# Global warming, climate change or excessive winter annuals



## Hayman1 (Jul 6, 2013)

Ok, agreed that you are having too much fun in the foxtail forum and obviously many are bored stiff so here goes....

There is empirical evidence of climate change or global warming. If you don't believe, go walk your fields in the Southeast and middle Northeast. covered with winter annuals growing like a vengeance. Better up your line item $ for control in March-April. JMHO but I have seen the evidence and it ain't pretty. Mullein on a tear as are henbit and chickweed. Too much warm weather and adequate moisture. 76 here tomorrow in northern Va on Christmas Eve. Ridiculous.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

No kidding. Sprayed several fields clean for wheat and barley and everything is weedy again. Will definitely need to be on top of those in the spring too. Surely the hay fields will need attention too.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

There always has been climate change....and there always will be....like everything else it is cyclical. I am seeing chick/hen around areas of thin grass or wheat....my hay fields are not showing evidence of either, but I plant them thick and keep them healthy with nutrients and amendments....and give them ample time to regrow after last cutting before the killing freezes. It is difficult for weeds to get a foothold in densely planted and maintained fields.

Merry Christmas, Mike


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

One good thing abut the mild weather, cover crops are still growing, no sign of weeds in them either. A good stand of rye sure seems to hold the weeds at bay. Radishes, rape and clover are also doing well.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Hayman1 said:


> Ok, agreed that you are having too much fun in the foxtail forum and obviously many are bored stiff so here goes....
> 
> *There is empirical evidence of climate change or global warming.* If you don't believe, go walk your fields in the Southeast and middle Northeast. covered with winter annuals growing like a vengeance. Better up your line item $ for control in March-April. JMHO but I have seen the evidence and it ain't pretty. Mullein on a tear as are henbit and chickweed. Too much warm weather and adequate moisture. 76 here tomorrow in northern Va on Christmas Eve. *Ridiculous. *


Touting the kool-aid-drinking-I-think-so-much-of -myself-that-my farts-can-melt-polar-ice-caps crock of b.s. as "empirical evidence"? EVERY time the weather cycle warms they say "See??!! we told you!! and every time it's colder'n a well-diggers arse, they say "See?!! We told you?!"

I can agree with you post if I only read the (now) bold underlined part.

They can go drink their kool-aid and I'll go stand out in my pasture and see which hogget I want to breed to which sheep-bull or whatever you call a boy sheep.

73, Mark


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

Yep, change is all around us and that will hopefully continue because the world is a pretty dynamic place. It's in the high 70's here for the next 3 days and then drops down into highs in the 50's, lows in the 30's. For us, this is pretty typical and looking at what few charts that go back any real length of time for around here there really isn't anything that looks like a local climate Armageddon. The issues are: if the climate trends are moving against us, if humans are causing the trends, and can we do anything about them.

The answer to the first is "Maybe". Climate science is not well established because accurate long-term records do not exist and we do not have the computing power or the mathematics to do accurate models. The best we can do is to grossly model variables in scenarios that may or may not depict the future. Sadly, there is a lot more computing horsepower and mathematicians trying to model and predict Wall Street than there are working on the climate. That's a much simpler model.....

If there are adverse trends, are we causing it? The answer to that is "Probably". We are the most successful species on earth. We started out by making tools to improve hunting outcomes, managing fire to cook food, and rearranging the landscape to grow selected plants closer to our caves and huts. We've changed the earth more in a short time than any species before us (that we know of). Now we are exploring matter at the quantum level and will likely eventually manipulate space and time for our benefit. It's what we do as a species. Do we cause harm to the planet along the way? Of course! We use discoveries for short-term advantage and sometimes find long-term harm resulting from the application. The Law of Unintended Consequences has always been with us and always will be.....

Can we do anything about it? Individually, probably not much. As a species, "Possibly", but history doesn't have any successful examples. The politicians, convinced of their value to society and leadership abilities, are pulling us in different directions for their own benefits. With the current levels of polarization, that isn't going to change anytime soon. However, the trend is moving toward some sort of consensus and we will probably make some feeble efforts until time provides clear evidence one way or another. Even then, there will be people who do not believe the evidence and politicians to manipulate them......We may or may not survive, we may have to find a new planet to live on, we may adapt/evolve to a new climate reality, or we may find that everything is fine and live happily until the next crisis. It's the future and until we learn to control space and time, we won't know it until it becomes our present.....

In the meanwhile, have a Merry Christmas, Festivus, Kwanzaa, Boxing Day, HumanLight, Pancha Ganapati, Yalda, or any other multicultural holiday you choose to celebrate this time of year....


----------



## haybaler101 (Nov 30, 2008)

mlappin said:


> One good thing abut the mild weather, cover crops are still growing, no sign of weeds in them either. A good stand of rye sure seems to hold the weeds at bay. Radishes, rape and clover are also doing well.


Cover crops are as green as April here. I have ryegrass that is 5-6" tall now. One thing about climate change, our exact temperature records only go back about 150-200 years, but the planet has been experiencing weather for thousands of years.


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

27 years ago when I was in grade 2 in school there were a group of people talking to our class(got to get the kids on board when they are young). They said that Florida will be under water in 20 years from the melting ice caps. We all knew where Florida was because that is where the space shuttle is launched. This group told us kids this was fact and if we acted now we could at least keep other places from becoming part of the ocean. Will anyways Iam still waiting for it to happen.


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

haybaler101 said:


> Cover crops are as green as April here. I have ryegrass that is 5-6" tall now. One thing about climate change, our exact temperature records only go back about 150-200 years, but the planet has been experiencing weather for thousands of years.


