Maggie's Farm

Um, no. From the Danish Meteorological Institute, the source of the cited graphs: "Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."

Dale: So what? It freezes/melts in different cycles of different lengths.

The claim was that Greenland was gaining ice. That was a false claim, which should have been apparent to any reasonably careful reader of the Danish research.

drowningpuppies: So Greenland is losing about .03% of ice. That's a big cube of ice but barely significant to the overall mass.

Greenland ice mass

The rate of mass loss is still low, but will accelerate as the Earth's surface continues to warm. Each loss of 1% will result in about 7 cm of sea level rise. Without mitigation, several percent of the Greenland icecap is expected to melt by the end of the century.

Little of the rehash in the article is much more than the usual "it's who you know" politics. Also, as far as we know, Clinton didn't fire the FBI Director investigating her, or seek out legal advice on pardoning herself.

drowningpuppies: Everyone but Zzzzz....

A majority of Americans believe President Trump has done something either illegal or unethical when it comes to Russia, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

A Fox News poll finds that 40% think there was collusion between the Trump Administration and Russia.

GoneWithTheWind: Exactly!!

In fact, you claimed that "Everyone in the world knows the Russia story is a red herring designed to distract attention from the real crimes by Obama and Hillary." We provided evidence that your claim is false.

GoneWithTheWind: Exactly!! There wasn't! There is zero evidence of it!

Your new claim is also incorrect. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence. You could start with Trump calling for Russia to release Clinton emails, or with the fact that the Trump organization took in a lot of Russian money, or that there have been a pattern of lies concerning contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.

drowningpuppies: More likely inferences drawn from hearsay, speculation and conjecture.

Did Trump not call for Russia to release emails stolen from Clinton's server?

Did Trump Jr. not say that a lot of Russian money was flowing into their organization?

Have there not been multiple misleading statements concerning contacts with the Russians, such as by Flynn?

GoneWithTheWind: Anyone who actually thinks/believes that "Trump calling for Russia to release Clinton emails" is proof of collusion

Didn't say it was proof, but circumstantial evidence. Try to read more carefully. It was certainly unethical (not that that's a barrier to Trump supporters).

drowningpuppies: Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact."

You had stated "More likely inferences drawn from hearsay, speculation and conjecture." You waved your hands at the facts, calling them "hearsay, speculation and conjecture." When again asked to address the facts, this time you diverted to semantics.

drowningpuppies: "Circumstantial evidence is the opposite of direct evidence. It cannot prove a material fact by itself. Rather, it is evidence that tends to prove a material fact when considered together with other evidence and by drawing inferences. ... Inferences may not, however, be drawn by guesswork, speculation, or conjecture."

That's all correct. However, your position was that the facts were in error. Perhaps you meant the evidentiary link to the conclusion (inference) was weak, but that's not what you said. The facts are that Trump called for the Russians to leak stolen emails, money flowed in the past to Trump's organization, and lies concerning contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

drowningpuppies: Nope.

You said, "More likely inferences drawn from hearsay, speculation and conjecture."

"Drawn from" refers to the purported underlying facts. Instead of either arguing why the purported facts are in error, or clarifying your position, you then argued semantics, and now you are arguing you didn't say what you said.

Are you saying Trump did not call for the Russians to leak stolen emails? Or that this is not circumstantial evidence of collusion? Are you saying Russian money didn't flow into Trump's organization? Or that this is not circumstantial evidence of collusion? Are you saying that no one lied about contacts with Russia? Or that this is not circumstantial evidence of collusion?

None of this is conclusive, but it is certainly circumstantial evidence warranting a closer investigation.

drowningpuppies: There is no evidence of collusion, circumstantial or otherwise.

"Is not! Is not!" isn't an argument. Notably, you didn't answer any of the question intended to further the discussion.

drowningpuppies: "Is so" isn't an argument either

Which is why we provided evidence to support our position: Trump called for the Russians to leak stolen emails, money flowed in the past to Trump's organization, and lies concerning contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

GoneWithTheWind: The gulag awaits those who cross them.

