been changing for tens of thousands of years, has always changed, and will always change.

And a lot can be seen if one simply looks at the past history of the planet. Unlike what most people tend to think, as the planet gets warmer, it will also grow more humid. And this is the opposite of what most people tend to think of at the time.

In reality, instead of growing deserts will start to shrink. More heat and CO2 is actually what plants need to thrive and grow, and unless prevented they will greatly increase their land coverage. Many areas we know of now as "deserts" will start to evolve into grasslands. The increased plants will absorb even more water, and their respiration will increase humidity levels.

Areas like the Amazon will explode, as the "temperate belt" moved farther north. Tundra will transition to grasslands, grasslands to a more equatorial area. Mostly because of higher CO2 levels and more warmth.

And to give an idea, during most interglacials there was no Arctic Ice Cap at all, and as far north as Central Alaska had palm trees. Just think about that, Palm Trees growing wild in central Alaska.

If people think it is warm now, they have no idea. And scientists have known for decades that this time the Milankovitch may cause an extra-ordinarily long interglacial. As in over 50,000 years.

Mostly, nothing that has been reported in this has gone outside of what many have expected for decades. I knew over 35 years ago (from my Geology Teacher) that as more ice melted, warming would increase. Simply because of the "albedo effect". Ice and snow reflects heat and light, so helps keep the climate cool. But as more ice melts, less is reflected and the ground and water will absorb it, adding to the increase.

Once again, this is basic science, so it to me was always a "no duh" response when people told me "warming is accelerating". Of course it is, and if we suddenly dropped temperatures and it started to build up again we could enter a cycle where we return to ice age.

In reality, instead of growing deserts will start to shrink.

My understanding is that they're currently expanding. At what point will a tipping point be reached after which they will start to contract?

AJ

But if you go by the long term pelo-climate record, in general, a warmer world tends to be wetter, not dryer.

Where I live (Arizona desert) it's getting hotter and dryer. I think we had 3 days of measurable rain last summer (and measurable doesn't mean a lot). My youngest great grandson was 8 months old before he ever saw rain. And last year we shattered the records of the number of days over 115, over 100, and lows over 90. And it seems this year is hotter and dryer.

Which is causing record wild fires. Speaking of which, President Biden called a meeting with some Western governors to discuss the wild fires. At the time, 71% of them were in Arizona, but the AZ governor wasn't invited. So much for crossing party lines for the good of the country (we have a Republican governor).

But if you go by the long term pelo-climate record, in general, a warmer world tends to be wetter, not dryer.

To shrink a hot, sandy desert requires a mechanism to dump enough water on it to bind the sand so plants can grow. I imagine places like the Sahara will be more resistant than temperate or arctic(?) deserts.

AJ

to bind the sand so plants can grow. I imagine places like the Sahara

That's one kind of desert. The Arizona deserts are baked dry, not sandy. And vegetation grows in them.

The Arizona deserts are baked dry, not sandy. And vegetation grows in them.

I just wish Oklahoma would quit trying to get Arizona to hold its' beer. It sucks when your yard is nothing but giant, cracked dirt, like in the westerns.

To shrink a hot, sandy desert requires a mechanism to dump enough water on it to bind the sand so plants can grow. I imagine places like the Sahara will be more resistant than temperate or arctic(?) deserts.

Not true at all.

The reason Arizona is a desert is less to do with the soil, than it is that it is in a "Rain Shadow". Before the rains can get there, they have to pass either over Texas (and 2 mountain ranges), or California (and 2 mountain ranges). It sits in the middle of an area that prevents all but the biggest storms from reaching there with any measurable amount of rain.

This is the same in Oregon. Go to the coast and Williamite Valley, and you get a lot of rain, almost any time of the year. But go farther West or South, and it rapidly grows more dry and arid.

That is not a problem in many areas of the Sahara, and both during the height of ice ages and interglacials, the north tends to be quite wet and lush. It is in the stages between the two that it is the most unstable, as weather patterns change and the constant changes (every several thousand years) makes it hard to stabilize.

And there are still many changes that will likely happen between now and the next 10,000 years or so. Some of the largest speculation is how the reduced salinity and increased heat will affect ocean currents. That is really what drives the global climate. And it does not take a major change there to have huge impacts globally.

Scientists have been trying for decades to shrink the Sahara by planting dry-tolerant plants round the edges, even creating some of their own by genetic modification. The problem is that there's so much dry sand blowing around that the vegetation quickly gets overcome.

A lush desert isn't a desert ;-)

AJ

I've been out of touch for a while, but the last I heard they were genetically engineering a type of dune grass to make it even more resilient. If the grass can stabilise the sand, then they can think about more substantial plants like food crops and even trees, even though those will require irrigation.

AJ

Scientists have been trying for decades to shrink the Sahara by planting dry-tolerant plants round the edges, even creating some of their own by genetic modification. The problem is that there's so much dry sand blowing around that the vegetation quickly gets overcome.

It is also in an area with little rainfall. At this time the rinds in that region predominantly go from the south to the north through Africa. So by the time they get there, all the moisture is gone.

Until that changes, it will always remain as it is now, although some at the edges can be reclaimed.

I actually laugh at most claims of "reclaiming the desert". It has been tried over and over again, and always fails. Nature is far more powerful than most people realize.

I actually laugh at most claims of "reclaiming the desert". It has been tried over and over again, and always fails.

I don't know much about Israel, but I believe they did it through irrigation.

I don't know much about Israel, but I believe they did it through irrigation.

That land had not been desert for all that long. Remember, less than 2,000 years ago Israel was still a nation that exported grain, as was much of the Middle East and parts of Africa.

Heck, the Sahara is not even that old, it has only really been a desert for the last 5,500 years or so.

That literally is less than an eyeblink, in the history of the planet. Most people really do have no idea how radically our climate has changed in the past. In this to me, they are like a group of luddite reactionaries, and scream because things are changing and are obsessed that humans are causing it.

To me, it is like they want the entire planet frozen in amber, and to remain like it is today forever. I see that as stupid. 2,000 years ago, Death Valley was a large inland lake. 6,000 years ago North Africa was a lush tropical wetland. 9,000 years ago you could walk from France to England. 12,000 years ago, San Francisco was in an inland valley.

Our planet changes, but some are acting like such things have never happened before. I wonder if to them, we should blame the fires by Neanderthal for ending the last ice age.

If the Saharan Rain Forest still had a tree canopy, the situation would be different.

Our descendants might one day say the same about the Amazon Desert.

AJ

But if you go by the long term pelo-climate record, in general, a warmer world tends to be wetter, not dryer.

And Ice Ages are the driest. This is not even "rocket science" to me, there is a reason why Antarctica is the continent with the least amount of precipitation on the planet, and is called by some the "Desert Continent".

In fact, I admit I laugh when people scream about CO2. That is literally "plant food", and all interglacials have had increased CO2 levels. To be honest, I am much more nervous about the vast and rapid deforestation in places like the Amazon than I am about "Greenhouse Gasses".

Our planet has a balance, and gasses is one of them. Too much of a gas into the atmosphere, and the planet reacts. Hydrogen Sulfide, and you get "acid rain" and increased erosion (which traps the extra acid in the minerals). Not enough CO2, then plants die off and the decomposition releases more and the less sparse terrain is more favorable to animals, which increases CO2 output. Increase CO2, and then plants start to grow like crazy and expand. But the cutting of rainforests disturbs me, as that is one of the main systems for absorbing such gasses.