Throw some fertilizer at it. If you can get into the fields and get it dry in the spring, you can make a lotta bales out of it.


----------



## SwingOak (May 19, 2014)

It's an El Nino year. I could do without the mud, but I don't mind the mild winter.


----------



## haybaler101 (Nov 30, 2008)

Mike120 said:


> Throw some fertilizer at it. If you can get into the fields and get it dry in the spring, you can make a lotta bales out of it.


That is why it is so green now, has 4 ton of turkey poo per acre under it.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Mike120 said:


> Throw some fertilizer at it. If you can get into the fields and get it dry in the spring, you can make a lotta bales out of it.


Not up here, if a person tried that the ground would still be wet and cold for planting. We like to start spraying burndown the first week of April if at all possible.

Usually any earlier it's just too wet and sloppy and the weather is too unpredictable.


----------



## Hugh (Sep 23, 2013)

Global warming is a lie to fool the idiots. Check this out, it was warmer Christmas 1955 than today: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/christmas-eve-1955-was-much-warmer/


----------



## Hugh (Sep 23, 2013)

Here is a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists (9,000 PhDs) that agree there is no proof that humans are causing the planet to warm: http://www.petitionproject.org Contrast this to claims that "the majority of scientists agree," or claims that 97% of scientists agree," I say provide their names. YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A FACT, ONLY PROPAGANDA. Show me the study that interviewed the great majority of the world's scientists that came up with the claim that "97% of all scientists agree..." this is total hogwash and the "evidence" of 97% in a study study is based BS science:

"... investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported that the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists' papers as supporting the global warming hypothesis - according to the scientists who published the papers. Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook's asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, aggressive climate change skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97 percent consensus. ... A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American reported that, out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook's team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook's alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%." (!!!!!!!!) see: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/no-mr-president-claim-climate-change-consensus-bunk

As for your weeds, seeing more weeds of one type over a few years of observation is not evidence of "global" warming. There could be plenty of evidence that points to causes other than warming. Global is word meaning the whole globe, from the Webster's dictionary: "of, relating to, or involving the entire world." We have had record low temps here in Montana over the last year or two, so cold in November of 2014 that apple trees were severely damaged that had survived decades with no cold damage.

Here are a few recent articles from scientists who dispute global warming, from the climate depot:



*Aussie Scientist Dr. David Evans: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling:* Dr. David Evans: As we head to the UNFCCC meeting in Paris 2015 where global bureaucracy beckons, a sharp cooling change appears to be developing and set to hit in the next five years. Yet consortia of five-star politicians are not preparing for climate change, only for global warming. Around the world a billion dollars a day is invested in renewable energy, largely with the hope of changing the weather. Given that 20% of the world does not even have access to electricity, history books may marvel at how screwed priorities were, and how bureaucratized science cost so much more than the price of the grants.

*'Global cooling imminent': 'Sharp cooling' to hit in the next five years, says new solar theory*

*German Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning: UN IPCC Models A Failure, 'Have No Chance Of Success'&#8230;Sees Possible 0.2°C Of Cooling By 2020* - His charts show that solar activity correlates well with temperature, which Lüning calls "a surprisingly good match". He then presents the various solar cycles that the sun undergoes, going into the works of Gerard Bond, who made temperature reconstructions using layers of ice-rafted material in the North Atlantic. Lüning calls the synchronicity between solar activity and temperature found by Bond "stunning".

*Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on declining global temps: 'Has the admin, the EPA or anyone that can read a chart actually looked at what global temps are now doing?'*

*Global Temperature Standstill May Last 30 Years, Climate Scientist Predicts: Prof. Anastasios Tsonis at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee,: 'I would assume something like another 15 years of leveling off or cooling'*

*New Research Paper Predicts 15 Years Of Cooling: 2012-2027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent weakening of the North Atlantic Oscillation*

*New paper predicts temperature decrease by 2020 of up to 1C due to low solar activity for certain locations - Published in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics*

*New paper predicts solar activity will decline over 21st century to average Holocene levels - Published in Climate of the Past*

*Earth's All Time Record High Temp Set in 1913 - Earth's All Time Record Low Set in 2010 & 2nd All Time Record Low Set in 2013 - 'What would warmists say if the dates were reversed?'*

*Climate Scientist Who Got It Right Predicts 20 More Years of Global Cooling* - 'For the next 20 years, I predict global cooling of about 3/10ths of a degree Fahrenheit, as opposed to the one-degree warming predicted by the IPCC," said [Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and author of 150 scientific journal articles and 10 books, including "Evidence Based Climate Science," which was published in 2011.

*'The Climate Scientist Who Got It Right': In 1996, CSU's Dr. Bill Gray predicted weak cooling for the next 20-30 years'*

*Major Danish Daily Newspaper Warns: 'Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age&#8230;Much Colder Winters&#8230;Dramatic Consequences'!* - Paper features Danish solar physicist Henrik Svensmark on the subject of the UN IPCC: '&#8230;many of the climate models used by IPCC and others overestimate the influence of CO2 and underestimate the influence of the sun. &#8230; The IPCC is very one-sided, so I don't think there will be anything reasonable in the next report.'

*Geologist Dr. David Deming: 'If the current cooling trend continues, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction' *- Deming: 'The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years' - 'Falling temperatures are giving climate alarmists chills'

*Bundle Up! German scientists predict a century of global cooling* - Two German scientists, Horst-Joachin Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy, say that "two naturally occurring climate cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the next century." They added, "by the year 2100, temperatures on this planet will plunge to levels seen at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' in 1870." These researchers used historical data detailing temperatures as well as cave stalagmites to show a recurring 200-year solar cycle called the DeVries Cycle.

*CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby says another Maunder Minimum in solar activity could occur by 2015 *- Jasper Kirkby, head of the CLOUD Experiment at CERN in Geneva notes in the video lecture below that if one extrapolates the current lull in solar activity, an extended period of no sunspots similar to the Maunder Minimum could occur by 2015. The Maunder Minimum was responsible for the Little Ice Age and lasted for 70 years.

*Sunspot Enigma: Will Inactive Sun Cause Global Cooling? 'Earth's response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man's influence on climate change. Cold not warmth might be our future'*

*Better Get your Woollies! 'No doubt about it. The Earth's climate is cooling!' - Essay by Environmental Chemist By Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser* - 'The question now is solely 'when, not if' the current interglacial period will come to a sudden end. Nature had an earlier attempt at it when, in the mid-1600's, the world experienced a cold spell lasting some 60 years which is now commonly known as the medieval "Little Ice Age." That period coincided with the "Maunder Minimum," an unusual low number of sunspots through several sunspot cycles

*Sun's bizarre activity may trigger another ice age, says Irish solar scientist* - 'Solar activity has been falling steadily since mid-1940s, a change that in the past triggered a 300-year-long mini ice age'

*Russian Academy of Sciences: Global warming over in Central Asia - Current Temps Not 'Unique'; Cooler era ahead* - Global warming is over in Central Asia, and a new cooler period is ahead, according to Russian Academy of Sciences scientist Andrei Daryin - 'Whenever we look a thousand years back, it appears that the situation is not that unique. A temperature rise comparable with today's parameters already happened 1,000 years ago,' he said. In fact, climate change cycles correlate with solar activity, the expert continued.

*Geologist Dr. Norman Page: 'The Coming Cooling' - 'The Demise of the UN IPCC and the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) Delusion'* - 'The IPCC's remit was never to study climate objectively but to support the proposition that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver and that increasing emissions would produce warming with catastrophic consequences by the end of the 21st century. To their eternal discredit too many of the Western scientific establishment abandoned common sense and scientific standards of objectivity and prudence in order to accommodate their paymasters.'

*BBC: UK Climate Scientist Warns: Real Risk Of A Maunder Minimum 'Little Ice Age' Due To 'Decline in Solar Activity'*

*Geologist E. Kirsten Peters: She warns cold spell near? - Geologist digs deeper on climate change*

*Japanese researcher predicts cooler climate in Northern Hemisphere from 2015 - *'A Japanese scientist who analyzed ocean temperatures stretching back more than five decades has predicted that the climate in the Northern Hemisphere may enter a cooling period around 2015. Mototaka Nakamura, a senior scientist at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, analyzed surface temperatures of the Greenland Sea from 1957 to the present and how they affect climate change. He said Greenland Sea temperatures could serve as a leading indicator of cooling and warming cycles in North Atlantic waters, which are believed to alternate on about 70-year cycles.

*New Book by David Archibald: 'The Twilight of Abundance' - Warns of Global Cooling - 'Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short'*

*New paper finds 'surprisingly, there are many US weather stations that show cooling' over the past century - Published in the Journal of Climate* - Study 'finds, contrary to popular belief, that US "monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing - perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling [over the past century]. In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming'

*New paper finds worldwide glacier retreat has decelerated since 1950 - Published in The Cryosphere*

*New paper shows anthropogenic emissions have had a net cooling effect since beginning of industrial revolution - Published in Science - *Study reports the transition from "pristine" to "slightly polluted" atmosphere at the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 18th century had a "dramatic aerosol effect [of increasing] clouds" over the oceans.'

*German Geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning: 'Greenland is cooling' - Greenland was '2 - 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today' and that the ice survived* - 'Greenland is cooling': Lüning brings up the Axforf paper of 2013, which shows Greenland was "2 - 3°C warmer 6000 to 4000 years ago than it is today" and that the ice survived. He presents a 2013 paper by Lecavalier et al showing that Greenland has cooled 2.5°C over the last 8000 years. Despite the thousands of years of continuous warmth, the dramatic ice collapse never occurred."

*Coming global cooling? Aussie Solar Expert David Archibald: 'Lower solar irradiance will result in lower temperatures on this planet. It is a question of when.'*

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/29/scientists-and-studies-predict-imminent-global-cooling-ahead-drop-in-global-temps-almost-a-slam-dunk/


----------



## SwingOak (May 19, 2014)

Looks like winter is finally deciding to show up here in NE Wisconsin next week. A snowstorm is expected on Monday, and below freezing temps all week. Nobody will be talking about climate change around here!


----------



## haybaler101 (Nov 30, 2008)

Hayman1 said:


> Ok, agreed that you are having too much fun in the foxtail forum and obviously many are bored stiff so here goes....
> 
> There is empirical evidence of climate change or global warming. If you don't believe, go walk your fields in the Southeast and middle Northeast. covered with winter annuals growing like a vengeance. Better up your line item $ for control in March-April. JMHO but I have seen the evidence and it ain't pretty. Mullein on a tear as are henbit and chickweed. Too much warm weather and adequate moisture. 76 here tomorrow in northern Va on Christmas Eve. Ridiculous.


A lot of the winter annual weeds have flourished because of round up ready technology. When fields were sprayed pre plant in spring with strong residuals to keep clean thru the growing season, winter weeds were inhibited also. When round up became the preferred weed killer and nothing else was needed, winter weeds took off. We are already seeing less winter weeds here even with extreme warmth because strong residuals are needed for RR resistance weeds.


