Saturday, September 23, 2017

Why Did Ken Burns Omit NSAMs 263, 273 In His Vietnam War Documentary?

JFK speaking on the problems in Vietnam in late 1963.

As I finished watching the 2nd and 3rd episodes of Ken Burns' documentary 'The Vietnam War', one - actually TWO - notable historical references were glaring by their absence: 1) any mention of John F. Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum 263 (at the end of Episode 2', 'Riding the Tiger') and  (2) any mention of  LBJ's NSAM 273 in Episode Three ('The River Styx).  Of course, I had feared such an omission when I wrote my September 16th post, which is why I supplied a lot of the document details and backstory then, including reference to the cover letter by McGeorge Bundy, e.g.

Usually carelessly cited as NSAM 263 by amateur researchers or "buffs"  and the actual heart of the NSAM  (sections IB(1-3) of the report cited in the letter) appearing in  Document 142 of The Pentagon Papers: ‘Report of McNamara - Taylor Mission to South Vietnam'

So the question becomes: Why - in the course of 10 years preparation -  couldn't Burns, or his assistant Lynn Novick, have found this NSAM which clearly stated Kennedy's intent to withdraw all forces from Vietnam? Why also, could they not find NSAM 273 from Johnson which clearly nullified JFK's NSAM and expanded the war? Again, for more on the origin backstory of LBJ's NSAM -273 check out the information in the link below:

One possible reason for the omission was deliberate, i.e. to avoid contention or controversy. Much of this can be laid at the feet of the late Vince Bugliosi who contended  the evidence was "ambiguous" in his cinder block book, Reclaiming History .  This also reinforced a meme of uncertainty that was pronounced at least until 2013.

Referencing the matter, James K. Galbraith writing in The Nation (Nov. 22, 2013) explained regarding Kennedy's NSAM 263 and intent to pull out:

In 2003, this was controversial. Many historians had denied it. Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, and Arthur Schlesinger were exceptions. They were right, and documents and tapes released under the JFK Records Act proved them right. The issue was resolved by early 2008 when Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, opened his reply to my letter in the New York Review of Books with these words:
Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that “there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965…. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.
He adds that Bator followed with a qualification  to the effect there existed an agreed upon determination of "essential functions" to be carried out by the South Vietnamese by the end of 1965.   This again may have introduced an element of uncertainty which Burns and Novick preferred not to confront, far less resolve.  But is it valid?

An even more substantive source is cited by long time JFK researcher James Di Eugenio in his book, 'Reclaiming Parkland'.  This would be for historian Frederik Logevall in a book published n 1999 - years before Bugliosi's book and "proving beyond any doubt that from the moment Johnson took office until he was inaugurated in 1965, America was going to war in Vietnam". And true to its basic theme Burns' documentary showed Johnson amping  up  aggression from March, 1965 with the first American ground forces and also using fully initiated  air strikes instead of merely retaliatory ones.

While Burns and Novick's documentary does devote about five minutes to the Tonkin Gulf Incident (and subsequent Resolution) it doesn't connect them to Johnson's NSAM 273. The Tonkin Gulf incident itself started, according to Burns and Novick,  because on July 30, '64 Americans initially guided South Vietnamese gunships to attack N. Vietnamese targets - prompting N. Vietnamese response - then U.S. air attacks. There followed the main incident on August 4th, 1964 when American radio operators  mistranslated North Vietnamese radio traffic and concluded a "new military operation was imminent." 

Actually, Hanoi had merely called upon torpedo boat commanders to be ready for a new raid by the South Vietnamese.  Then the Maddox and fellow destroyer, the Turner Joy,  braced for a fresh attack.  No second attack came, as the Burns' documentary noted,  but "anxious radio operators aboard Maddox and Turner Joy convinced themselves one had".  LBJ then decided the "probable attack" (sic)  should not go unanswered, claiming the non-attack was "open aggression against the United States of America". This led directly to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution passed in the Senate by 88-2, and in the House with total 'Aye' votes.

This still doesn't account for the omission of mention of either NSAM 263 or NSAM 273. But James Di Eugenio's research is crystal clear (p. 164):

"Concerning the differences between NSAM 263 and NSAM 273, first let us dispose of the obvious. Johnson never removed the first thousand troops as Kennedy's NSAM 263 had forecast. Because as is made clear in the book (Newman's 'JFK and Vietnam') ...he wanted to create the illusion there was no breakage in policy, when in fact he was planning for that split within days of taking office. The important difference was that the latter order reversed Kennedy's previous one by allowing for direct American naval involvement in the Tonkin Gulf. This in turn led to the Tonkin Gulf incident in the late summer of 1964. LBJ had been preparing for that since he already had the resolution to attack Vietnam in hand."

In my Sept. 16th post, I described how  Johnson - according to FOIA released documents in John Newman's book- - secretly courted the military to fire up American aggression though Kennedy was steadfastly against it. (Especially after his visit to Saigon in 1951 as Di Eugenio points out and Burns' documentary notes in Episode 1.)   These back channel efforts to curry favor with the military entailed setting up a network to receive actual Vietnam intelligence behind Kennedy’s back – while ensuring the spooks and Pentagon sources delivered only doctored pap to JFK.  The latter always portrayed the situation much better than really obtained.  Di Eugenio then leads to understand how exactly Kennedy's NSAM 263 germinated (p. 164):

"Knowing that the American-backed South Vietnam effort was failing, the Pentagon chose to disguise this with a whitewash of how bad things really were. Therefore, Kennedy was going to hoist the generals on their own petard: If things were going so well, then we were not needed anymore."

Of course, Kennedy would have already distrusted the generals after they tried to force his hand to bomb and invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile crisis. We now know in retrospect - and from Robert McNamara when he visited Cuba in 1992, that would have led to a nuclear war. JFK  knew from then not to trust anything the Joint Chiefs said, and he must have at least suspected Johnson's collusion with them which Frederik Logevall and John Newman had exposed in their own books via thousands of pages of documents released under the JFK Records Act.

Had Burns and Novick integrated this background into their Part 3, the episode would have made much more sense and not seemed so irrational, i.e. S. Vietnamese gunboats  simply attacking North Vietnamese targets out of the blue and the U.S. mounting airstrikes when the North Vietnamese were the victims not the aggressors.  The pattern, in other words, would have been evident and the objective clear.