However, I also do not believe it is about CO2, it is about politics and money. You can tax businesses and government, but you can not tax poor slash and burn farmers in Brazil.

The extra CO2 we produce is warming the planet. That issue is not seriously debated by any scientist not employed by an oil company.

Lot of scientists disagree with it. They're just not willing go up against the 'religion' that has developed and get canceled.

Oh, and keep in mind that without oil - even if you completely disregard gasoline - we're done as a civilization. That's why I have these two paragraphs in Chapter 7 of Book Three:

Certain countries will need even more fertilizer and other petroleum products, such as plastics, simply to satisfy their own continued growing consumer base. At the same time, all the money in the world can't necessarily buy you what you need, but can give you the ability to trade for things without actually dealing directly in currencies, so long as certain values are agreed upon as equivalent," I said.

"Thus, our agreement and business with you, my young friend," Nayef interjected. "It has already proven fruitful, as Tamotsu-san has passed on to me, and to Henry. One of the things he needs is more easily acquired from his western neighbor, who happens to need something we can provide from here, in exchange. And, of course, with your own discoveries poised to power the entire world, every liter of oil saved by your turbines is another liter that can be used for other purposes."

Lot of scientists disagree with it. They're just not willing go up against the 'religion' that has developed and get canceled.

As you can see by his reaction to a quote I made by Michael Crichton. I honestly had absolutely no idea of his stance on the subject. He could have been all for it, or opposed. Neither stance would have made his quote any less relevant.

And only after I looked did I understand the anger, because he is very anti. Therefore, he must be quashed and never brought up ever again. CC in action.

What is next, burning any books that oppose it?

However, there is no serious question that "human-caused global warming" is happening.

There is plenty of question. You and others like you however want to "cancel" any that do not want to believe what you do.

To me, this is nothing other than accepting things on faith, and wanting all heretics excommunicated. Any who bow down to the messiah of "Climate Change" must be expunged and silenced.

However, there is no serious question that "human-caused global warming" is happening.

I disagree, but on the balance of current evidence it's probably happening. I'm concerned about how little evidence we really have - it's a bit like claiming a coin is biased because both coin tosses came up heads.

AJ

How frequently can we take climate measurements which are truly independent of short-term effects from the previous measurement.

I'd estimate about once a decade.

How much reliable historic information do we have?

Much of the globe was uncovered until very late last century, so it may be as few as three decades.

So we have warm-cool-warm, with this decade looking to be a warm one.

Worrisome, but a sensible gambler wouldn't be betting the bank on it.

AJ

But there's a lot of difference between the temps at a grassy 1920's airfield and the same airport in 2021, with acres of paved runways, taxiways, and dozens of jets spewing exhaust.

Heathrow Airport, near London, often has the highest daily temperature in England.

AJ

A large number of the weather stations that actually had accurate equipment and kept records long term were, and still are, at airports - for fairly obvious reasons.

But there's a lot of difference between the temps at a grassy 1920's airfield and the same airport in 2021, with acres of paved runways, taxiways, and dozens of jets spewing exhaust.

Which is a point that many have been making for over a decade. I know that the temperature at the local airport (less than 5 miles away) is normally 3-5 degrees warmer than it is at my house. All that asphalt and cement is surely causing this, along with the exhaust. And it stays warmer a lot longer than it does here at night when it starts to cool off. Last night it was near 80, and my phone (airport weather report) said it was still 86.

Most of the time, the counter argument is your thermometer/temp gage isn't calibrated. I still have a QA program for my current businesses. NIST traceable thermometers/temp gages are part of that. I've taken them to nearby woodland areas then to the local airport/noaa station. The minimum difference between them hasn't dropped below a 5 degree F difference. Scientific weather stations also use NIST traceable equipment (reportedly). That has left the question in my mind, "why the difference?"

Methods and placement are the only possible solution to that difference.

Well, what we use is a digital system I got last year, and the results are interesting. Things like barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, humidity, and the like are almost always dead on, less than a 2% difference. but temperature is very different. And I find it hard to believe that all of the other gauges are almost dead on, but the temperature is so far off, and always lower than the airport reports. Other than earlier this year when we had some snow, and then it was actually correct to within 2 degrees F.

And having spent an entire year in a country that was very much like an airport (flat, hard ground with white limestone covering it, no plants to speak of anywhere), I am not surprised. Qatar was the hottest place I had ever lived, and the sunlight reflecting off of that limestone just baked your brain, even without the 130+ temperature. Flat, and square mile after square mile of white limestone reflecting all of that heat right back as concrete would.

And even seeing temperatures of over 110 at midnight, as the ground was still bleeding off all that heat it had absorbed during the day. That is pretty much what any airport is like, and that is where 90% of weather stations are located. So it is no wonder that they are giving higher readings than they did half a century ago.

Not saying temperatures are not rising, that is still a face. But skewing the results to an even greater degree than is natural. I wonder what would happen if all of those stations were shut down now that we have more advanced systems, and they were located into the center of parks instead.

as the ground was still bleeding off all that heat it had absorbed during the day

Anyone who lives in the southern United States knows that already. Which may be one reason we tend to take these pronouncements with a grain or two (dozen) of salt.

Go be a car salesman in the middle of August in in Oklahoma City, in the afternoon. I've seen salesmen literally get burns on their feet THROUGH their shoes in the afternoon. Sun goes down, you're still there at midnight because it's Saturday and there were six deals backed up waiting to go to finance, it's nice and cool outside (finally), you lean up against the building and pull away quickly. It's still hot, four hours later. It's worse in Dallas.

Oh, and while Antarctic temperatures may have increased, the increase is at least an order of magnitude short of what would be needed to start melting ice.

I often tell people to watch documentaries on that station. I knew more than a few sailors that had the coveted "Wintered Over" device on their ribbon for service there.

The entire station is mobile, and every year or so they have to jack it up or it will get buried in ice. Their biggest challenges is to keep it well insulated so it will not melt the ice under it, and to keep jacking it up so it does not get buried. And the glaciers are still expanding, not receding. If anything, the massive ice shelves breaking off shows that they are still expanding and growing, and not shrinking.

However it's not the upper extremes the climate alarmist cry about. It's the polar increases resulting in melting ice.

Yes, melting of the ice caps. Which started over 11,000 years ago. Which I learned over 40 years ago is a major factor in albedo.

Yes, in an era of the fears of "New ice age", I had a geology teacher explain to us that was nonsense, it was the typical cycle and things would continue to get warmer. He explained things like albedo, and how more ice melting would accelerate more warming and melting.

I love how some will scream at me I am "Anti-Science!", while I am discussing things like albedo, solar cycles and orbital drift and tilt recession. Then go into currents in the oceans and wind, but I am the anti-science one because I should just shut up and accept what I am told without question.

And hell, want proof the planet has been warming for a long time, look no more than Portage Glacier. When first discovered, it reached the ocean in the Turnagain Arm. When I saw it, it was about a mile from the visitor center. I am told now it is not even visible from there. But that recession was going on when we were still in the "little ice age". And I see no reason to believe it is stopping any time soon.

They usually scream denier with the same fervor as ISIS would scream infidel.

Exactly. Which in and of itself is not even correct in most instances you hear that being said. Which is actually a fair comparison.

Under Islam, Jews and Christians are not "Infidels". Even Mohammed wrote that they are also "People of the Book", and therefore "Ahl al-Kitāb". Not infidels at all, simply believers in the same God that worship Him in a different way. Infidel was reserved for the pagans and idolaters and not others who followed the God of Abraham.