----------



## Bonfire (Oct 21, 2012)

haybaler101 said:


> A lot of the winter annual weeds have flourished because of round up ready technology. When fields were sprayed pre plant in spring with strong residuals to keep clean thru the growing season, winter weeds were inhibited also. When round up became the preferred weed killer and nothing else was needed, winter weeds took off. We are already seeing less winter weeds here even with extreme warmth because strong residuals are needed for RR resistance weeds.


What's a strong residual that you plant ryegrass into?


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

Hugh said:


> Here is a petition signed by over 30,000 scientists (9,000 PhDs) that agree there is no proof that humans are causing the planet to warm: http://www.petitionproject.org Contrast this to claims that "the majority of scientists agree," or claims that 97% of scientists agree," I say provide their names. YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A FACT, ONLY PROPAGANDA. Show me the study that interviewed the great majority of the world's scientists that came up with the claim that "97% of all scientists agree..." this is total hogwash and the "evidence" of 97% in a study study is based BS science:


Well.....I think the global population is around 7.3 billion people and it's estimated that around 15 million folks have a Ph.D degree. So 9,000 isn't really a significant percentage. In reality, we'll likely never have an agreement one way or the other, so it's largely going to depend on which flavor of cool-aid you are going to drink and which politicians (and others) you are going to allow to manipulate your beliefs for their benefit.

Our personal beliefs have little relevancy in the grand scheme of things because politicians and business will actually drive the direction. Both are very risk adverse and rarely make decisions on empirical evidence because it's usually not available. So they hedge their bets and pass incentives for alternative energy and reduced pollution, business responds to the incentives because it's profitable and makes compliant products. When there are enough compliant products, the politicians pass laws against non-compliant products to keep the ball rolling. Business is part of the process because they pay lobbyists to make sure the laws aren't too strict and that they will be able to raise prices to cover the new do-dads. They can also advertise how "green" they are which impresses Wall Street who recommends that folks buy their stock. The executives get bonuses, the lobbyists get paid, the politicians get "campaign contributions" and everyone is happy......Except for the poor SOB that can't buy a tractor without a lot of electronics and DEF. All he can do is rail against the concept of climate change and listen to the politicians and talk show hosts that tell him what he wants to hear, but sadly, it won't change a thing. The individual doesn't have to be part of the consensus......And time and the tide won't wait for him. This is what we call progress and it's pretty unlikely to be reversed.


----------



## haybaler101 (Nov 30, 2008)

Bonfire said:


> What's a strong residual that you plant ryegrass into?


The winter annuals that everyone are concerned with are chickweed, henbit, and dandelions which are all broad leaves. The RR resistant weeds are marestail, Palmer, water hemp, and giant ragweed which are all broad leaves. The strong residuals are all for broad leaves, not using any for grasses because RR still works great on grasses. However, it is just a matter of time before some of the more aggressive grasses like ryegrass become RR resistant.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Biggest problem I see manifesting itself in my fields are fire ants......we need some cold weather 80* here. We will walk fields next week for the ants....don't need them gettin a better foothold in my fields than they already have......


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

"Climate Change" (formerly known as "Global Warming" until the "warming" part did not pan out) is just another slight of hand trick to detract eyes from seeing the other "movements".

There are plenty of "scientists" on either side to tell you that it is or isn't true. SOMEBODY has to be lying...and I'll opt for the side of the gummint's "scientists" as the ones.

Gay Rights activists wanted to be legally allowed...ick,gag,gasp, and when they got that, they were out of a job...had to find something else...cakes, tranny bathrooms,

Do you REALLY think Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton want black and white people to get along? Heck no!! Their livelihood and millions of dollars rely on racial tension. It is, while CLAIMING to want equality, in their best interest to stir the pot and CAUSE unrest at the cost of black men and women that they pretend to wish to "protect".

The scientists also have a stake in the outcome of the climate change models and will quickly chuck their scientific integrity out the window and substitute "empirical" evidence in exchange for recognition and/or money and/or power.

Activists have a strong desire to never reach their "objective" as then they will have worked themselves out of a job.

If "Climate Change" were to be championed by a form of "gummint" (if you want to call it that) that puts people in a concentration camp just for their creed or heritage, or in which the supreme leader utilizes the "right" to kill or have-killed people of his personal choosing, or taxes its "citizens" for not being muzlum, makes the surfs live a modest/miserly life so the "ruling class" can have unimaginable wealth,etc... AND if "global warming" was good for THAT gummint, would you STILL trust THAT oligarchy to have YOUR best interests in mind instead of their own?
73, Mark


----------



## Hugh (Sep 23, 2013)

The temps haven't been getting warmer on a GLOBAL scale for 19 years, in fact they went lower, hence the "Hide the Decline" email scandal where it was shown that scientists were lying their asses off to shove this crap down our throats. Because the warming is NOT THERE, (Al Gore said the arctic would be totally melted by now) they changed from G*lobal Warming* to C*limate Change*.

Anyone that can't recognize this as being a slight of hand trick is an idiot.

*"Ok, its not getting warmer like we told you, Miami is not under water, the polar bears are at an all time high population, so yeah, forget about "Warming," we really meant "Climate Change! Yeah, that's it! It was climate change all along!"*


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Cash and Carry Hugh, reminds me of Tommy Flanagan "The Pathological Liar" from SNL. I can just hear him saying "Global wa...Climate Change, yeaaaaah, that's the ticket...Climate Change"

and just a reminder:

"gummint" (if you want to call it that) that puts people in a concentration camp just for their creed or heritage, or in which the supreme leader utilizes the "right" to kill or have-killed people of his personal choosing, or taxes its "citizens" for not being muzlum, makes the surfs live a modest/miserly life so the "ruling class" can have unimaginable wealth,etc..