So why not 'go there'?  Probably a combination of Johnson hagiography, see e.g.

And a deliberate choice to avoid controversy. But by this avoidance, or dodge, they ended up with a Part Three that was much less coherent than it needed to be. So they avoided controversy at the expense of coherence.  Undoubtedly,  they didn't wish to portray LBJ in any more negative way than he already would be by vastly expanding the conflict using a pretext (Tonkin Gulf incident).

Had they actually delved deeper, say beyond hagiography in the opening segment of the episode, they'd have acknowledged LBJ was not the charming, "Great Society" creator they portrayed but a no good rapscallion and murderer.   Could Johnson have actually stooped to have anyone killed? The Dallas Morning News story from March 23, 1984  (see image inset) is quite blunt about it. Billie Sol Estes reported that Johnson had Henry Harvey Marshall, a USDA official in charge of the federal cotton allotment detail,  killed because he had attempted to link Estes’ nefarious dealings to the then Vice-President.  While Estes ended up doing prison time, he did have his say before a grand jury (which subpoenaed him) after his release in 1984. As reported in news story, Estes linked Johnson and two others to the slaying of Marshall.  

Image may contain: 3 people

 In the follow-up grand jury investigation, Johnson, his one-time aide Cliff Carter, and ‘Mac’ Wallace were all deemed “co-conspirators in the murder” of Marshall. How is this useful? Because it is prima facie evidence that LBJ could also have cooperated in at least enabling Kennedy's assassination in order to expedite the war for the generals he always wanted (in return for which he'd have the presidency).

Most of us who are researchers in the area of deep politics firmly believe that Vietnam was the “Devil’s deal” LBJ struck with his JFK assassination collaborators (CIA, Generals), in order that he be catapulted into office – while facing  felony charges(barely days before) .  This isn’t “blowing smoke” either. As Steve Kornacki reported in his ‘UP’ journal on MSNBC, the morning of Nov. 23, 2013.   Using tapes and  displayed FOIA and media documents, Kornacki showed that Johnson was about to be exposed as an influence peddler in conjunction with the Bobby Baker scandal by LIFE magazine in its upcoming issue (to be published the week of Nov. 25, 1963.(

A paper trail of bank statements and payments was to have been included, and as Kornacki pointed out a Senate investigation would likely have ensued with LBJ being dumped from Kennedy’s 1964 ticket.  In other words, LBJ had by far the most to gain from JFK’s assassination, since he’d then be next in line as President, and not have to face justice in the Baker scandal.

Burns and Novick? Maybe they were aware of these nefarious connections, maybe not. But the most straightforward reason for omitting anything to do with NSAMS 263 and 273 is that  considering them (seriously!) meant heading into the heart of the Kennedy assassination.  That also meant considering LBJ clearly as a bad actor - not in firing any shots - but in expediting planning, say "helping" with the Big D motorcade route leading right into an area ideal for triangulated crossfire.  Hell, he already had his NSAM 273 prepared before JFK was even shot. Sadly, the two Vietnam War documentarians' omission has meant a more superficial understanding of the origin of the Vietnam War, specifically Johnson's primary role.

No surprise as Di Eugenio notes (p. 165), "in his first meeting on the issue held just forty-eight hours after Kennedy was killed, he made it clear to all his approach to Vietnam was much more militant, much more confrontational than JFK's"

No wondering at this if LBJ was also the one who engineered Henry Marshall's execution, and removed Kennedy to get his Vietnam War.

Too cynical and disingenuous?  Then you need to do much more research on the Kennedy - Johnson document background to the Vietnam War, and into the JFK assassination itself.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Kim Jong-Un Calls Trump A "Mentally Deranged Dotard" - He's Correct

Image result for Trump vs. Kim Jong Un images
"You're rocket man, Kim!"  -  "And you are a deranged dotard, Trump!"

As the "war of words" continues, this time backed up by nuclear force, Kim Jong-un returned fire on the Orange Orang letting fly with the epithet that he was a "mentally deranged dotard".  Of course, 90 percent of Twitter users had to race to their dictionaries to look up the word, but if they went to the Oxford Dictionary they'd have seen the meaning as a "mentally deficient elderly person" - in other words, an elderly person likely with some degree of dementia.

While the media goes nuts over the charge, anyone following Trump's antics the past seven months knows damned well it hits the nail on the head. In fact, I'd already written a post some time ago pointing to the evidence Trump likely has Alzheimer's disease.  See e.g.

For example, I pointed to the "Alzheimer's stare" characteristic of  the disease in many elderly, e.g
(Jabin Botsford/Post)

This was pointed out to me by my psychologist niece Shayl, now finishing her Ph.D. No one, obviously, faults an innocent person suffering from the disease - but Trump is in no way innocent. IF indeed he was innocent, he would have long since resigned from office as a danger to himself and others, especially given his access to the nuclear codes. An innocent man would grasp the risk his defective judgment poses and vacate a powerful position, as opposed to keeping it out of ego or a deranged commitment to a clueless base.

This is especially relevant as those in the later stages of Alzheimer's - as Shayl also points out - are given to explosive eruptions of rage. We've seen Trump in this mode many times, and again it wouldn't be so serious or detrimental if he didn't have his grubby orange mitts near the nuclear football.

Further evidence? His father Fred was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease six years before his death. According to the Alzheimer’s Association, “age, family history and heredity” are the most important risk factors in developing the disease. Trump, at 70 years old, is the oldest president to take office. Moreover,  a recent analysis found he showed symptoms of age-related cognitive impairment.

Reinforcing this, Trump displays no command of internal formation of relevant words, language. Look at his recent appearance referring to a non-existent African nation of Nambia.   This isn't simply a one off "mispronunciation" either,  given Trump is known for incomprehensible "word salads".

Alex Leo of the Daily Beast transcribed one sentence Trump delivered at a campaign stop in South Carolina last year, manifesting as a series of dead ends, unfinished thoughts and odd ramblings:
"Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it's true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my, like, credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it's four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger, fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us."