But as the fanatics of Islam pervert their own beliefs, those that scream that others who reach different conclusions are "anti-Science" is offensive, and shows to me that they do not actually know what that means. Bigoted, narrow minded, and so obsessed with their orthodoxy that they reject automatically any conclusions that do not match their own.

I actually do believe that this is more religion than anything else now. And like any religion, any who do not agree with what the Prophets are saying must be destroyed.

My understanding is that they're currently expanding. At what point will a tipping point be reached after which they will start to contract?

Oh, that is believed to be several thousand years after we finally enter the interglacial.

Technically speaking, we are still in an "Ice Age", as until we largely see the Arctic Ice Cap vanish we are still in one.

But as more water enters the ecosystem after being sequestered in ice, humidity levels will start to rise. larger surface area of the oceans will allow for increased evaporation, and slowly increase global humidity.

But that is a long and slow process.

From what I've read, in the current ice age of alternating glacial and inter-glacial periods, we are already overdue for the next glaciation.

Not even close.

Technically, we are still in an "ice age", but the tail end of it. The current really only started to really come to an end about 12kya, and we have had several resurgences since then (including the "Little Ice Age" as the most recent). Until the permafrost line moves to at least central Alaska-Canada and the Arctic ice pack is largely gone, we are still in one.

On average, an interglacial lasts around 6-10kya, and we are not even to that stage yet. And some are looking at the Milankovitch Cycle (the intensity of the sun combined with tilt and orbit of the Earth), and saying this interglacial may last as long as 50 ky. Not the longest one by far, but longer than normal.

And for real proof, ice cores are not really accurate. But we have plenty of fossil records going back through multiple ice age cycles. And knowing what plants and animals were living in an area is a good indicator as to climate conditions.

In most interglacials, palm trees thrived and grew in central Alaska. I myself have pulled fossilized palms from Idaho fossil beds. At this time, those can only grow about as far as Northern California unaided by humans.

The Idaho palm tree fossils are tens of millions of years old, and you're forgetting about continental drift in all of this. North America used to be much further south than it is today.

Barely. North and South America had already collided over 10 million years prior to that, and the disruption of the current that used to pass through that actually made the northern hemisphere colder.

And the drift is nowhere near as much as you are thinking.

https://www.oldearth.org/curriculum/history/MioceneGlobal.jpg

This is the continents at around 12 MYA. And as is obvious, 30 degrees North latitude is still right along the north coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Where it is still sitting today, maybe 100 miles or so difference from then and now.

If handed a globe of the planet then and the planet now, most would likely have a hard time spotting the differences. Which is why many long-term researchers look to the Middle Miocene to see what the planet might have been like completely outside of an ice age.

That was millions of years before the current Quaternary Ice Age Cycle started (around 2.4 mya). The Arctic Ice Cap had yet to form, and only part of Antarctica had an ice cap.

Among geologists, this is largely seen as the "baseline" for what the planet would be like if there was no ice age at all. And why as I have said those that look at the long term climate on the planet generally consider the presence or absence of such an ice cap as an indication if an ice age is ongoing or not.

Yes, you are talking about a score of thousands of years to 100,000. But the planet was like this for roughly 18 million years with no ice age at all. Almost indistinguishable in continent placement than it is today. This would be like some were talking about conditions over the past 10,000 years, and some obsess over 100 years.

Oh, and they are not "tens of millions of years old". I am talking about the Bruneau Woodpile, that is a Late Pliocene Era deposit. From roughly 2.6 to 5.2 mya. That was a huge inland lake that is now known as "Lake Idaho", and filled most of the current Treasure Valley.

http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org/PlioceneBruneauIdaho.html

This is actually a very famous fossil bed, as it is almost entirely on public land. And access from a paved road is literally about 50 meters from the dozens of miles of meter high cliff.

Here is a map of ancient Lake Idaho. Locate Bruneau, then head due West until you are at a location south of Grandview. That is roughly where the Bruneau Woodpile is.

A period roughly at or tight before the current Ice Age cycle began. And to give an idea, here is a current planting map of Idaho. It included minimum temperature extremes, to give an idea what plants will thrive there.

https://www.florida-palm-trees.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/idaho-hardiness-zone-map.jpg

Now for palm trees to have thrived, the climate would have to have been much more like that of California today. Where they really do not thrive and spread wildly north of the Sacramento area.

https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/wp-content/uploads/2004/08/california_map_lg.gif

This alone shows how much different the climate is when we are not in an ice age. Because that was conditions before the ice age cycles we are in even began.

The fossil trees/logs are supposed to be millions of years old, but the one depicted in the second photo appears to have a saw cut end.

That is actually common, look at almost any fossilized tree.

They mineralized in the ground, then over time as the strata shifted they break like spaghetti. And because by that time they are fossils, they normally break cleanly like that.

Look up almost any photos of fossilized tree trunks.

Care to share a source that supports that conjecture?

Really?

https://www.arizonahighways.com/blog/how-did-those-petrified-logs-get-cut

This is something I was able to figure out way back in Junior High. And have seen in fossil tree beds in many states, including California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Wyoming.

"Conjecture"? This is no conjecture, this is a fact. As I said, look up almost any tree fossils, and this is seen.

https://www.nps.gov/pefo/learn/nature/petrified-wood.htm

https://www.rockhoundtimes.com/calistoga-petrified-forest.html

https://geology.com/stories/13/petrified-wood/

I find it fascinating that the logs in the picture they used for that article do not have flat smooth ends that look saw cut. They have rough broken looking ends that are more what most people would expect if they broke naturally.

And there are a great many sources I gave, with several giving the exact same explanation. And much of that is also determined in how long they took to fossilize, the conditions they went after before and after that process. As well as things like what minerals fossilized them in addition to size, and if they weathered on the surface or were still entombed in the strata before being extracted.

The beds I went through were normally full of smaller ones, with the largest intact normally being branches no more than 5 cm across. But also large chunks, that were almost randomly scattered.

And even though it is largely geologically stable today, during that era it was rather unstable. The Yellowstone Caldera had already moved North and East, but it was still an area plagued with earthquakes and volcanos from its passing. That is why it is called the "Gem State", as those millions of years of vulcanism have left a great many gems all over the state. From sapphires to diamonds.

Remember, fossilized trees are very brittle. Most times they actually fossilize into the same minerals that make gems. Some of the most prized are "opalized", and yes they are actually made out of opal. Those are prized by those who make jewelry.

So imagine they are like glass. Some may shatter when under stress, while others may fracture like bending a glass rod with some shards but largely intact ends.

And sometimes, even not fossilize completely. It is not uncommon to see some that appear "hollow" in the center. This is not a hollow tree, the center part simply did not fossilize before it decayed, rotting away to leave nothing in the center. Then collapsing later during strata movement.

Nothing in your links explains that anomaly.

OK, fine. They were really cut by lumberjacks millions of years ago.

You can be a smart ass if you want, but something is definitely wrong with the information provided. It could be they posted something they thought would get people to stop questioning it.

And tell me, how is this affected when the object is under pressure, entombed under a hundred meters or more of earth?

I did look through your reference, and strange but that is never even mentioned. Although they talk extensively of such fractures in a gaseous fluid environment (air). Which is nothing like being under the pressures of an item underground. And there are other huge differences, but that is just a start.