Sure. Gulags.

As that was what Mueller was charged to investigate, it makes sense.


Trump: "And in fact when I decided to just do it {fire Comey}, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'." So, yes. He did fire Comey over the Russia investigation.


The underlying crime is the hack of the DNC by Russian agents, with the intent of interfering in the U.S. election.


Meanwhile, Trump is considering pardoning himself.

Washington Post: "Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves."

Trump: "all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon"

drowningpuppies: Why not post the whole thing?

We linked the "whole thing".

Trump: "While all agree the U. S. President has the complete power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is LEAKS against us.FAKE NEWS"

Heh. No, Trump isn't thinking about pardons at all. Don't think about elephants!

Meanwhile, Trump's Communications Director said he and Trump discussed pardons.

drowningpuppies: A discussion on pardons!

That's right. Trump is already discussing pardons, even tweeting about them.

Heh. Don't think about bananas.

drowningpuppies: But y'all said he was thinking of pardoning himself.

Right again. Sources for the Washington Post say pardons, including a self-pardon, are being considered. Trump then went out of his way to say that the power to pardon is "complete". And his own Communications Director says he has discussed pardons with the President. That's strong evidence in support of the proposition, and certainly constitutes a stronger argument than "Is not! Is not!"

drowningpuppies: Anonymous sources.

Are you saying anonymous sources never reveal accurate information? If so, then you are saying the controversy over leaks is unwarranted.

Certainly one should be reasonably skeptical, but the accumulation of circumstantial evidence is narrowing the realm of possible innocuous explanation, especially including the lies about Russian contacts, such as with Flynn.

In any case, with regards to pardons, you nitpick at one piece of evidence, when it is the consilience of evidence that implies that Trump is discussing pardons — including his own tweet!

drowningpuppies: Nope, you typed Trump was considering pardoning himself.

And we pointed to several facts to support that contention.

drowningpuppies: That an inference on your part based on hearsay.

Trump's tweets are not hearsay. And his own Communications Director is considered to represent the President's own official voice. Anonymous sources are certainly hearsay, but still represent circumstantial evidence.

drowningpuppies: Once again all you have is your own confirmation bias nothing more.

No. We provided evidence that supports the claim. Sources for the Washington Post say pardons, including a self-pardon, are being considered. Trump then went out of his way to say that the power to pardon is "complete". And his own Communications Director says he has discussed pardons with the President.

Please let us know when you are ready to dispense with handwaving and address the specifics.

Please see response below.

Jim: How is that any different than what the New York Times, Washington Post, and other Fake News media are doing right now through illegally leaked information to overturn the election and nullify the results?

Because the New York Times and Washington Post have not illegally hacked into anyone's email. Even if the information is classified, it is not illegal to publish such information as long as the publisher is not complicit in the theft. Furthermore, most leaks are not illegal, unless the information is classified.

drowningpuppies: It's difficult to argue against your circular logic.

Not at all. Circular logic is easy to identify, as the conclusion is entailed in the premises. In this case, however, the stated facts are independent of the hypothesis, but are consistent with the hypothesis, meaning they represent evidence supporting the hypothesis.

The usual way to attack an inference based on circumstantial evidence is to point to an alternative explanation. While any single bit of evidence may have other explanations, the more independent bits of evidence, the narrower the constraint on plausible hypotheses.

Direct evidence:
Joe looks on as George shoots Sally.

Indirect evidence:
Joe hears a gunshot in the other room, then sees George emerge carrying a smoking gun, then looks to see Sally dead of a gunshot in the other room. The obvious inference is that George shot Sally. But perhaps Sally had the gun, and they struggled, and Sally got shot. However, when it is found that there is no gunpowder residue on Sally's wound, that hypothesis is excluded by this second bit of circumstantial evidence. Additional circumstantial evidence, such as George lying about a struggle, may further restrict the range of plausible hypotheses.

drowningpuppies: Apparently y'all fail to understand the terms, "confirmation bias" and/or "circular logic" in addition to "circumstantial evidence".

Let us know when you are ready to forego handwaving and decide to engage specifics.