Hell, don't just take my word for these claims and conjectures,  given I'm as anti-Trump as it gets and want to see his ass removed from office asap as an act of national emergency..  Study  the clip below, in which David Pakman shows how typical Trump bluster could actually be a sign of progressive dementia. Think this is an exaggeration or hype?  Try to recall  when Trump forgot which country he’d just bombed. (He said "Iraq", it was Syria.)  Also how it just slipped his mind to sign a pair of executive orders during an event created for that explicit purpose. And hey, how about when he couldn’t locate Rudy Giuliani, who was sitting directly across from him at a media briefing some months ago?

Say what you will of Kim, and I am no fan -  as he's nothing more than a juvenile delinquent with his own hands on nuclear buttons-  but his assessment of Trump was spot on.  .To staunch further hysteria fomented by the media, i.e. that he plans to "drop an H-bomb in the Pacific"  - let's halt right there and agree there's no evidence he has even one hydrogen bomb. And I refer to the test done a few weeks ago which raised all kinds of hackles and alarms.

In my Sept. 5th post, for example, I cited the research of Paul Richards, a researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, who studies the seismic signals of nuclear weapons test explosions:

"It does not seem large enough to be the mark of a true hydrogen bomb detonation."


"The limited number of (hydrogen bomb tests) that have been done underground in the few megaton range have magnitudes on in the high six or seven range. That would be a hundred times larger than this."

This is reinforced by Won-Young Kim, also a research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who collaborates with Richards.   He observes that for a test of a supposedly more powerful device, the seismic signal bears a similarity to those of previous nuclear tests involving smaller devices.

Kim added in a CNBC interview:

 "The consensus is that a hydrogen bomb or thermonuclear device would be huge — the yield would be much bigger than that of a small nuclear bomb."

How is this? Let's go back to yield and mass delivery specs for earlier H-bombs, for which I showed two designs, e.g.

No automatic alt text available.The U.S. original H-bomb (Teller-Ulam ) design shown in the top graphic, consists of a fission bomb - massive in itself  -  at one end of a heavy radiation case. At the other end is the thermonuclear charge, basically a cylinder with a neutron shield at one end (liquid deuterium inside it) and a thin 'spark plug' of plutonium mixed with tritium. At detonation, the radiation from the fission bomb reflects off the radiation casing and compresses the thermonuclear charge to many times its original density.

The compression then sparks a fission reaction in the mixed Pu- 3 H spark plug that compresses the fusion fuel simultaneously from the other side. The fusion material is now primed for fusion reactions which yield megaton scale release.

Given a similar design for the N. Korean weapon, the best explanation of what transpired is that the full implosion of  the thermonuclear charge failed to occur.  This means the high density needed for actual nuclear fusion - needed to overcome Coulomb repulsion, i.e. between like charged protons- did not occur. The result of 100 kt was merely an advanced atomic explosion, or "boosted" detonation,  but not a hydrogen fusion detonation.

By comparison, the U.S.  early 50s' 'Mike' design, once refined, came in at 1,360 kg  for total mass and the yield to mass ratio translating into just over a 1 megaton explosion (1.08 Mt).  This conforms to what Bruce Bennett, a senior analyst for Rand Corporation, a non-partisan think tank - said: "That type of explosion doesn't cause kilotons [of explosive yield], it causes megatons."

Again, the incipient danger now is the ever spiraling rhetoric on both sides, as former N. Korean CIA analyst Sue Mi Terry has warned.  This makes an accidental strike ever more likely owing to misunderstanding. Both sides need to cool it, especially the U.S. which we expect to be the adult in the room,  not a spoiled brat confronting another one. 

It may be time for Chief of staff Gen. John Kelly, to read the Donald "the riot act" and make sure he grasps that no more blustering brinksmanship will be tolerated.  If he doesn't conform, then Kelly needs to leave and - on his own - work to get Trump either committed to the nearest asylum or removed under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution,

The funniest tweet today? Trump calling Kim a "madman" - failing to recognize the chief Madman front and center in the oval office.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Cassidy -Graham: The Latest GOP Effort To Take Down The ACA - Could Happen!

Image result for Sen. Bill Cassidy grinning  face images
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel rips into the lunatic goofball GOOP Bill Cassidy - for claiming the Cassiidy-Graham health bill  "passes the Jimmy Kimmel" test.

"Republican lawmakers have wasted much of the year trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a move that would deprive millions of people of health insurance. They’re back at it. Like a bad sequel to a terrible movie, a proposal whose main architects are Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina would in many ways be worse than bills that came before. It would punish states like California and New York that have done the most to increase access to health care and set in motion cuts to Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides insurance to nearly 70 million people, many of whom are disabled and elderly."   - NY Times editorial, Sept. 19

The optimal way to gauge the degenerate new "zombie" healthcare (Cassidy-Graham)  bill now being pushed by the Gooprs is to see and hear the take direct from Jimmy Kimmel, e.g.

Note from the clip how  Kimmel lambastes the sheer dishonesty of representation by Cassidy and how the "only child"  who would get coverage under this disgusting bill is Kimmel's own child.  Kimmel also noted this bill is actually worse than the earlier 'skinny repeal' effort  in all the ways it damages healthcare including eliminating:

-- pediatric services

-  Hospitalization

-  Ambulance transport

-  Mental health treatment

- emergency services (ER visits)

- Lab work

- Rehab services

-  Wellness checkups for seniors

- Prescription Drugs

- Maternity care

It would also allow states to charge more for pre-existing conditions. Lindsey  Graham - lying punk that he is -  claimed people "can choose between socialism and federalism:".  In fact, this bastardized law on offer - if passed - would force citizens to choose between health care that saves their lives, OR literally begging for charity care in states that direct block grants to other priorities.

Why the unseemly rush to scuttle Obamacare and especially Medicaid right now? Well, Republicans must act by September 30th in the Senate or face the prospect of a Democratic filibuster. That is currently impeded by budget rules that allow for "budget reconciliation" but that ends at the end of the month.  But this is exactly why citizens must become activated now, as much as they were a month ago when the skinny repeal was attempted. It is not the time to be complacent..