Those are all actions of THIS gummint.

73, Mark


----------



## Hugh (Sep 23, 2013)

To go a little deeper into what is behind all of the deception, here is a post from my blog:

"A thought-terminating cliché is verbal device used to obstruct and terminate the rational thought of one's verbal opponent.

The phrase, "thought-terminating cliché" was used by Robert Jay Lifton M.D. in his book, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China.

Lifton is a visiting professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Hospital, a former distinguished professor of psychiatry and psychology at the Graduate School University Center, and director of The Center on Violence and Human Survival at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

In his book Lifton states: "The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."

Lifton goes on to show that in totalitarian regimes, thought-terminating clichés are used extensively to obstruct rational discourse, to misdirect self-guided thinking and to mold its victim's thoughts.

Several years ago, I was discussing free market ideas with an acquaintance, and I explained that "capitalism improves life by creating cheap labor saving products." His response was, "That's just another ism." I fell for the trap and my thoughts were terminated.

Recently, a woman asked a friend of mine to attend a speech held by a candidate for US Senate. The woman's comment was, "You'll like the speech if you're not a hater." Obviously, her statement was a thought-terminating cliché. How could one possibly respond to such a statement? Well, you could say, "I'm not a hater," in which case you would be expected to believe everything you heard during the speech.

For another example, consider the term, "climate change." The term previously was "global warming," but the advocates changed the term. Why? This is a very good question. Notice with the term, "global warming," one can employ objective measurements of temperature and compare them to earlier dates, etc. With the term "climate change," no measurements are implied or possible; the term is out of context to any rational discourse. What this switch achieved was to confuse the issues and block critical thought. Global warming is vaguely understood to be part of this climate change, but global warming is not everything in climate change, it is just part of it. What remains is ambiguous. The term is therefore nebulous, hazy, and indefinable. It makes no sense. This thought-terminating cliché therefore sneakily assigns any extreme events in the weather to be a result of "climate change," which has become nothing more than a stealth term for human activity.

Statists, people who seek total government control of your life, use thought-terminating clichés as a part of their propaganda and thought control techniques. Notice that when a leftist runs out of intellectual ammunition, he will resort to calling his opponent, "Racist" or "Sexist."

Those who use thought-terminating clichés are liars, deceivers and intellectual cowards.

Practice uncovering thought-terminating clichés and you will improve your understanding of the world and the psychopaths who wish to destroy your nature.

For much more on delusions, intellectual fraud and the psychopath's desire to control your life, see my book, *The Biology of Human Freedom."*


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Hugh, you appear to be more understanding of my mind that I. I refer to my line of thinking as "critical thinking". I am critical of most things and don't take "absolutes" without first applying my own thought's litmus test. My 16 year old daughter is getting VERY good at it also. She catches a lot of what goes by most people unnoticed.

A prime example would be "ObamaCare" which has NOTHING to do with ensuring care is given...It was already the law and part of the hippocratic oath "whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free." The wording made it displeasing to some to go against "care" for some. It has nothing to do with "care", but rather forced insurance...but really the gummint's way of obtaining direct control of 17% of the gross national product in 1 fatal swoop.

73, Mark


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

Hugh said:


> To go a little deeper into what is behind all of the deception, here is a post from my blog:
> 
> "A thought-terminating cliché is verbal device used to obstruct and terminate the rational thought of one's verbal opponent.


Some years back the term "fire hosing" was used to describe the same action for squelching innovation ideas in groups. I can't remember which "self-help" guru coined that one, but along the same lines...So what's the point you're trying to make?

Here's mine: "In reality, we'll likely never have an agreement one way or the other, so it's largely going to depend on which flavor of cool-aid you are going to drink and which politicians (and others) you are going to allow to manipulate your beliefs for their benefit."

"(and others)" can include folks trying to sell books and getting people to follow their blogs. Sorry.....



glasswrongsize said:


> Hugh, you appear to be more understanding of my mind that I. I refer to my line of thinking as "critical thinking". I am critical of most things and don't take "absolutes" without first applying my own thought's litmus test. My 16 year old daughter is getting VERY good at it also. She catches a lot of what goes by most people unnoticed.
> 
> A prime example would be "ObamaCare" which has NOTHING to do with ensuring care is given...It was already the law and part of the hippocratic oath "whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free." The wording made it displeasing to some to go against "care" for some. It has nothing to do with "care", but rather forced insurance...but really the gummint's way of obtaining direct control of 17% of the gross national product in 1 fatal swoop.
> 
> 73, Mark


Your line of thinking is very rational and you are wise to be critical of most things. I do disagree however with the concept of "absolutes" though. In actuality, "obamacare" was more of a vote-getting device that was only embraced by the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries because it didn't hurt them. Considering that the cost of healthcare has grown significantly and the insurers are cutting back coverage to maintain profits, I'd argue that "direct control" of the estimated $2.7 trillion spent annually on health care is not anywhere near a reality.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

Who actually endorsed it? Near as I can tell, no one even knew what was in it until after it passed. They all deserve a long hike off a short bridge.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

*Your line of thinking is very rational and you are wise to be critical of most things. I do disagree however with the concept of "absolutes" though.*

If not for critical thinking, this would have been sans-humor, and conversely, each would still be absolutes









It is normal to not wish someone to be critical of a thought unless the seller has something to hide. Truth has no fear of scrutiny. Critical: meaning "using or involving careful judgment about the good and bad parts of something" from the Greek kritikos- able to judge. The absolutes can withstand scrutiny, but the "absolutes" (there are quotation marks around the word due to the fact that
are NOT absolutes. I should have written it as "absolutes [sic]" which would have further noted that I was quoting something that was incorrectly spoken)

*In actuality, "obamacare" was more of a vote-getting device that was only embraced by the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries because it didn't hurt them*.

