My Presidential Endorsement

Originally I was supporting Ted, but his turn to the dark side made him slightly less attractive. Then I was supporting Trump, but I realized that if he fixed things and cut off the global warming scam, I wouldn’t have anything to blog about.

So I am joining with the GOP, National Review and Ben Shapiro in throwing my support behind Hillary. Eight years of Hillary will guarantee that we all have lots to whine about, thus keeping pundits in business.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to My Presidential Endorsement

  1. RAH says:

    “Eight years of Hillary will guarantee that we all have lots to whine about, thus keeping pundits in business.”

    If you can keep the Queen of Hearts for getting your head Alice.

  2. Bill Junga says:

    Oh my, but then I realized today is April Fool’s Day!
    Seriously, I can’t believe this country went to pot, both literally and figuratively, in less than 8 years. Hopefully, the American people will wise up before it’s too late.

  3. gator69 says:

    Eight years of Hillary, and this blog may no longer exist. I’d rather be a bored blogger than a silenced majority.

    But I get it. April Fools!

  4. Ron Clutz says:

    What everyone wants to see this summer:

    • Ron Clutz says:

      Opening this summer, the new production of the classic American musical Grease. Features Donald Trump and Hilliary Clinton in the entertaining match between the prim and proper cheerleader and the rebel hot rodder from New Jersey.

  5. philjourdan says:

    Wrong dictator. Think Pol Pot. Hillary does not tolerate whining. Update the Crosby Stills, Nash and Young song – 4 million dead in Ohio.

  6. Henry P says:

    Hillary is fine.

  7. omanuel says:

    There is a ray of hope.

    1. Nature MAY publish the paper on “Solar energy” and admit to the public the Sun made and sustains every atom, life and planet in the solar system.

    2. Dr. Carl von Weizsacker may turn out to be a hero for falsifying the basic equation of nuclear binding energy DURING WORLD WAR II to prevent Hitler from building an atomic bomb and winning the war.

    That is probably the way history will explain the last seventy years (1946-2016) of deceit disguised as “consensus scientific support” of STANDARD CLIMATE, COSMOLOGY, NUCLEAR & SOLAR MODELS!

    • Henry P says:

      Hi Omanuel

      seeing as you know so much about the sun
      how do you explain the double switch of the sun’s poles

      especially noticeable from 1968 -1971 and 2013-2014 ??

      • omanuel says:

        The Sun’s pulsar core is source of the Sun’s magnetic field, which couples with the Earth’s magnetic field and probably causes it to flip too. But further details await acceptance of reality by main-stream physicists.

      • RAH says:

        I don’t know but something isn’t lining up right now. This article says one thing:

        While the SIDC says this:
        INFO FROM SIDC – RWC BELGIUM 2016 Apr 01 12:30UTC

        “Solar flaring activity was limited to three B1 flares from NOAA 2526. No
        earth-directed coronal mass ejections (CMEs) have been observed over the
        last 2 days.

        Quiet conditions are expected to continue.

        Solar wind speed decreased from initial values near 450 km/s to values
        around 400 km/s by the end of the period. Bz varied between -3 and +3 nT.
        The interplanetary magnetic field was directed away from the Sun till about
        08UT, then slightly towards between 08-12UT. Geomagnetic conditions were

        Mostly quiet to unsettled geomagnetic conditions are expected until the
        arrival later today or tomorrow (2 April) of a sector boundary crossing and
        the co-rotating interaction region ahead of the wind stream of the small
        negative equatorial coronal hole. This may result in minor geomagnetic
        storming on 2 and 3 April, with a small chance on moderate storming on 2

        And the sun looks like this:

        • Eric Simpson says:

          From Space Weather:
          Sun spot count: 11
          “The name of the sunspot is AR2526. This lonely sunspot is so quiet that the sun’s X-ray output is flat-lining. In a matter of days, the sun could be completely blank. AR2526 is moving toward rhe sun’s western limb where it will vanish early next week. If no new sunspot emerges to take its place, the solar disk will be 100% spotless.”

        • Henry P says:

          look you guys
          let us look at the end of the first double 1971 and the end of the 2nd double 2014.
          that is 43 years.
          that is exactly half the Gleissberg cycle of 87 years?
          note the tables II and III here

          Click to access cli267_293.pdf

        • Henry P says:

          can you predict the solar polar field strengths for the next 43 years??