The Grand Old Party wants to slash spending on Medicaid over all by giving states the option of a "block grant" or a per capita allotment. So here in Colorado, for example, that may mean allocating the state a fixed amount for next year of $100m. That then will have to suffice to cover the needs of some 125,000  citizens, mainly frail elderly, poor, unemployed or under-employed. But if those people normally need some $4,000 a year each for their medical needs, just doing the math discloses the shortfall will be nearly a factor 5 less than needed ($500m vs. $50m).

Graham-Cassidy would further cripple Medicaid by putting a per-person cap on what the federal government spends on the program. Under current law, federal spending increases automatically to keep up with the rise in medical costs; a per-capita cap would leave governors, who are ultimately in charge of administering Medicaid, in the unenviable position of denying care to poor and older Americans.

Why are Republicans so obsessed with dismantling Medicaid? For one thing it is expensive, in terms of providing the extensive medical care or other assistance needed for its dependent population. In a post in June I already cited one expert on why medical-health costs are exploding worldwide. In his extensive Barbados Advocate column (April 30, p. 14) David Jessop shed light on exactly why medical costs are soaring in all the nations of the world:

"Around the world, public health care systems are in crisis. From India to Australia, nations in the developing and developed world are struggling to meet the expectations of their local populations."

What reasons does he give for this crisis? He lists the following as primary culprits:

- A surge in the nature and volume of demand as populations age and birth rates continue to increase

-  The preceding occurring at the same time a desire for low taxes has made it difficult for governments to garner the necessary resources to respond to societal expectations.

In terms of Cassidy -Graham the last is most relevant, given the new bill wants to shift all the economic losses thereby imposed on the Medicaid population (est. $240 b) to pave the way for their tax reform- tax cut initiative. If Cassidy -Graham then can pass by Sept. 30th, they're almost home free with their monster tax cuts for the rich when the tax legislation comes up. It's up to us to stop them!

Sadly, the Congressional Budget Office admitted it will not be able to determine the full impact of the legislation, including its effect on premiums and the number of people who have insurance, for several weeks.  By then the lying cowards of the GOP hope to have this law signed, sealed and delivered for Trump to sign.

An analysis released on Wednesday by the health-care consulting firm Avalere estimates that the $215 billion in federal spending that the bill would eliminate by 2026 will balloon to nearly $500 billion the year after and $4.2 trillion by 2036. That’s because, as critics of the bill have pointed out, funding for the system ends in 2026, meaning it would need to be re-appropriated by the government. If that doesn’t happen, funding will fall further.  Over 70 million people -citizens could find themselves with no healthcare, and just one auto accident or major disease away from homelessness, poverty.

This pathological bill would also pervert how Medicaid works, dramatically reducing the amount spent per person relative to how the system works under the current law. By 2036, that change translates into a reduction in federal spending in every single state relative to the current law.
Avalere’s analysis suggests that, overall, only 16 states would see any increase in federal spending at all, 15 of them states that voted for  Donald Trump in 2016. (The exception is Virginia.) Even Cassidy’s home state of Louisiana would see consistent declines, which is one reason that the state’s health secretary publicly opposed the legislation.

In a way it is incredible that the GOOPs are prepared to go this far to commit political Hari Kari.While they had promised for seven years to get rid of Obamacare - a promise made to the GOOP base - it would come at an immense cost to that base. This is given it is mainly their health care that would be affected- either losing coverage outright, or getting a "skinny"  substitute that - for example - would not cover chemotherapy if they got cancer. Effectively, it will ultimately have devastating consequences for the Republican party.

Analysis also shows spending on the disabled, children and other adults would decline relative to the current law. By 2036, Avalere estimates, Medicaid spending that supports children would be cut by nearly a third.  This is despite the fact, as Jimmy Kimmel noted two nights ago, nearly 55 percent of those on Medicaid are kids.  What kind of heartless bastards are Graham and Cassidy anyway that they could team up to push such a vile bill at the last minute - especially when most of the nation's defenses are down?

I regret to say that what is needed once more are hundreds of disabled citizens coming out to block the offices of congress critters, e.g.
Image result for disabled blocking congressional offices, photos
Because it is clear that action is only feared if it is immediate and proximate. Other millions of people need to call reps up and give the following message:

Hello my name is  ABCDE   and I live in (State). I want to make sure Senator X (name him)  understands that Graham-Cassidy wouldn't just cut Medicaid drastically — which he pledged not to do — it would also take the funds that are coming to (Blue tsate name)  and allocate them to states that did not expand Medicaid. So Senator X wouldn't just be breaking his pledge he would be voting to give (Blue state's) money to another state! Voting for this bill would be a vote against (State name) . Thank you.
It is regrettable we have to go through all of this again, but it is essential to act because the gutter rat Goops never quit. Since they won't quit, we can't either. Anyone who cares about health care in the country even remotely needs to call or write their Senators - say delivering a message along the lines of that above. Pick up the phone and blitz the bastards six ways from SundayAs Paul Krugman put it:

"Complacency could kill health care...if you care about preserving the huge gains the Affordable Care Act has brought, make your voice heard."

"Make America Compassionate Again" was a recent header for an essay by Eric J. Schneidewind in the AARP magazine.  He implored the powers that be to enable and facilitate a health system that allows Americans to weather a health crisis without financial ruin. Alas, that will simply not be possible without a fight.

See also:


Vox's excellent Sarah Kliff encapsulates the latest of the GOP's once-inconceivable foulness — the Graham-Cassidy ACA-"reform" bill:
[It] takes money from states that did a good job getting residents covered under Obamacare and gives it to states that did not. It eliminates an expansion of the Medicaid program that covers millions of Americans in favor of block grants….
Plus,… insurers in the private marketplace would be allowed to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, for example. And it would eliminate the individual mandate as other bills would have, but this time there is no replacement.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Trump Disgraces Himself And The Country With Outrageous UN Exhibition

In his speech, Trump offered the world a black-and-white choice between the ‘righteous many’ against the ‘wicked few’.
Trump At UN yesterday, delivering "the most atrocious speech ever given by an American President" in the words of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (Ret.)

Trump's outrageous exhibition at the UN yesterday was just that, an exhibition,  by a two-bit Queens real estate huckster, totally out of his depth, and shaking with fear.  Fear at an implacable North Korean enemy that isn't intimidated in the least by this orange-hued baboon's histrionics or hysteria. They know they have him over a (missile) barrel and they're not budging from their objectives to secure their country against a "regime change"..