Two more absolute statements that do not hold water. While it may have been embraced by SOME med, pharm, and ins industries it was not ONLY embraced by them and not sure where the concept that "it didn't hurt them" originated. I associate with quite a few people in the medical industry and a couple in the pharmaceutical industry, VERY few of whom *ever* thought it would be good for them.

*Considering that the cost of healthcare has grown significantly and the insurers are cutting back coverage to maintain profits,*

There are a WHOLE lot of factors to fill the gap between "cutting back coverage" and "maintain profits".

Prior to socialist care, the insurance companies DID make a lot of money in dollar figures. In percentage, their profit was in the neighborhood of 3%; there are few businesses that are willing to operate with that slight of a profit margin. They are also the ones that held the liability and risk.

*I'd argue that "direct control" of the estimated $2.7 trillion spent annually on health care is not anywhere near a reality.*

Once the insurance companies hit the tipping level and are no longer able to operate, then the gov't will socialize it and they will have control--which was the number one obstacle in "rules for radicals" IIRC.
I disagree that it "is not anywhere near a reality". It is far nearer than is Constitutionally or morally acceptable.

73, Mark


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

glasswrongsize said:


> *Your line of thinking is very rational and you are wise to be critical of most things. I do disagree however with the concept of "absolutes" though.*
> 
> If not for critical thinking, this would have been sans-humor, and conversely, each would still be absolutes
> 
> ...


 I think we are saying the same thing. You look at things "critically", I look at things "skeptically" and the difference is likely in degrees. I suspect that you have certain concepts that you "believe" and therefore accept as "absolute(s)". I also suspect that I have significantly fewer. I do not know where the line between us is and there may not be one at all. Let me elaborate my view.....My world is populated with models, probabilities, hypotheses, and likelihoods, almost nothing is an "absolute". If I state something that sounds like an "absolute", it's only because I have tested my hypothesis (which is neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive) and have concluded that there is the likelihood that it is correct. If I am dealing with a business situation/decision (which people thankfully pay me to do) the resulting probabilities attached to results or outcomes (which are mutually exclusive and exhaustive) come out of statistical models. I also use models developed by others as a basis for my opinions. I am very Bayesian.....Being an old fart who has lived and worked around the world has also provided me with a rich range of experiences which allows me to add a certain amount of depth to my models and hypotheses which can be a blessing or a curse......I never know if it's relevant, and so experience is just another nested hypothesis.

Dealing with people who have consumed "cool-aid" is difficult because they have a very simplistic view of a situation that they firmly believe. I am usually questioning their simple views and adding complexity to their lives which is usually not very popular. Anyway, I just don't like cool-aid....



glasswrongsize said:


> *In actuality, "obamacare" was more of a vote-getting device that was only embraced by the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries because it didn't hurt them*.
> 
> Two more absolute statements that do not hold water. While it may have been embraced by SOME med, pharm, and ins industries it was not ONLY embraced by them and not sure where the concept that "it didn't hurt them" originated. I associate with quite a few people in the medical industry and a couple in the pharmaceutical industry, VERY few of whom *ever* thought it would be good for them.


"Embraced" is too strong a word...I apologize. They didn't fight back as hard as they could have. Having retired from a major pharmaceutical company I also have a certain amount of insight and a former employee of mine was directly involved in many of the negotiations with the government. I've also negotiated with ours and other governments and it's pretty rare, even in dictatorships, to get dictates around a potential bit of legislation. There are lots of negotiations and very, very few are one-sided. In this case, Obama made promises and the party worked to make it happen. Bill Clinton tried to do the same thing and failed. There was a whole lot more drama in the House and Senate getting around rules, convincing Pro-Life Democrats to vote for it, and other maneuvers because they had lost their super majority, than there was in dealing with Industry. No one in industry really liked it, it caused change to the status quo. Insurance had to take on more risk with guaranteed policy issue/minimum standards, but they got a lot more policy holders and the ability to raise rates. Hospitals and doctors had to change their business practices and have more reporting, they got a lot of covered patents which gave them a more guaranteed income stream. Pharmaceuticals were actually the biggest winners, in my view. They had to give up some rebates and pay some excise taxes (which they pass on) but, they got new insured citizens worth potentially ~ 115 billion over 10 years. The biggest problem I see with obamacare is that it didn't do a damn thing to fix our broken healthcare system and probably made things worse.



glasswrongsize said:


> *I'd argue that "direct control" of the estimated $2.7 trillion spent annually on health care is not anywhere near a reality.*
> 
> Once the insurance companies hit the tipping level and are no longer able to operate, then the gov't will socialize it and they will have control--which was the number one obstacle in "rules for radicals" IIRC.
> I disagree that it "is not anywhere near a reality". It is far nearer than is Constitutionally or morally acceptable.
> ...


Sadly, I seem to have more faith in our form of government and the American people than you seem to have. I also do not subscribe to conspiracy theories involving government takeovers. It might be outdated or it might just be that, as previously stated, I don't like cool-aid.


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

I am probably far to simply minded to get involved in this conversation, but I was wondering if " I don't like cool-aid" is a" thought terminating cliche" or "fire hosing". Mike120, forgive me if I am wrong, but you seem to make the same argument on every subject. You basically say I have worked all over the world and have experienced more than everyone else, so my view point has been proven by my experience and if you don't agree, then you are drinking cool-aid.