Take a few fossil logs with the smooth flat ends, put them in a press and ramp the pressure up until they break.

Which is exactly the point, because that would not replicate the conditions.

And since the only possible cause other than fracturing under pressure under the surface of the Earth, the only solution so far suggested must be lumberjacks with saws millions of years ago. Because you have either myself stating what geologists have believed for over a century. Then you have saws.

Just because you can't think of another explanation other than those two, that doesn't mean that there isn't one.

OK, it is magic then.

Look, this is why I laugh so much at many people. They automatically want to get combative, and in reality I have a very open mind. But when people just go "No, you are wrong" and have no alternative at all, then I simply shake my head and recognize it for what it is.

That is the rabbit hole of conspiracy theory thinking, and I do not go that way. And notice, other than early on with the comments on saws, there have been no other proposed causes listed. Just automatic rejection based on conditions that do not replicate the conditions. Repeated ad nauseum.

But hey, if an actual causation is proposed that is logical, I am all for it. But rejection without explanation without replication of conditions, that is not worth discussing anymore.

All cats have 4 legs, therefore all animals that have 4 lets are cats. The earth is warming, humans are on the earth, therefore humans cause warming. Money is made out of paper, therefore all paper is money.

It is simply that that kind of thinking bores me to death, and I have absolutely no interest in people screaming something is wrong, with no alternative solution other than returning to saws millions of years ago.

It would be like my saying that oxygen is toxic and can kill you. A true statement, under the right and easy to replicate conditions.

For the record, I've personally tested this under laboratory conditions.

Underground?

See, this is the thing I have repeated many times, you talk about tests at atmospheric density. Which is not the same conditions. I repeat this over and over, yet you continue to neglect that. And talk of my rejecting other solutions, while none have been asserted.

Being surrounded by high pressure on all sides causes things to go very strange. Even causes gasses we need to live to become toxic, and causes materials to behave in unique ways they do not normally.

From what basis did you make that claim?

Really?

Ever seen a diamond? Did you know that you can make ice at room temperature, just by adding pressure? Do you know what Colonel Sanders used to cook his chicken so quickly?

https://www.britannica.com/science/high-pressure-phenomena/Applications

But on what basis? Just ask any SCUBA diver, we learn this from almost day 1 of our training. Oxygen is toxic, which is why when diving our tanks are not filled with oxygen, but with air. And why the laughable devices that claim to let you breathe underwater like in the James Bond movie by removing oxygen from water we know are not real because they would be fatal.

Oxygen toxicity is a condition resulting from the harmful effects of breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at increased partial pressures. Severe cases can result in cell damage and death, with effects most often seen in the central nervous system, lungs, and eyes. Historically, the central nervous system condition was called the Paul Bert effect, and the pulmonary condition the Lorrain Smith effect, after the researchers who pioneered the discoveries and descriptions in the late 19th century. Oxygen toxicity is a concern for underwater divers, those on high concentrations of supplemental oxygen (particularly premature babies), and those undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Under pressure, items can become more or less brittle, gain or lose conductivity, and often loose volume. Check out some of the shrunken styrene items if you ever visit the Naval Museum in Vallejo, California. 12 ounce coffee cups, now the size of a thimble because they were exposed to the pressures of water in a deep diving submarine.

Or the almost universal results of bringing life from deep sea vents, like the "Dandelion" to the surface. They literally explode before they reach the surface, not enough pressure.

Oh, and another unique way gasses operate, under pressure we no longer bleed off nitrogen. Our body absorbs it, which is why we can only be under water for so long at each depth. Otherwise, you get "the bends". Dive for an hour at 2 atmospheres (60 feet), better remain on the surface to bleed off the nitrogen for about an hour.

You ask what basis? Hell, ask anybody PADI, NAUI, YMCA, or Navy SCUBA certified. The affects of pressure are the single largest concern in that training.

As far as why I made the statement about atmospheric density, because all of the articles do not discuss it at all. Therefore, it was never a consideration. Zero consideration to how pressure would affect the results, because they were all done at roughly 1 atmosphere of pressure (roughly 1.01 bar). Not at pressures of 1,000 bar or more. Which is the same as around 300 meters underground, or 30,000 feet underwater.

Want me do discuss next why nobody was alive on the Titanic when it reached the bottom? I can do that also. And why both halves suffered vastly different damage before they got there. You simply do not really consider pressure (which is why you do not notice the absence of it being discussed), but it has been something I have considered for decades.

Oh, and FYI, some geologists also propose the reverse theory. That the logs fracture when they come closer to the surface, and the tension they had been under for millions of years is released which causes them to fracture. But that is largely a chicken-egg thought exercise, as the actual answer will likely never be known unless we can create a large fossilized tree in a lab under pressure, then release that pressure.

Money is made out of paper, therefore all paper is money.

Quite a few governments have discovered this is not true, much to their chagrin.

It was the climate "concensus" of the time.

I thought that's why they just went with climate change, that way they'd at least be right, since all of their predictions about ice ages and global warming were wrong.

The biggest factor is that the Earth's orbit around the Sun wobbles, it changes over time in a semi-cyclical way.

Is many factors.

Milankovitch Cycles are complex, and involve a great many things. The tilt and speed of rotation, the orbit of the earth, which sometimes is more elliptical than others. As well as solar output.

This has all been known for over 100 years. And I find one of the funniest things is that I will bring up the Milankovitch cycles, and suddenly people scream at me I am a "denier".

Well, that alone is retarded, as if the planet was not warming, there would be no San Francisco Bay, and the Channel Islands (20 miles out to sea) would still be connected to the California mainland.

Just as it was when Humans first arrived in the area.

Ignoring solar activity is one of the larger mistakes both schools of thought make. Which makes no sense whatsoever. The source of energy to create global warming is the sun, the lack of the same energy creates an ice age.

And also there are the wind and ocean currents.

Geologists think the largest change since the KT event was when the Isthmus of Panama formed about 20 mya and seriously changed the climate.

Until that time, most of the Americas were wet and lush, and Europe was dry and cold. More like what is seen in Central Canada today. In fact, at that time they believe hurricanes traveled from the Americas to Africa, the reverse of today.

But that ended the warm Pacific waters entering the Atlantic, and changed the climate over 2 oceans and at least 5 continents. And it also roughly when the current cycles of ice ages started.

So want to make Europe cooler and the US and Mexico wetter? Just blast a deep 100 mile wide stretch through the middle of Panama, and wait a few thousand years.

Want to kill the planet? Blasting a channel through Panama connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans without gates to control it stands a real good chance of getting it done.

Well, we would just be returning the planet to what it was like 20 mya. It would hardly "kill the planet".

Hell, you think that is bad? Wait another 200 million years. At that time, all the continents are expected to combine again to form "Pangea Proxima". Antarctica will be ice free again, roughly at the equator. And at that time things will really be rough. Much of life on the planet and most in the oceans will die off.

There is a reason why I largely laugh when people start acting crazy over 5 or 10 year weather changes. That is barely even a blip, other than on their heavily biased charts.

No more rain on the wheat and rice. The world dies.

Technically not quite right. The world would still live, just a whole lot of people would die.

Technically not quite right. The world would still live, just a whole lot of people would die.

Exactly. "kill the world's weather"? What kind of nonsense is that? Change, yes. It is not like "weather" would vanish. It would change, it has always been changing. From "hothouse Earth" to "iceball Earth". It is always changing, and that will never end.