The  North Korean UN rep had the sense to vacate his seat before the orange Orang arrived, despoiling the speech podium with his loathsome presence. Good thing as the mutt singled out North Korea, recounting its history of kidnapping, oppression, and missile and nuclear tests, blabbing:

The US has great strength and patience. If it is forced to defend ourselves or our allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”

Alarmed murmurs spread among the sane diplomats in the hall as the deranged Trump delivered another barb. Using his newly adopted epithet for Kim Jong-un, Trump said: “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”

He said the US was “ready, willing and able” to take military action, but said hopefully that would be unnecessary if the rest of the world stepped up its efforts to constrain the Pyongyang regime.

That is what the United Nations is for.  Let’s see how they do.”

How they do? Abetting a madman to launch a nuclear war? They should have tossed his ass out. As it was the performance was greeted in the UN chamber mostly with silence and occasional outbreaks of disapproving murmurs, as Trump castigated a succession of  regimes he painted as "hostile" - leaving out the most pathological of all: the Trump Nazis..  How else respond when confronted by the equivalent of a two year old in the midst of a tantrum, ready to stomp his feet and cry if he doesn't get his way.

In fact, Trump's childish display with the brash, bombastic rhetoric to boot, evoked Nikita Khrushchev's shoe banging and bluster in his own October 12, 1960 UN performance, e.g.

In his own spiel, Trump played the brinksmanship card again, mindlessly boasting he would "totally destroy North Korea" - failing to acknowledge if he did so he'd also totally destroy 25 million souls in Seoul, South Korea. See e.g.

Since killing 25 million people - the population of North Korea- would be a war crime, we can say Trump advocated for a war crime and did it in the process of name calling ("rocket man").  President John F. Kennedy in October, 1962 also faced down a nuclear rocket threat - but it was far more proximate with more than seven dozen IRBMs based in Cuba, 90 miles from Miami.  Kennedy didn't call Castro or Khrushchev names like Trump did to Kim Jong- Un, he acted the way an intelligent, controlled leader is expected to - at least by sane citizens.

In the end, Kennedy and Khrushchev came to a solution which arguably spared the world from a nuclear catastrophe  - though not on the scale of one that would occur today.  But sadly, we have no sober leader at the helm but a regressed two year old in a 71 year old's body.

It is no surprise that we've since learned the speech was drafted by Bannon groupie and alt Right asshole Steven Miller. That would be the guy that bears an uncanny resemblance to the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels . So much so that there are even youtube videos featuring the two spieling in alternate segments, e.g.

So, if things really do come to a possible nuclear war we may have to lay blame on a latter day former Nazi look alike.

Seriously, though, where were the tempering reins of Gen. Jim Mattis, or Gen. John Kelly? Were they simply not able to control the mad dogs that still run amuck in the White House?  Or, did Gen. Mattis really believe the BS he uttered two days ago that the U.S. could take out North Korean underground missile silos with no impacts on South Korea? If he really believes that then he also has mutated into a looney tune. Maybe one can blame the proximity to the looney tune in chief but that's little consolation to the millions of South Koreans who'd bear the brunt of 10,000 N. Korean artillery pieces - half loaded up with sarin, the other half with smallpox virus, Ebola and gas gangrene.

Morons like Israel's Bibi Netanyahu called Trump's spiel "courageous" but what would you expect from a warmonger who can't wait to bring on Armageddon?  The fact is there was no speech in a real sense, it was an atrocious exhibition of bombast and baloney by a guy that doesn't merit presiding over a dog pound far less being president. Indeed, the only logical place for this rabid mutt is confined to a dog pound, to await his fate.

See also:

The "Summer Of Love": Really All It Was Cracked Up To Be?

Image may contain: text

Image may contain: sky, car, tree and outdoor
While I didn't make it to San Francisco in '67 I did arrive at Haight Street - by car - in 2012, when I was there for prostate cancer radiation treatment at UCSF.

As the summer of 2017 draws to a close, many of us (Boomers) recall the 'Summer of Love' fifty years ago, made popular by the anthem 'San Francisco' by Scott McKenzie, e.g.

Since then I've been asked by many - generally nieces and nephews - if it was all it was cracked up to be, or just a lot of hype. Well, it was a bit of both.

At the time I was working for Pan American Oil Company in New Orleans, just off Lee Circle - and when the statue of Robert E. Lee was still there atop a seventy foot high pedestal, e.g.
Image may contain: sky and outdoor
Here, the Pan American Oil Bldg. can be seen just behind the Lee Statue. That summer I celebrated my 21st birthday with a small party of co-workers at the apartment I had on Canal Street.  (Lee Circle was about a half mile from the apt. on the trolley line, then walking)  Unlike the hippies and kids who took off for Frisco, I had to stay with "the 9 to 5"  (actually, 7:45 to 5) to earn the money to be able to return to school to get my degree - which turned out to be in astronomy, as opposed to the chemistry I was majoring in at Loyola U.

What about the 'Summer of Love' itself as experienced in San Francisco? Contrary to most of the romanticized portrayals it was actually "crazy, crowded and not a little cruddy" in the words of one Boomer (Mike Lafavore) quoted in an AARP magazine piece (Oct., p. 38).   That sentiment was echoed by two hippie friends - students Mahlon and Marcie - at the University of South Florida when I returned to do my astronomy degree in 1969.  They also took pains to remind me "it wasn't just the summer of love, but summers of love, in 1967, 68 and 69" - they said this after just returning from Woodstock.

In San Fran itself, they pointedly noted that so many kids had arrived, lured by rock music and drugs - like LSD- it was almost impossible to find a decent place to bed down. Many had to sleep on the streets or in makeshift boxes and tents. The luckier ones managed to nab $2 a night digs in the Tenderloin district.

While often crowded, grimy and grubby the kids who did get there still enjoyed themselves because the zeitgeist was one of community and familiarity. It was as if each automatically spoke the lingo of the others- often they could finish each others' sentences - according to M & M.  According to one person quoted in the AARP piece:

"What was cool was that you could join a group of strangers anytime, anywhere and you knew you'd be accepted. You only had to walk out your door and join the fun."