----------



## Mike120 (May 4, 2009)

OhioHay said:


> I am probably far to simply minded to get involved in this conversation, but I was wondering if " I don't like cool-aid" is a" thought terminating cliche" or "fire hosing". Mike120, forgive me if I am wrong, but you seem to make the same argument on every subject. You basically say I have worked all over the world and have experienced more than everyone else, so my view point has been proven by my experience and if you don't agree, then you are drinking cool-aid.


Good point and I apologize for that perception. My objection is to the simple narratives that "cool-aid" drinkers always seem to embrace. In this case, climate change. There is an answer, but we will likely never know it because of the polarization and the fact that neither side can have an intelligent discussion somewhere in the middle. The two sides merely fight each other with hyperbole, fear mongering, and lies. In the meanwhile, it is left to politicians and business to cobble up a schizophrenic response that will likely be ineffective in one direction and wastefully expensive in the other. We will ultimately pay the price because we have abdicated our involvement in the decisions and have allowed the intransigent fringes to dictate our futures.

Recently there was an immigration protest in a town near me. The two fringes set up their camps on either side of the driveway entrance of a grocery store with banners, signs, and megaphones. They spent almost an entire day screaming slogans at each other while the rest of us had to drive through the middle to get to the store. They didn't accomplish a thing other than to inconvenience the rest of us. It also is a complex issue and somewhere there is a solution, but to be lasting and fair, it needs to be a win-win for for both sides. A win-loose in most situations does nothing but feed the fringes and promote further polarization.

Because of my business, I have unfortunately been exposed, up close and personal, to many of the armed conflicts around the world. There are never any "winners" except in the opinions of the history writers and almost every one started because of the same conditions that I've seen developing here over the last 15-20 years. I don't want that for my kids and grandchildren or for anyone else.

Most of us here are perfectly comfortable with diagnosing a bad injector or a clogged filter and understand that comments blaming a fault on the color of the equipment are either joking or just the unreasonable bias of the uninformed. I equate answers blaming someone's political, religious, ethnic, etc leanings in the same way. If I offended anyone on the fringe....Good! For the rest of you...Enjoy the middle because we are still the majority and we are the only ones that can find lasting and fair solutions to the problems around us.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Kinda long winded, so if you want the shorter version, skip to the bottom

*I think we are saying the same thing. You look at things "critically", I look at things "skeptically" and the difference is likely in degrees. I suspect that you have certain concepts that you "believe" and therefore accept as "absolute(s)". I also suspect that I have significantly fewer. I do not know where the line between us is and there may not be one at all. Let me elaborate my view.....My world is populated with models, probabilities, hypotheses, and likelihoods, almost nothing is an "absolute". If I state something that sounds like an "absolute", it's only because I have tested my hypothesis (which is neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive) and have concluded that there is the likelihood that it is correct*.

I look at most things critically and even a greater percentage-when affiliated with politics- skeptically. Pigeonholing one's self to only looking at things skeptically lends one's self to being blindsided by things which could have been debunked with critical thinking especially when an idea is offered by "one's own side". I am not trusting of one side while being skeptical of the other. Both sides offer stuff that makes my lil pea brain say "THAT dog won't hunt".

The two absolute statements contained in: "obamacare" was more of a vote-getting device that was only embraced by the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries because it didn't hurt them." were tested by your hypothesis? I would like to hear more of your reasoning of it's as it not fit within my perceived reality.

*If I am dealing with a business situation/decision (which people thankfully pay me to do) the resulting probabilities attached to results or outcomes (which are mutually exclusive and exhaustive) come out of statistical models. I also use models developed by others as a basis for my opinions. I am very Bayesian.....Being an old fart who has lived and worked around the world has also provided me with a rich range of experiences which allows me to add a certain amount of depth to my models and hypotheses which can be a blessing or a curse......I never know if it's relevant, and so experience is just another nested hypothesis.*

I, as well, am Bayesian ( yup, I had to look it up. Yesterday, if I hadda been called "Bayesian" by someone I didn't know, it would have probably lead to a trip to knuckle junction.), and therefore I have no need to be skeptical of global warming. Skepticism implies that I am not damn-near-sure. Due to applying Bayesian reasoning, the dems have been pushing for socialism (quite a few have even shed the cloak and now admit and embrace the fact that they are socialist) and have been attempting to "fundamentally change" this "God Damned" union of states and have been using every underhanded thing available to make it happen.

Socialism if for the "people", not the "socialist" (ruling class)

I am of the "people" group. Socialism works for the ruling class Socialist-only. I'm not buying ANYTHING that they're selling due to their statically-near-100% rate of attempting to "fundamentally" (fundamental: of or relating to the basic structure or function of something IE EVERYTHING upon which this country was built.) change the country.

*Dealing with people who have consumed "cool-aid" is difficult because they have a very simplistic view of a situation that they firmly believe. I am usually questioning their simple views and adding complexity to their lives which is usually not very popular. Anyway, I just don't like cool-aid....*

On that, we can agree. Thoughtful logic is often lost upon the "smarter" people when they are effected by greed when promised power, utopia, and/or free stuff.

*"Embraced" is too strong a word...I apologize. They didn't fight back as hard as they could have.*

Against whom could they fight? The congress circumvented many rules to enact it as well as succumbing to selfish greed at the expense of their unwilling constituents.