But some just can not comprehend change, and want to keep things locked as they are now in that way forever. I find that the ultimate in mental illness.

Accept evolution, but think that the planet will never change. While all around us is evidence everywhere that it is always changing.

Of course, they want to blame most if not all of climate change on human activity, ignoring other factors like vulcanism or solar activity.

And this is the problem.

Most "scientists" agree with Climate Change. It is real, has been happening for billions of years, and will continue on. But most do NOT agree it is caused by humans. But notice that the agenda pushers tend to hide this, and will openly misquote scientists and papers on the subject.

In a great many cases, even the writers of the paper have taken this movement to task, saying that is NOT what they said, and they do not care. I have even heard that movement lambasting some who's very papers they use as their "sources" as "deniers".

But most do NOT agree it is caused by humans.

I thought they said it's being speeded up by the burning of fossil fuels.

Those who are old enough and had not had their brains destroyed might remember that in the 1970s there was a bunch of talk about 'the coming ice age'.

I remember it very well. Record snowfalls in Buffalo, New York being shut down for days, it was all over the media for years. Even Leonard Nimoy did an episode about it on his long running TV series.

I was already learning more at that time from a teacher who actually had a degree in Geology who scoffed at it even then. He said 2 or 20 or even 200 year "trends" did not matter worth a damn on a planet where such things take place over tens of thousands and even millions of years. He equated it to taking the temperature inside your fridge, and saying that was the temperature in an average home.

I was reflecting on the absurdity of cancel culture.

My newspaper reported on a poll of some 2,300 young adults. Of those with left-wing tendencies, 37% supported cancel culture. Of those with right-wing tendencies, 7% supported cancel culture.

I know that's a small poll size and heaven knows what biases were involved in the selection process, but it does rather support the popular stereotypes.

AJ

I think this is meaningless without a definition of 'cancel culture'. If you just use that phrase, you'll get a discrepancy, but that's because right-wing-leaning people tend to listen to sources yelling 'cancel culture bad!' over and over.

Ask them if they support boycotts against companies that dispute right-wing priorities, if they support kicking out Liz Cheney, etc. Most likely they do.

I think this is meaningless without a definition of 'cancel culture'.

If I recall the describing article correctly, the definition was something like having the right to silence the opinions of people you disagreed with.

AJ

If I recall the describing article correctly, the definition was something like having the right to silence the opinions of people you disagreed with.

"I am entitled to my opinion, and you are only entitled to share my opinion. Anything else must be silenced."

Which, again, is hardly in any way a new thing. I remember plenty of conservative-leaning boycotts in the 1980s trying to demand that theaters not show this movie or that, which amounts to silencing their opinions, or even movies connected to one person or another.

Do they suppose silencing Liz Cheney and other "anti-Trump" Republicans? If so, they support "cancel culture", they just don't call it that. The vast majority of Republicans seem to be all in on cancel culture just now.

Been there, seen that, and it's not a new thing.

Which, again, is hardly in any way a new thing. I remember plenty of conservative-leaning boycotts in the 1980s trying to demand that theaters not show this movie or that, which amounts to silencing their opinions, or even movies connected to one person or another.

"Cancel Culture" is a bit more extreme than just boycotting something. There is a difference from saying "We object to this and will not see it", and "Absolutely nobody should ever see this movie, or any other made by XXXX".

And the extreme examples are not by Conservatives. Enders Game in particular (or anything by Orson Scott Card), and as you have seen Michael Crichton are hot topics with Liberals not because of any of the content they created, but the opinions of the authors on various subjects.

And of course it can not go unsaid that the entire Music Censorship push of the 1980's was by none other than Al Gore.

And of course it can not go unsaid that the entire Music Censorship push of the 1980's was by none other than Al Gore.

And he, along with Tipper, were positively owned by Frank Zappa!

See:

Frank Zappa at PMRC Senate Hearing on Rock Lyrics [Youtube]

Frank Zappa debates Tipper Gore, summer 1987 [Youtube]

I'm thinking Dean Snider did a better job of it. Zappa took pains to dress up. Snider wore his normal fair with no attempt to conform as did Zappa.

That's how Zappa often dressed in public when not performing. See, for example, his pic in Rolling Stone in this article: Q&A: Frank Zappa [Rolling Stone]

He was also making a statement to the Senators that he was not a 'drug-addled rock musician' (he strongly disapproved of drug use, though was for decriminalization). He also wanted to make the point that he was respecting the Senators.

And it's not as if his concert attire was anything like Dee Snyder and Twisted Sister. See, for example:

Frank Zappa History - The Zappa In New York 40th Anniversary Editions - Chapter XXVI [Blogspot]

compare with:

Twisted Sister, "We're Not Gonna Take It" [Rolling Stone]

Quite a lot of the boycott/censorship efforts of the past were oriented around 'we object to this, therefore no one should see it or anything else by XXX'. It wasn't uncommon for protests to involve destroying all records by XXX, for instance, or XXX becoming effectively unemployable.

Yes, absolutely and without question, some of it goes over the top. We all know that. However, most of the whining and kvetching about "cancel culture" seems to be cover for "I have this extremely unpopular opinion, and I should be able to express it with no consequence whatsoever for my popularity and employability, and if there's even the slightest consequence, I'm being 'canceled', oh woe is me."

Free speech does not come with a lack of consequences. No one is required to like you, support you, go to your movies, or anything else, and they have the free speech to implore others to not do those things either.

And, honestly, if enough people think that you're such a horrible human being that you don't deserve whatever recognition you want, that's probably on you, not the 'cancel culture' mob. A ton of people have come out whining about being 'canceled'; the great majority of them are still working and in highly visible roles, because not nearly enough people could get riled up for long enough for it to matter.

Books have been banned for decades - and often it's the author, not just the book. Boycotts have existed for a hundred years (by that name), and often it's an entire business or anything connected with an individual.

I have yet to see a viable 'response' to cancel culture. Are we to ban the free speech of those who decry someone whose opinions they don't support? Or say that 'free speech' doesn't include calls for boycott, firing, censure, what have you?

Yes, it's a mighty weapon, but boycotts and such combined with mass media have always been a mighty weapon. The explosion of easy access to media was always going to have consequences.

As I said above, the limiting factor is that people are, in general, really bad at maintaining sufficient levels of 'cancelization' for more than a very brief time before they're distracted by the next dumpster fire to come along. The 'music censorship' push amounted to absolutely nothing. Woody Allen, cause celebre of much 'cancel culture', is still working, still making movies, and his once-canceled book found a publisher. He's still getting good reviews, too. The list goes on and on; James Gunn was canceled, but within months was not only uncanceled but helming two franchises, Gina Carano almost certainly gained far more recognition than she lost, and on and on. Mel Gibson has been on both right-leaning and left-leaning cancel lists since the late 1980s and has barely slowed down.

I continue to find 95% of the outcry some variant of 'woe is me, I said/did something people don't like and they're reacting to it in ways I don't like, so they must be stopped! For the good of my free speech, something must be done about their free speech!' The remaining 5%, where the reporting is wrong and they never said/did what they did in the first place, is a much more serious problem - but the problem isn't 'cancel culture', it's the vast volume of bad information in our media and the inability of people to cope with bad information (which, increasingly, is provably an innate human trait; we as a species are really bad at dealing with corrections to misinformation).

fixed

Thanks.

So now I have to go google this slang. It's not an international term.