This was radically different from working at the oil company - or anyplace-  in New Orleans, where tolerance for difference was a rare commodity. (A favorite epithet for anyone with long hair was "fruit"). So culturally, you couldn't get much farther from San Francisco than New Orleans.

How many hippies really existed in 1967? TIME magazine estimated the total number at 300,000 or about 0.15 percent of the then U.S.  population.  At the time, as Mahlon once put it: "You have to distinguish between the real Hippies and the fakes- who merely dressed the part - but didn't buy into the philosophy of "peace and love".

The important thing to bear in mind was that the zeitgeist was not universal, so when Jann Wenner - cofounder of Rolling Stone -  said in the AARP piece:

"Ideas about the world were being shared, and ideas about the American experience were being informally passed around" such as respect for other cultures and religions not one's own and respect for the earth - that applied to localized areas.  In the gritty New Orleans of 1967, where blacks still had to ride at the rear of trolleys - those who expressed such shared ideas tended to have a short half life.  And if you had a grain of sense you didn't do drugs in N.O. ,  you did Bourbon - preferably Southern Comfort.  (Even a first offense with a few grams of MJ brought a sentence of 15 years served out at Angola)

San Francisco it was not. 

So when those living outside the "peace and love" bubble beheld kids flocking to gurus, practicing yoga and recalibrating their American Bourgeois experience to embrace other cultures and cuisines, they thought they'd all gone on extended drug trips.

These days, it's common for the most cynical among us - often wannabe comics like P.J. O'Rourke- to lampoon the Summer of love, hippies and Boomers in general.  But they can't deny that our world has improved in a number of ways that can be traced back to the vibes of that '67 summer.  The air is cleaner (though how long with Trump in power we can't say), the nation's rivers no longer catch fire and one can actually find healthy organic foods in abundance.   In terms of intangibles, let's note that even in the reddest parts of Trump country Americans have become used to more personal freedom than their parents ever had.   In addition, seven states have now come on board to legalize the casual use of MJ  - something that even the hippies of 1967 wouldn't have believed.

The Summer of love may not have been all that it's cracked up to be,  now seen in 20-20 hindsight, exposing the flaws surrounding an over- romanticized era. But there has been a positive legacy  for which the 70 percent of the population not alive then can still partake.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Particle Beams Over Jupiter's Poles Incite Questions

Image may contain: night
Infrared image of auroral oval above Jupiter's southern polar regions.

In earlier posts, I examined some of  the research into the appearance of aurorae on Jupiter. For example, on Nov. 21, 2015 I cited some of the earliest research done, by two astronomers  (Ray S. Clary and James H. Hunter Jr.)  from the University of South Florida, e.g.
No automatic alt text available.
Their paper, Hydrogen Alpha Auroral Activity on Jupiter', appeared in The Astrophysical Journal (Vol. 199, p. 517) and dealt with the attempted detection of auroral activity on the largest planet.  They carried out their observations from April through November, 1972 "usually with Jupiter 2 hours or less  from the meridian". This would have ensured the optimal seeing conditions since Jupiter's altitude would be displaced enough from the horizon to avoid atmospheric effects, and enable the greatest clarity.

The pair ended up making a total of 100 hours of observation yielding some 2,000 photographs of Jupiter, most of them prior to the planet's opposition on June 24 of that year. Still "observations were often interrupted by clouds or haze"  Alas, the results themselves were ambiguous. Examining their prime plates published in their paper (4 pages in all) I could detect nothing remarkable or any features that stood out - even in the polar areas.

Contrast this limited observational condition with one of the highly enhanced images of Jupiter's aurorae (at N. and S. poles)  visible in the Hubble Space Telescope photograph below e.g.
No automatic alt text available.

A major difference is that unlike Earth's auroras, those on Jupiter are nearly continuous - driven by the planet's rapid rotation and its volcanic moon (Io),  which spews out sulfur and oxygen ions as well as electrons into space, The latter speed along the planet's magnetic field lines and - if powerful enough - slam into the atmosphere causing its particles to glow.

Tao et al (Journal of Geophysical Research -Space Physics, Oct. 2015, p. 1002), using the Japanese Hisaki Space Telescope, measured variations in the brightness of the Jovian aurorae. They reported observing two kinds of auroral pulses. In one, the aurora brightened for up to several days at a time, and the authors attributed this to the solar wind. Thus, as it 'washes over' the planet, the charged particles are buffeted and compress Jupiter's magnetic field. This is very similar to what happens on Earth.

The team also observed much more rapid variations, with pulses typically lasting less than ten hours. By comparing the Hisaki images with images taken simultaneously by the Hubble Space Telescope, Tao et al could see these variations arose from the aurora brightening at lower altitudes, at the bottom of the auroral arc and as reported by Kimura at al (op. cit.)

Another mystery that emerged was the fact that the ultraviolet (UV) radiation intensity appeared much brighter than the UV from the Sun.  How can this be? A planet's UV radiation intensity greater than a star's?

Last August, NASA’s Juno spacecraft deepened that mystery: In a close flyby of Jupiter’s poles, it found powerful angular beams of electrons above the aurora, extending in energy to greater than 1 million electron volts. These beams shoot upward over the polar caps and over the main aurora, even where a weaker downward component contains sufficient energy flux to generate the powerful emissions from the main aurora.

Now, as a contribution to a special Geophysical Research Letters section on Juno’s first encounter with Jupiter, Mauk et al. provide the most detailed analysis of this phenomenon yet. Although they don’t know the causes, they suggest it may be the key to understanding Jupiter’s intense auroras.

Juno’s close encounter came on 27 August 2016, just a couple months after it arrived at Jupiter to study the planet, its moons, and its enormous magnetic field. The spacecraft’s pass over the northern and southern poles took it above dancing ovals of aurora, allowing it to peek into the polar regions within.  Mauk et al analyzed data from the Jupiter Energetic Particle Detector Instrument, which measured the trajectories and energies of the charged particles whizzing past. As the craft approached the auroral oval from the more equatorward regions, it saw typical signatures of trapped electrons with up-down differences reminiscent of those generating faint diffuse auroras at Earth.