        • Eric Simpson says:

          “can you predict the solar polar field strengths for the next 43 years??”

          not me

        • Henry P says:

          you can draw binomials for the field strengths that give you the average solar polar field strengths.
          1971: dead end stop
          2013: dead end stop
          2056/2057: dead end stop [again]?
          [to do with the position of the planets]

          the lower the field strength,
          the more energetic particles released,
          the more O3, NxOx, HxOx produced TOA,
          the more UV deflected off from earth,
          the cooler it gets

          the cooling part of the Gleissberg cycle lies between 1995 and 2038
          exactly as predicted by my results from Alaska

          it is so easy?

      • Sparks says:

        Hi Henry
        “double switch of the sun’s poles” There is no such thing, The suns polarities spend about 11 years reversing from one geographic pole to the other, What is this “switch” you are referring to?

        The sun has “magnetic” poles formed by way of E=mc2 (Mass to Energy) they are similar to other polarities formed by every other known star, nothing sets our star apart from any other except the fact that it’s poles rotate and reverse around our star, this may not be our suns normal state either, think about that!
        We can however map out it’s regularity with changes in planetary orbits, a dense pulsar type core does not impress me, planetary interaction of our solar system and the sun is more likely in my opinion to regulate what should otherwise be fixed polarities on a star.

        Hope this is useful, and no offence intended toward omanuel.

      • Sparks says:

        One further note, the strength of the suns polarity does not change.

        • RAH says:

          One thing that is different about this cycle is that the second peak was higher than the first.
          Double peaks in sunspot activity occur about 30% of the time in the record but I but from what I’ve read this time is the first when the second peak was higher than the first.

        • Sparks says:

          The second peak wasn’t expected to be much higher than the first, it would be impossible for either of the peaks to be much different actually, that’s a fact RAH, I’m glad you observed the peaks, what you may or may-not be aware of is that it takes the suns polarity to reverse every +/-22 years, and it strikes earths poles and this interaction causes spikes in ENSO on earth, it’s very obvious how this is caused, the sun shorts out planetary “magnetic” poles, and regardless of a weaker solar cycle polarities -/+ reverse slower, they cross planets such as earth for a longer time period.

          It would be hazardous for all life on earth if the suns poles rotated around its equator and swiped passed the earth every 25 days, luckily the “spooky action at a distance” is that our suns poles want to move away from our planets.
          The sun wants to constantly correct itself by having its “magnetic” poles rest at geographical north and south.

          If the suns polarities remain at the suns geographical poles then this can also be hazardous, I wonder if you can guess why?

        • RAH says:

          Because without without the reverses in polarity the current sheet the sun emits would be more consistent or IOW less wavy and thus the solar heliosphere would be less able to deflect harmful solar rays/particles. A condition that would make the earth or any planet less conducive for life as we know it.

          Without the suns heliosphere protecting us we would be toast.

        • Sparks says:

          Very cold toast, very good RAH have a cookie 🙂

          I’m not attempting to patronize you, just impressed that you’re paying attention. I respect that.

        • Henry P says:

          oh, but it t does?

  8. maxmbj says:

    I choose this day, April 1, to officially endorse Paul R. That’s Reuben, not Ryan, of course.

  9. Henry P says:

    Tony says
    Originally I was supporting Ted, but his turn to the dark side made him slightly less attractive.
    Henry asks
    please elaborate?

    • Colleen says:

      Well, I’m not Tony, but would like to comment.
      1. Ted’s campaign spread a false rumor that Carson was dropping out of the race right before the Iowa Caucus.
      2. Ted’s campaign spread a false rumor that Kasich did not make the ballot in NY. Kasich was furious.
      3. Cruz’s lack of regard for Senate Rules and arrogance and air of superiority as a freshman Senator are the reasons virtually all his colleagues despise him. He wears their hatred like a badge of honor that signifies he’s been standing up and defending the Constitution. Fact is, there are other faithful staunch conservatives with impeccable voting records who are well-liked and respected by their colleagues (Jeff Sessions, for example.) Which proves Cruz is hated for reasons other than his conservative positions. Even his old college roommates still detest him to this day.
      4. Cruz, who presents himself as a devout Christian, refused to answer and evaded a reporter who simply asked him to affirm that he had never been unfaithful to his wife. Why do you suppose that might be?
      5. Cruz is a very rigid ideologue who would cut off his nose to spite his face. He’s an ‘all or nothing’ guy. He is not a dealmaker or a negotiator; he has no pragmatic side.
      6. Given that Ted is hated in Washington, and given his rigid ideology, who would cooperate or want to work with him if he did end up in the White House? Do we want to continue on with nothing ever getting done in D.C.? We’ve had an fanatical ideologue in the White House for the past 8 years; do we need another?
      7. Cruz has been anointed by his preacher dad and others of the “Seven Mountains Dominionist” bunch to “take over all aspects of society.” Heidi Cruz says that Ted is showing us the “Face of God.” Seriously????
      So, in conclusion, Ted Cruz is not the guy he’s convinced so many people to think he is.
      He is politically calculating, and does whatever benefits Ted. Notice how he was for unrestricted ‘free trade’ with the rest of the GOP herd, and now, since he sees the support Trump has gotten for his position on trade, Ted is all of a sudden talking about ‘fair trade.’
      So, Ted Cruz is from the dark side. Trump may not be the perfect candidate by any stretch, but he is the best guy for such a time as this. My Senator Jeff Sessions endorsed Trump, and is helping with his campaign, and believe me, Sessions knows what he’s doing.