As usual, country has their own distinctive historical foes (our just change a bit more rapidly than most). When I discovered my roommate in college was a Swede, I had to resurrect all the old Swedish jokes my grandmother teasingly told us. I've never uttered a Swedish joke before or since, but it certainly wiled him up, and he had several Norwegian jokes under his best for a few rapid-fire retorts too. Most times, if it's not personal, you can get away with it, but nowadays, you can seemingly be as blatantly offensive as you want, only to wave your hands when the police arrive and say 'Hey, can't you take a joke?'.

Cancel culture without social media - Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc. - is not as big a problem.

And it is nothing new.

GO back a few decades, and you had BADD (Bothered about Dungeons and Dragons) screaming to any who would listen that it was bad and evil. Al and Tipper Gore screaming that the evils of "Rock Music" was destroying our youth. And Anita Bryant going on speeches that a TV show should be cancelled and holding lectures about the evils of homosexuality.

But even then, most largely shrugged unless it was something they themselves believed in so it reinforced their own beliefs. I think all were in the minority, and mostly forgotten. If those they were doing so today, you would have large social media followings pushing their messages to the masses. Instead of like then, where most simply shrugged at them and largely did not care.

I didn't mean to start a war when I mentioned "listen to the science."

You didn't start the war. As Helmut mentions a little later on, and my reply, this has been going on for a LONG time. In more modern times, anyone who ever read anything from Roy Spencer regarding 'man-made climate change' knows how they're using it to push a political agenda. Same thing with the Covid-19. If Trump said it - regardless of what he said - it had to be bad, because he couldn't have any political victories.

There's a reason a lot of us made the comment that Trump said that breathing air was good for you. We were sort of hoping the idiots and morons would quit breathing. (Still sort of hoping for that, actually.)

Due to her job, my wife got some info that wasn't public. Covid really COULD be a scary thing, but only if you caught it. And for most of the nation - if you were reasonably healthy and didn't have underlying conditions - you didn't have to actually do a damn thing, because you weren't going to get it. It's all about acceptable risk. (Note that due to my own medical history, I DO have underlying conditions, but I also didn't live in fear.)

if you were reasonably healthy and didn't have underlying conditions - you didn't have to actually do a damn thing, because you weren't going to get it

That's not the case in my state. In fact, our numbers of new cases are going up again (but not hospital numbers). They assume it's because of the Fourth of July holiday. 100% of the people getting sick haven't been vaccinated. The majority of them are younger people in good health because the older people got vaccinated.

Pfizer said that, because of the Delta variant, fully vaccinated people need a 3rd shot, a booster shot, after 6–12 months after the 2nd shot. The CDC and FDA both said no, that people with two shots are not in danger. I assume the Pfizer people are scientists. Why isn't the CDC and FDA listening to the scientists who know more about the product than anyone?

* If someone who had the two shots catches Covid again – highly improbable but not impossible

In a recent outbreak of the Indian variant in Bolton,5 out of 49 people hospitalised had been double-jabbed. Admittedly, many of those received the AZ vaccine but 'official' figures claim to show that both the AZ and Pfizer vaccines reduce hospitalisations by over 90%

So while it's actually quite likely someone double-jabbed can catch the virus again, the effects are usually very mild or asymptomatic.

AJ

So while it's actually quite likely someone double-jabbed can catch the virus again, the effects are usually very mild or asymptomatic.

The correct claim for the jabs is that they are extremely effective at preventing hospitalization and death, and very effective at preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2. That's what they are designed to do.

The general public equates 'vaccine' with 'you can never get the disease', which is why they freak out about 'breakthrough' cases. I don't know of any vaccine which is 100% effective in all individuals, but if you vaccinate enough individuals, you wipe out transmission vectors (cf smallpox, which was eradicated with a vaccine that was about 95% effective).

Three doses of the 'inactivated' version of the polio vaccine (injected intramuscularly) is >99% effective, not 100% effective. Four doses are recommended.

If someone who had the two shots catches Covid again – highly improbable but not impossible

Not improbable. Israel is leading the way on vaccinations and they're finding the 90+% effectiveness after two shots drops to the 60s% with the Delta variant. The cases are mild or at least don't require hospitalization, but fully vaccinated people are getting Covid.

Of course government agencies are typically reactive. When fully vaccinated people here start getting sick they will change their mind and then there will be a rush on getting the booster. I'm afraid some of their decisions are also political. Biden had a one-shot goal that wasn't met. Stupid goal since one shot doesn't protect you. But that's where he's putting his resources. Trying to get more people vaccinated. That's a great thing. But maybe he doesn't want to scare those people off by now saying the vaccine isn't as good as touted.

I guess Pfizer's motive could be selling more. But they didn't take any money from the government to develop theirs. And the worldwide demand probably exceeds their production capabilities. As to boosters, people have always said we might get one as part of the flu shot every year.

Biden had a one-shot goal that wasn't met. Stupid goal since one shot doesn't protect you.

I believe a one-shot vaccine is on its way, but I haven't heard of it being approved yet.

Allegedly the Pfizer vaccine is best for antibodies but the AZ vaccine is best for t-cells. Recent research suggests that a mix-and-match approach is more effective, so someone double-jabbed with Pfizer should be better off with an AZ booster and vice versa.

AJ

I believe a one-shot vaccine is on its way,

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is a single shot. I think it is still approved in the U.S. even though some young women died after taking it.

But when I said "one shot" I meant the "first shot" of Pfizer or Moderna. The goal should have been "fully" vaccinated. People die when catching Covid after only having the first shot.

All Proles Must Have Their Daily Dose of Soma!

Uh... it will be required that to have a job, or go out in public, all Subjects must have a (Profits) Boosting "JAB" every six months... six weeks... six days...

Congrescritters "need" bribes, er, "Contributions"... (from the pharmaceutical corporations)

Trusssst in Meee sings the Snake.

In fact, our numbers of new cases are going up again (but not hospital numbers).

It was JUST released that here in Oklahoma, we were having an increase in the Delta variant, and they were going - hey, only 40% of the people in Oklahoma have been jabbed at all.

There's just one problem. Delta variant makes you sick, but not much else that anyone's found.

And that was, again, THREE MONTHS AGO that they knew about this, and JUST released it this weekend. They knew people in Oklahoma were going to tell them to fuck off anyway. The whole live in fear of something that interferes with you actually taking care of yourself, and ended up MAYBE causing a 10% increase in monthly deaths isn't our style. The reason I say maybe is because of all the lockdowns, how many people died that otherwise would have seen a doctor for that condition they had and died from it. I needed elbow surgery, and it was delayed for 9 months. No, it's not life threatening, but during that 9 month period, the nerve damage increased so much that while I have mobility, I have no feeling in half of my left hand, and can't actually type with my little finger anymore because while there's no feeling in the hand itself, there's a LOT of feeling in the fingertip - like serious stabbing pain any time I use it.

I've been double jabbed, but (a) I have underlying conditions and (b) wife is Director of Nursing at an assisted living, and everyone there has been exposed.

Delta variant makes you sick, but not much else that anyone's found

I don't believe that's true for people who are not fully vaccinated.

There seems to be little difference between Delta and the original strain in terms of lethality (around 1% with current hospital protocols). It's hard to tell - it may be slightly higher or slightly lower.

There seems to be little difference between Delta and the original strain in terms of lethality

The Delta variant spreads more easily. That's why it's the dominant strain in most places.

Right - but once you get it, no one is quite sure if it's more or less lethal. It seems to be about the same.