When the spacecraft passed directly over the bright main auroral oval, it detected two highly directional angular beams—for both downward and upward traveling electrons. When Juno fully crossed inside the oval, deep within the polar caps, the downward beams virtually disappeared, leaving only the upward beams, varying in intensity but always present. This is very unlike what happens at Earth, where spacecraft passing over the most intense auroras find electrons accelerated downward only into what are called energy beams.

The Jovian bidirectional angle beams indicate that Jupiter’s aurora are generated by a totally different process than on Earth—a much more random one where collisions and turbulence propel particles both down and up along magnetic field lines. The team hypothesizes that this may have been happening most strongly in the region below Juno’s position, which could explain why Juno saw the large up-down differences in the beams over the main auroral oval.

It's tempting to conjecture that the monodirectional electron angular beams emerging from the “polar cap,” can be modeled using something analogous to:
Image may contain: text
The diagram shows the orbital plane of the (25–800 keV) electron's motion, as well as the orientations of the local magnetic induction (B) - out of the plane (toward the reader), and the radiated E-field which is polarized parallel to the orbital plane.  The authors' abstract (Geophysical Research Letters,, 2017)  notes the energy spectra of all beams being monotonic and hard (i.e. not structured in energy), showing power law-like distributions often extending beyond ~800 keV.   They also make reference to "variable downward energy fluxes (below 1 RJ altitudes within the loss cone".

Note that the loss cones is an important device in space physics. One uses the sine of the loss cone angle to obtain the mirror ratio relating the magnetic inductions at the presumptive loop ends:

sin (q L ) = ± Ö (Bmin / B max )

If one finds that there are particles within the “mirrors” for which the “pitch angle” (a) has:

sin (a )  >  Ö (Bmin / B max )

then these will be reflected within the tube, On the other hand, those particles for which the “less than” condition applies will be lost, i.e. on transmission out of the mirror configuration.

For the Juno observations, the equation used (see paper at link below) was:

(B source / B Juno )  =   sin 2 (a source ) /  sin 2 (Juno )

=   Juno  sin 2 (Juno )

where αsource = 90°, BJuno and αJuno are the magnetic field strength and the beam angle at Juno, respectively, we find that Bsource ≈ 8.1 G in the north and Bsource ≈ 7.2 G in the south

See also:

Cat 5 Hurricane Maria Mauls Dominica and Guadeloupe As Climate Simpletons Remain Out In Force

The eye of Hurricane Maria as it nears Dominica.
Category 5 Hurricane Maria which is seen here over the Caribbean island of Dominica 

Let's see now: Harvey, Irma, Katia, Jose, and now Maria and Lee. Not names at a party but monster storms (or potential - "Lee") acting as "atmospheric daisy cutters" and  "nature's weapons of mass destruction" (according to a recent essay in TIME) set to mow down whole islands, towns and states.

One  would have thought that in the wake of the onslaughts of major hurricanes Harvey and Irma the climate denier simpletons would put a sock in it. But that just isn't happening, even after a new category 5 hurricane has demolished Dominica and is heading for the Leeward Island chain.   What is there about basic thermal physics that these climate deniers don't grasp? Well, for starters,  that these "atmospheric daisy cutters"  are actually vast heat transfer systems - removing giga-joules of excess heat from the tropics and conveying them to more northerly, cooler latitudes.

If in fact there was no connection to climate change- global warming these immense  heat conveyors wouldn't be necessary to redistribute heat as often as we've seen.. Where is this heat? Well, in the atmosphere but especially  in the now greatly warming oceans - near the equator. Thus, it is no coincidence that most major Atlantic hurricanes spin off the Cape Verde islands near the African coast. (Where yet another storm, Lee, is now brewing).

According to the oceanographic climate science site below :

 Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans.  Doing the math this is more than enough energy to power dozens of major hurricanes, e.g. Hugo, Allen, Harvey, Andrew, Irma and now Cat 5 Maria.

But the climate simpletons insist there is no connection, For example, meteorologist Ryan Maue writing in yesterday's WSJ ('Climate Change Hype Doesn't Help', p. A19).:

"In the aggregate, the global warming signal may just now be emerging out of our noisy observational records and we may not know certainly for several decades."

In fact, the warming signal is already well defined and observed, - in the collapsing Antarctic ice shelves - some larger than the state of Connecticut, in the melting of glaciers across the planet, and in the increased intensity of the recent spate of hurricanes - including Maria. According to SciCheck, a division of

"The most recent analysis of what’s known about the effect of climate change on hurricane activity comes from the June 28 draft of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Climate Science Special Report.  One of that report’s key findings said that human activities have “contributed to the observed increase in hurricane activity” in the North Atlantic Ocean since the 1970s. The Gulf of Mexico, where Harvey formed, is part of the North Atlantic Ocean.

The draft report echoes the findings of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2013 assessment report, which found that scientists are “virtually certain” (99 percent to 100 percent confident) that there has been an “increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s” in the North Atlantic Ocean." 

Indeed, extreme weather events  ("1,000 -year"  floods, storms) derived from climate change have killed more than twice as many people in the U.S. as terror attacks in the past 16 years - including the carnage on September 11, 2001.   In fact, the slow rolling disaster of ever intensifying climate change can be thought of as a mode of natural terror which we dismiss or diminish at our peril.

The Pentagon, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent.  Supporting the national defense position, nearly all the reinsurance companies (like Munich Re),  have climate change factored into their tables, costs, plans.  The climate simpletons -who always think they know more than the experts- need to ask themselves why the reinsurance companies are now amongst the strongest advocates for proactive response to global warming. Well, if they'd read the recent WSJ article ('Reinsurers On Hook For Damages', Sept. 11, p. B9) they'd know why. Reinsurance is the 'backstop' for regular insurance  - providing capital when insurance companies are themselves tapped out. Companies like Munich Re are among the most energetic now to get whole communities to take climate change seriously and cease farting around and making excuses. They also want vulnerable communities to think twice before allowing construction on areas susceptible to storm surge or other threats -  many connected to climate change.