      • Henry P says:

        Hi Colleen,
        thx for the response
        however, for the sake of righteousness
        1) Ted’s campaign = not Ted
        2) Ted’s campaign = not Ted
        like you cannot be responsible for anyone working for you in your company?
        3) You mean like the hearing here:
        [take the time like I did to watch the whole hearing?]
        4) Are you without sin?
        Small wonder that Jesus had many female friends. He was the only man who would defend the woman caught in adultery against her male-accusers (John 8:3-11).
        5) and Trump is?
        6) and Trump is?
        7) yes, standing up for your faith is all you need to make it to Heaven. I have been trying to make that clear to everyone here.
        Do you have faith?

        Trump is from the evil [dark] side, he is like a Hitler. A “god” for mankind. Changes his colours whenever he wants, if it can help his position…
        Women who disagree with him are called [by him] : bimbo’s .
        He did not reject the support from the KKK……
        BTW, mind you, of course this is all part of the “game” of electioneering, but just seeing the CCN report now, I noticed that everyone was caught in the act of calling the other person “liars” ,
        except Ted was not caught in the act of calling any the other candidates a liar.

        Isn’t that nice of Ted?

        {remember I am a socialist, I am sure if I qualify as a republican in your country?}

        • Henry P says:

          last sentence should read:
          {remember I am a socialist, I am NOT sure if I qualify as a republican in your country?}

        • RAH says:

          No Henry you would not. Your candidate in this election would be Bernie Sanders with Monica Lewisnkies boyfriends wife coming in a close second.

  10. I’m voting libertarian. Friedman pointed out that the socialists lost elections but changed all laws, so spoiler vote pressure has been proven to work at least thrice. This means a 3rd party vote has roughly 10x the law-changing clout of a vote for either tentacle of the kleptocracy. I like whatever shifts odds my way by an order of magnitude.

  11. Jason Calley says:

    “So I am joining with the GOP, National Review and Ben Shapiro in throwing my support behind Hillary.”

    You bet! Why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can get your evil pure and unadulterated? Vote Hillary!

    • gator69 says:

      Heck, if you really want a dictator, just stay home or throw your vote away on somebody that has zero chance of ever winning an election.

  12. Henry P says:


    it is settled then

    we go for Hillary [and her Bill]

  13. Andy DC says:

    What about Uncle Bernie? No one is mentioning him and the workers paradise that he has promised to create for all of us! Free health care, free education, free cell phones, free food, free everything for everybody! No one has to work either!

  14. Margaret Berger says:

    The best reason to vote for Trump is, he promised that if he won the election he would get a new hair do because the one he has now takes too long to get in place and as President he wouldn’t have the time to do it or have it done.

  15. Don’t be a chump, vote for Trump

  16. Margaret Berger says:

    All kidding aside. If Trump runs for the gop I am voting for him.

    He is the only person running for office in this country who understands the threat of Islam to the western world. He is the only one willing to voice that reality. I am a woman, I never want to wear a burque, I never want my daughter or grand daughters or any other woman to wear a burque. Islam is not the religion of peace, it is the religion of we will blow you to pieces if you don’t convert to Islam.
    The second reason, is the economy. It stinks. We are in a recession and damn close to a recession and all the others want to do is same old same old. Yes Trump has had some failed businesses but he has had more successes than failures. He is not afraid to say “You are fired”. There has to be consequences for failure and we need to try and do other things not the same old thing like let’s quantatively ease forever to hide our failed economy. NAFTA is a failure. We need to repair our economy we need to close it up like we need to close our boarders. This country can not carry the world economically. Last but not least , there is nothing wrong with saying , let’s put Ammerican first. I put my family first why shouldn’t I put my country first. Why not try and make America great again. There is nothing wrong with that. Is Trump the perfect candidate, no but he is the best of this bunch.