Right - but once you get it, no one is quite sure if it's more or less lethal. It seems to be about the same.

That I don't know. The only thing I know is it's more contagious and the Pfizer vaccine is less effective in preventing you from getting it.

While Pfizer is 'less effective', it's currently 96% effective against hospitalization from Delta and 88% effective against symptomatic infection, well above the levels needed to be an effective barrier against community transmission (if people would just take the damn vaccines already).

I'm sensitive to this because 1) I got Pfizer, and 2) I'm in a community where infections are rapidly growing again. That said, we're nowhere even vaguely close to the peaks of times gone by, and if the vaccination rate doesn't get any WORSE, we're likely to effectively stop community transmission within this calendar year.

if the vaccination rate doesn't get any WORSE

I saw a doctor on the news during lunch today say that unvaccinated people are putting children at risk. Children under 12 cannot get the vaccine so they have no protection against those spreading it (the unvaccinated).

The news segment said that children aren't as a high risk of getting it severely or dying from it, but 30% of them are long haulers with effects like neuro damage.

Galileo ...

Not quite.

Remember, the fact that the sun was the center of the solar system was not new at all. In fact, he largely based his works on those of 2 monks.

What he got in trouble for was basically going "The Church is wrong about this, what else are they wrong about!" Not his saying they were wrong, but what he said that implied about everything they were saying being lies and wrong.

Heck, many had known that for over 1,800 years. Just as most who were really intellectual knew the Earth was round long before Columbus took his journey. The difference is that they did not take that and try to use it to make indirect attacks on the church.

From what I've read it's more complicated than even that.

The whole mess started with complaints brought to the church by other early scientists who supported the geocentric view.

From what I've read, initially, the Pope at the time actually supported Galileo until in correspondence Galileo insulted the pope personally.

Which ultimately boils down to the arguments of the era that the church was infallible, and the Divine Right of Kings.

The scholars bring it up was not a huge deal, as many concepts were still centuries away. Heck, at that time the most commonly accepted belief in procreation involved a homonucleus (tiny human) was inside the sperm, but only sometimes would be able to survive in the female.

You even had a reductio ad absurdum argument that those homonucleus even had other homonucleus inside of them. Therefore each person born already had little people living inside of them.

And the insult to Pope Urban were slightly true, but not intended to be so. While writing his previous book " Dialogue on the Tides", the Inquisition objected to the concept that some other body was powerful enough to affect the Earth. So even though what he had written was almost completely in keeping with the Tychonic system, he was forced to rename it to "Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea".

But when he next wrote "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", he included passages that were critical of the Inquisition, and how they were wrongly injecting themselves into his work. Not blaming any one person, but the system in place. A system that the Pope was in charge of.

Most of his problems would have been a lot better if he was simply a better statesman. Work within the system, instead of trying to bash it in constantly with a hammer. The objections were far more to do with the tone than the content itself.

Alfred Wegener (1 November 1880 – November 1930) was a victim of cancel culture.

Yes, things like that have been happening for a long time. Mostly when a new theory is radically different than a previous one.

But it must also be remembered that for every one of those later shown to be right, there are 10,000 that were wrong all along.

My wife's uncle was actually one of those who helped prove the theories were more than theory by studying fossils of all things. He was a well respected paleontologist, and started to study into fossils to try and prove or disprove the theory. And he discovered turtle fossils in South America and Africa. Classified as 2 different species (as they were on different continents), but were in fact the same species.

Which helped prove that Africa and South America were indeed part of a single land mass at one time.

The idea of cancelling either liberal or conservative opinions is repulsive to me.

It's more than canceling their opinion. They destroy the person. If they have a large enough social media presence they are dangerous.

When Bill Cosby was released from prison because the DA did something unethical to get him convicted, there was a storm of negative tweets. The one person who had a warm tweet for Cosby was the actress who played his wife on the "Cosby Show," Phylicia Rashad. Not only did she get blasted for her tweet, but they tried to have her fired from her new job as Dean at Howard University. She ended up apologizing to the students and parents of the university.

When 5 dozen women have the same story, I tend to believe the accusers.

Does not matter. It is the right of anybody to say what they think, and the right of nobody to persecute them for having voiced their thoughts.

Unless somebody does not actually believe in "Freedom of Speech", and that somebody who speaks against what another believes should be persecuted for doing so. That is exactly the kind of thing that George Orwell was warning us all about over 70 years ago.

Heck, why do you think so many in here try hard to keep their anonymity? Imagine what would happen to a lot of authors here if what we wrote became publicly connected to ourselves.

I actually write rather innocuous stories compared to most. But if cherrypicked, some could accuse me of endorsing rape, the false narrative that I believe that a raped woman would actually enjoy it, in addition to incest, adults having sex with minors, and other things.

Even though none of those are really true, I was just telling a story, and any such accusations would actually be grossly out of context. But that does not matter to "cancel culture".

And what about things like if he had completed his sentence? Should somebody be persecuted for life afterwards? Be shunned forever? Of course, I also recognize that Bill Cosby had long been a target of "cancel culture" even before those accusations came to light.

I think you miss the point, I agree that the state's right to punish you should be limited, but do you truly believe anyone can act however they want and suffer no social consequences? If you publicly support a rapist, expect to feel some consequences from your audience.

Why?

Tell me, should somebody who supports a murderer be treated the same way? If so, better start shunning all those that wear Che shirts, because that bastard made Charlie Manson look like a piker.

What about those who strip away human rights and freedoms? If so, where is the shunning of people that laud nations like North Korea and Venezuela?

No, what you support is little more than shunning, and feel that anybody that does not shun an individual should themselves be shunned. Cancel Culture at its finest.

And this is why I barely pay attention to most of what you keep saying. It is so obviously politically biased, that I know that is all you really ever care about. And you will try to justify anything, no matter what it is.

I think you miss the point, I agree that the state's right to punish you should be limited, but do you truly believe anyone can act however they want and suffer no social consequences? If you publicly support a rapist, expect to feel some consequences from your audience.

Why?

Tell me, should somebody who supports a murderer be treated the same way? If so, better start shunning all those that wear Che shirts, because that bastard made Charlie Manson look like a piker.

What about those who strip away human rights and freedoms? If so, where is the shunning of people that laud nations like North Korea and Venezuela?

No, what you support is little more than shunning, and feel that anybody that does not shun an individual should themselves be shunned. Cancel Culture at its finest.

And this is why I barely pay attention to most of what you keep saying. It is so obviously politically biased, that I know that is all you really ever care about. And you will try to justify anything, no matter what it is.

She did praise a rapist. Let's be clear - Cosby was not released because he was exonerated.

And how many have praised murders and torturers', and others?

And once again, it is always largely seen along political lines. Myself, I really do not care all that much, no matter what. I happen to believe that everybody is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, and such should be respected even if not accepted.

But there is something I find disturbing when others demand somebody be "silenced and removed" just because another does not agree.

And I find anybody that believes otherwise to be reprehensible. It is a disease that only recently has been affecting the US, and I find it distasteful

Either you believe in everybody having a right to say what they want, or you are full of shit. It is as simple as that.

What next, bring back the old traditions of "outlaw", and anybody who gives Mr. Cosby food or shelter can themselves be arrested?

No, but making failure to report a crime, a crime in it's own right for all people would be a step in the wrong direction.

Exactly. And in most cases, it is only really applicable if it is reported to specific people where their reporting is to prevent a future crime.