But the simpletons refuse to listen.  The real scam, then, isn't Limbaugh's claim that the media and advertisers, companies are "making money" off of hurricane hype - but that ignorant buffoons like Limbaugh are making tons of money by brainwashing their legions over the radio.  WHO do you think will be most severely impacted if another cat 5 hurricane strikes Florida?  Well, it won't be Rush Limbaugh but the sorry people who bought his hogswill and didn't evacuate because "it's all hype to get you to buy more water.' As wifey put it last night: "God, they're almost as bad as those televangelists - like Jim and Tammy Baker."  Well, maybe not quite, but close in terms of inducing gullibility.

What we DO know is the planet is currently  subject to a radiative heating effect equivalent to 2.5 x 10 7  TJ injected each year into the atmosphere or roughly 400,000 Hiroshima size A-bombs.   This in turn conforms to the observed  addition of 2 ppm  per year  in CO2 concentrations and an associated heating increase per year of  2 W/ m2.   

Result?  The temperature of the planet is currently out of balance by  0.6  W/ m2.    and this is almsot entirely due to the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increasing as a result of incessant fossil fuel use.   Now the key part, the heat imbalance is especially extreme between the tropics and northerly latitudes. If then hurricanes represent heat transfer systems - to shift excess heat away from the equator - then it makes sense we'd see more of them so long as conditions (e.g. much warmer ocean temperatures) merit this transfer.  This is basic thermal physics, but of course most climate deniers - or buffoons like Rush Limbaugh - haven't even taken a basic high school physics course

To get down to cases,  a large portion of  Hurricane Harvey's energy was fueled by very warm Gulf temperatures which rose to between 2.7 F and 7.2 F above average. Because of these high Gulf surface temperatures the original Tropic Storm Harvey progressed to a Cat 4 hurricane in barely 48 hours.  How did the Gulf acquire such war temperatures? Well, from the absorption of excess heat in the atmosphere.  As I noted earlier,  over 90% of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans.

Meteorologist Maue appears to try to make a much bigger case that the massive destruction wrought ty these storms like Maria derives from over building in areas susceptible to storm surges.  This is obviously part of the equation, but that alone doesn't account for the ferocity of the storms - such as Maria now lashing Guadeloupe after demolishing Dominica. Are those island states over built too? Not really. They are simply more vulnerable because their infrastructure is unable to withstand the force of a storm with the power of an E4 or E5 tornado lasting for hours.

When one dives beneath the superficial stuff, one sees that the over building in susceptible areas- whether on islands or mainland U.S. states - emerges from another problem: too high a density of people, as a result of over population. What? Well, consider that since I went through Hurricane Cleo in Miami in late August of '64 the global population has doubled - from about 3.5 b to 7.3 b. The population of the U.S. has also doubled from 160 million to over 320 million. Doesn't anyone think or surmise that all those extra people might need places to live: homes, condos, apartment buildings?
The point here is that the over building meme is more or less a red herring designed to distract from the link of monster hurricanes to climate change.

This leads us back to the question of why weatherman Maue would seek to distract or not fully buy into the global warming link, as currently manifest.   A possible explanation appears in the Jan.-Feb. 2011 Issue of The Columbia Journalism Review featuring a piece entitled ‘Hot Air: Why Don’t TV Weathermen Believe in Climate Change?’

In the article by Charles Homans, assorted reasons were put forward as to why many TV weathermen (especially ensconced in the Weather Channel) as well as a significant number of member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) don’t buy climate change. Among them:

1- Given their familiarity with the defects in their own extended predictions, meteorologists looking at long range climate questions (such as global warming effects) are predisposed to “see a system doomed to terminal unpredictability”.

2- Most skeptic meteorologists (like Bob Breck an AMS-certified chief meteorologist at New Orleans WVUE) didn’t properly recognize the limits of their own scientific training – and hence the implausibility of their pronouncing on climate science.

3- Because of (2) the skeptic meteorologists tend to see their own “informed intuition” as the source of some kind of ersatz scientific authority – particularly if the skeptics are also excellent communicators, or fancy themselves so.

Some of the paradoxical statistics that were cited in the article, based on surveys carried out by Emory University Journalism lecturer Kris Wilson, included:

- 29% agreed with Weather Channel mogul John Coleman’s take that global warming was “the greatest scam in history”.

-Only 24% believed that humans were responsible for most of the change over the past half century.

- 50% were certain this wasn’t true and that humans weren’t responsible.

-Only 17% of the opinionated TV weathermen “received a graduate degree, a prerequisite for an academic researcher in any scientific field”.

Similar trends appear to correlate to Australian and European meteorologists but not quite to the same extent as for Americans. In any case, one would not expect to find much in the way of insight or illumination on global warming and its predictions from this lot.

Meteorology, after all, is distinct from climatology -  but I doubt few of the simpletons grasp that. As I have repeatedly suggested, they need to go to:

Where the meteorologists are on firmer ground pertains to the "cones of probability" they assign to storm tracks, again generally misunderstood by the likes of Limbaugh and his followers.  When they ask: "How come we can we put men on the Moon and send craft to Mars but can't even track a hurricane?" they mix apples and oranges.  Getting space craft to their destinations is a matter of using the deterministic laws of physics - from Newtonian gravitation and the special equations of celestial  mechanics. Those laws enable incredible precision once one uses them correctly (including inserting the right units). With hurricanes,  prediction isn't the same because they aren't deterministic systems like space craft.  They aren't subject to Newtonian laws of motion but rather subject to the much more complex stochastic parameters of fluid dynamics.

But again, we shouldn't be surprised so many fail to make the distinction, especially if they've never taken a high school physics course. But this is why - while they are entitled to their opinions - they're not entitled to their own facts.  To quote from

"Climate science is one of those fields where anyone, regardless of their lack of expertise or understanding, feels qualified to comment on new papers and ongoing controversies. This can be frustrating for scientists like ourselves who see agenda-driven ‘commentary’ on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis."

I suspect this sense of false expertise on climate is related to the eponymous Dunning-Kruger Effect .  This is a cognitive bias whereby people who are incompetent at something are unable to recognize their own incompetence. And not only do they fail to recognize their incompetence, they’re also likely to feel confident that they actually are competent.  The climate denier brigade, and especially those like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, must be numbered among this sorry lot.