*Having retired from a major pharmaceutical company I also have a certain amount of insight and a former employee of mine was directly involved in many of the negotiations with the government. I've also negotiated with ours and other governments and it's pretty rare, even in dictatorships, to get dictates around a potential bit of legislation.*

Mind to share how that made you reach the decision about our conversation of global warming/obamacare, or am I to take your "experience" or list of friends as proof of unquestionable knowledge?

*There are lots of negotiations and very, very few are one-sided. In this case, Obama made promises and the party worked to make it happen.*

Obama lied his ass of...or taqiya(ed) about most things and the party helped conceal the lie until it was "too late"

*Bill Clinton tried to do the same thing and failed. There was a whole lot more drama in the House and Senate getting around rules, convincing Pro-Life Democrats to vote for it, and other maneuvers because they had lost their super majority, than there was in dealing with Industry. No one in industry really liked it, it caused change to the status quo. Insurance had to take on more risk with guaranteed policy issue/minimum standards, but they got a lot more policy holders and the ability to raise rates. Hospitals and doctors had to change their business practices and have more reporting, they got a lot of covered patents which gave them a more guaranteed income stream. Pharmaceuticals were actually the biggest winners, in my view. They had to give up some rebates and pay some excise taxes (which they pass on) but, they got new insured citizens worth potentially*

Whether you like the healthcare "system" or not...it is unconstitutional and NOT within any one of the enumerated powers, it is merely another gummint overreach, and is a direct step toward communism (see rules for radicals in recent post). There are procedures for it to become legal, why not try if it is so good?
All the the lies that were told about global warming, healthcare, Billaries e-mails, gun running to Mexico, countless other clandestine activities, and Friday night news dumps , your claims of Bayesian thinking should tell you that,due to statistics, everything they say is a lie. ...unless your negotiations with the gummint....

*Sadly, I seem to have more faith in our form of government and the American people than you seem to have.*

If you have faith in them to destroy the Constitution, freedom, religion, personal property rights, the right to drink a 20 oz soda or put salt on your fries, then your faith will not leave you disappointed. By "our form of government", I assume you are not referring to the constitution, as most things for which you show support are in direct contrast of it.

*I also do not subscribe to conspiracy theories involving government takeovers.*

Is Bernie not conspiring to be president and proudly boasting that he is a socialist while doing so? Is Bush also not doing the same thing? At least Bernie has the stones to embrace his beliefs instead of pretending. Do you believe that neither has the desire to "take over" in inauguration day? I digress...

Seeing as how "conspire" is two or more people working together to realize a common objective, I fail to see that there are NOT many conspiracies afoot. Certain people like to whip out the "conspiracy theories" moniker like a dull switchblade in a dark alley when unable to articulate a reasoned response to disprove a objecting point of view. It is akin to calling any detractor a "racist", a "woman hater",a "homophobe", and the list goes on and on... when they (the "protected group") are lobbying for something. Some of people (and thankfully the numbers are becoming less and less) will attempt to avoid being called one of those names...and are silenced.
I am not smart enough to take the implication of being a conspiracy theorist as an insult. If looked upon with Bayesian thoughts, and one claims to not believe in conspiracy theories involving government control, they would almost assuredly hold views that disallow him to call his own compatriots "conspirators". Those silly little argument-ending names or implications are wasted upon me. ...and besides, haven'y you been conspiring WITH the government?* "employee of mine was directly involved in many of the negotiations with the government. I've also negotiated with ours and other governments"*

*Recently there was an immigration protest in a town near me. The two fringes set up their camps on either side of the driveway entrance of a grocery store with banners, signs, and megaphones. They spent almost an entire day screaming slogans at each other while the rest of us had to drive through the middle to get to the store. They didn't accomplish a thing other than to inconvenience the rest of us. It also is a complex issue and somewhere there is a solution, but to be lasting and fair, it needs to be a win-win for for both sides. A win-loose in most situations does nothing but feed the fringes and promote further polarization.*

It's amusing that people's self-image generally put them in the middle and any dissenting opinion is in the "fringes". Sorry for your inconvenience while some were demanding that the law (easy to understand and is the LAW...not some person's theory) be upheld. Conversely, the illegals probably wanted something that was meaningful to them too. Sorry to hear that it was an "inconvenience" to you, though.

Furthermore, why does there need to be a win/win situation? One is legally right and the other is legally wrong. Plain as day. Wrong has no rights and receives no consideration.

If I walk out of the bank after cashing my paycheck and a person pulls out his trusty hammer and tells me that he is going to beat me to death and take all of my money, by your logic, right should compromise with wrong and visa versa. He should only beat me half to death and leave me cab fair home?
There needs to be "further polarization" instead of people standing in the "middle" oblivious to the world around them waiting for the next government dictate to tell them how to live their lives.

*the unreasonable bias of the uninformed. I equate answers blaming someone's political, religious, ethnic, etc leanings in the same way.*

Sounds familiar... "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion..." Sen Obama

*If I offended anyone on the fringe....Good! For the rest of you...Enjoy the middle because we are still the majority and we are the only ones that can find lasting and fair solutions to the problems around us.*

I hate to break it to you, but NEITHER you nor I are the "middle" as much as our prideful self-image would like us to believe it to be so. The "middle" doesn't care. Both you and I do...differently and for different outcomes.

73, Mark



OhioHay said:


> I am probably far to simply minded to get involved in this conversation, but I was wondering if " I don't like cool-aid" is a" thought terminating cliche" or "fire hosing". Mike120, forgive me if I am wrong, but you seem to make the same argument on every subject. You basically say I have worked all over the world and have experienced more than everyone else, so my view point has been proven by my experience and if you don't agree, then you are drinking cool-aid.


73, Mark


----------