If an individual reports to a minister that they had killed somebody, that is considered to be confidential and they can not be forced to reveal that in a trial. Hence, much of the speculation as to what OJ Simpson told to Rosey Grier. There was a lot of speculation that he confessed to his friend, but he could not be compelled as he had been an ordained minister since 1983.

However, if OJ had told him he was going to kill his wife before it happened, then he would have been required by law to inform the authorities.

And legally, somebody hearing of a "crime" like this is largely inadmissible in a criminal trial in the first place. It falls in the area of "hearsay" as they themselves have no actual knowledge of the crime itself.

If you are guilty, a fair trial should get you a fair sentence. A fair trial has nothing to do with the guilty getting off on a technicality.

And what happens if you're not guilty?

I saw on the CBS Sunday news show a story about two men who have been in prison for decades for crimes they didn't commit. Both are in Missouri and the DAs have requested they be let out of prison. If I heard it right, one of the real killers served his time and is out of prison, but the man falsely found guilty of that crime is serving life without parole.

The thing is, there's a Missouri law that prevents the men from getting out even though they are innocent and the DA requests it. It's a technicality, but they're still in prison.

Then there is no sentence..!! It ain't rocket science..!!

Tell that to the two guys rotting in prison.

Or to the victims of crimes perpetrated by those awaiting a hearing for their previous crime.

Huh? What previous crimes?

Not exactly. However it is extremely unlikely that nobody who employed him, worked with him or around him were oblivious to his actions. By failing to report their knowledge and or suspicions they actually aided or abetted him. THEY should be prosecuted.

No, they should not. There are only a few cases where "reporting" becomes mandatory. And that generally involves the first had knowledge of a specific crime, and the profession of the individual reporting it.

And guess what, that's show business. That is how that industry was run for over 100 years, and every year hundreds of women took part in it knowingly, believing it was a way to get rich and famous. Heck, there was even an early porn movie made in 1924 called "The Casting Couch", which shows that the term was well known even then.

In the ten-minute film, a casting director tells a young actress to wear a swimsuit during an audition, spies on her in a voyeuristic manner while she undresses in a different room, and enters the room to solicit sex from her. The actress initially rebuffs his advances with disgust, but returns to the director after taking advice from a book titled How to Become a Movie Star. She performs fellatio and vaginal intercourse in exchange for a role in his film; the latter takes place on a couch. The Casting Couch concludes with an intertitle that states, "the only way to become a star is to get under a good director and work your way up.

The movie is not hard to find on free streaming sites, so it is not exactly a new concept. Hell, even in that era Charlie Chaplin was infamous for bedding almost every single female he stared in a movie with (including 16 year old Mildred Harris - who he married as law enforcement was starting to get involved and she believed she was pregnant).

So I guess that probably half of show business should be arrested, and all their works prevented from ever being shown again.

None of that evidence would have been admissible as it related to a prior victim of Cosby's. It's prejudicial to use evidence of a defendant's other crimes in a criminal case (except at sentencing).

Not in Illinois. They changed the law to explicitly permit this during trial - including uncharged acts.

Including contemporaneous uncharged acts in sentencing is one thing. Using prior bad acts or even contemporaneous uncharged bad acts as evidence of guilt is a constitutional violation, even if Illinois law explicitly authorizes it.

In sex offenses, this is done and has been upheld in Illinois.

By the Federal courts? Can you cite a specific case on that?

I am not sure when that would even apply.

Almost all cases of such occur in state Superior Courts. Federal Courts when involved in sex related cases are normally when the case involves things that pass state borders. Such as kidnapping for sexual exploitation, distributing pornography across state lines (Internet), and things of that nature.

It probably has come up, but it is rather pointless. And such has been proven many times in appellate court decisions, so I have no reason to believe they would be overturned at a Federal Court level.

In addition, you have the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), enacted in 1988. It in itself did not create a "Federal Law" to require such. However, it did mandate that all US states and territories enact such laws. And every state and territory (including DC) has been found to be in compliance with it.

The federal circuit courts review constitutional challenges to state law criminal convictions all the time.

But that is not a "Federal Court", they only rule on completed trials.

But fine, have any examples of where they threw it out for that reason?

The US Congress does not have the authority to directly mandate that states do anything.

Oh nonsense, of course they do!

All driving ages are 16 or over
All drinking ages are 21 or over
All State DL and ID cards must comply with Federal guidelines
And that was just in a few seconds of thought. They do it all the time however. Width and composition of roads, Mandate use of Federal Databases, all kinds of things are mandated all the time upon States by the Federal Government.

And it did it the exact same way other things are done like I listed above. "We are setting up a system, want to get some of the money we use, you follow our requirements".

You know, it really is that simple. Raise drinking ages to 21, or loose money. Raise driving ages to 16, or lose money. Follow our requirements when building roads, or lose money.

Included in it is the requirement to perform drug tests on all newborn babies, mandatory reporting of all abuse against children. Then later expanded to the elderly, then finally just all through mandatory reporting by medical personnel, clergy, and all state and Federal government officials.

And they continue, because the grants continue to this day. Do you think a state is going to pass up "free money", when a program is a good idea?

Several states took the loss of federal highway funds rather than adopt the 55mph "federal" speed limit.

Puerto Rico, Guam and the US Virgin Islands never adopted a 21 drinking age despite the loss of federal highway funds.

Really? Name one of the states then that did not reduce the speed limit to 55.

And PR and the VI are territories, not states. Therefore things can not be compared equally because of that. Even the Supreme Court has declared many times that Congress has less authority over a territory than a state, as the delegates of such in congress are observers and not actual voting members. The US has sovereignty over them, but they are still largely autonomous

Both are unincorporated territories, along with the others like Guam. Most "Federal Laws" such as the drinking age actually do not apply to them. That is also why after the passage of "ObamaCare", many saw PR as a haven, as being an unincorporated territory, the requirements were nothing like what the States had to do.

They did get a watered down version, without the mandate that people living in states had. Individuals could chose to participate or not, with no penalty if they decided against it. And no penalty against those territories if they did not come into compliance at all.

Interesting. You listed one law that I could not find a single instance where a state decided to not follow it, and then two political entities that do not have to because of their status because they are not state sin the first place.

Western states began to reduce fines in the 1980s, effectively minimizing the impact of the 55 mph (90 km/h) limit:

Reducing fines is not the same thing as refusing to adopt it. And as you said, that happened over a decade later. 55 remained the law until 1995 when it was repealed.

And the only reference I could find to it actually being tried, was in 1986 when Nevada posted a 3 mile stretch of a single freeway to 70 MPH. Funds were withheld for one year over that until Nevada removed the signs, and Nevada took the DoT to court. And lost, appealed it and lost again.

So a single instance a decade later and states choosing to not enforce it strictly is not the same at all as "Several states took the loss of federal highway funds rather than adopt the 55mph "federal" speed limit.". A single state did that over a decade later, briefly.

Montana never bought into the 55 limit. Instead they instituted a stop gap "resource wasting fine" of $5. That is not the same as accepting a fed mandated 55mph limit.

Which as I just said, reducing fines is not the same as failure to adopt.

Much as how California decades ago did things like capping the penalty of marijuana possession at $50, and has increased the amount that falls under "Petty Theft" to $1,000.

Failure to strictly enforce a law is not the same as decriminalization.

the use of the depositions was a violation of Cosby's 5A rights.

I can't believe the DA wasn't disbarred for that.