    • You tell ’em sister

    • Peter Yates says:

      There is a saying: “Every nation gets the government it deserves.” (Joseph de Maistre, 1753 – 1821) . I hope you guys don’t deserve to get a president who will cause problems for you on an international ‘stage’. Being a president is not just about protecting The Constitution and the people of the United States. Presidents also have to be very diplomatic when they are negotiating with other countries, or they risk annoying them greatly. Presidents can’t just say the things that they or their people are thinking, because they *are very likely to offend. That would be a very bad scenario. … Best wishes to you all.

      • Thanks for wishing us well, Peter, but we already have a President who ran on “smart diplomacy”, negotiated with other countries and pleased them so greatly, they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize even before he started.

        It turned out to be a very bad scenario.

      • Colleen says:

        I’m not worried about that. When the chips are down, Trump will do what’s right and what benefits the USA. He’s a dealmaker and negotiator on the international stage already. He wrote “The Art of the Deal.” Trump did not get to where he is after many decades by always saying whatever pops into his head.

    • Colleen says:

      Interesting that Lyin’ Ted has all of a sudden abandoned his devotion to free trade, and is talking about fair trade like Trump. Ted will do or say whatever is politically expedient.

    • annieoakley says:

      Trump can’t be controlled by the GOPe or the D’s because he does not take their money. He also doesn’t take money from Saudi’s. He has repeatedly said he will take no salary and work for nothing and work for the People. All the others just want the power and money for themselves in order to further UN control of The United States.

      • Henry P says:

        Annie says
        [Trump will ] work for nothing and work for the People

        Henry says

        this is so naive?

        Now where might I have heard this before:
        Henry the 8th?
        Idi Amin?

        • Henry P says:

          Annie, might I remind you that Trump calls women that do not agree with him “bimbo’s”

        • Caleb says:

          And what do you call people who don’t agree with you? (Be honest, now.)

        • Henry P says:

          Hi Caleb,
          In general I find that we can allow people to be entitled to their own opinion, even if they want to believe that the earth is flat.
          On a blog like this, I will remind everyone that we are students and teachers to each other and therefore the same rules of politeness apply [as if you were standing in the lecture hall]
          As far as politics goes, I advise everyone to stop voting for persons and parties until such time as we are able to vote on issues.

        • Caleb says:

          Where’s the fun in that?

          I like the old Hansard records of the English parliamentary debates when Churchill was involved. There was respect, at the same time they didn’t pull their punches. Maybe they didn’t use the word “bimbo”, but they made it clear when they felt a person was “wrong.”

          I agree very much that we need to focus on issues.

        • catweazle666 says:

          “I will remind everyone that we are students and teachers to each other and therefore the same rules of politeness apply”

          Really, Henry?

          That’s not the way I remember your response to critical comments – not even close.

        • AndyG55 says:

          ““I will remind everyone that we are students and teachers to each other and therefore the same rules of politeness apply””

          BULLS**T !

          You have so much to learn.

          You still think that R² = 1 on 4 points of a parabola actually means something……. derrrr !!!!

      • catweazle666 says:

        AndyG55: “BULLS**T !

        You have so much to learn.

        Given that Henry recently claimed that methane would sink in the atmosphere due to being heavier than air, you can say THAT again!

        • Henry P says:

          Andy G55 does not get any answers from me because he has not learned yet that you cannot use foul language in the lecture hall.

          Catweazel, thanks for setting me straight on the methane.
          To elaborate: The info given to me here.

          “Eigenschaften: Das farblose, komprimierte Flüssiggas ist hochentzündlich. Gemische des Stoffes und der Luft sind explosibel. Da das Gas schwerer als die Luft ist kann es sich am Boden ausbreiten. Somit ist auch eine Fernzündung möglich. Das Gas ist leichter als Luft. Die Dichte der Flüssigkeit beim Siedepunkt liegt bei 0,42 kg/l.

          First it says it is “schwerer” (heavier) than air. In the end it does say that it is “leichter” (lighter) than air.
          It is slightly confusing!??
          I am assuming that they mean that when the methane is mostly in a compressed form [partly liquid] it is heavier than air and it falls to the bottom?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Andy G55 does not get any answers from me because”….. yap yap……

          …… Henry doesn’t have an answer, so he runs and hides

          His basic understanding of maths is very poor, very close to an “F”

          As a student, he should try to actually learn something.

          But obviously does not have the capability.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Poor Henry knows I’m correct..

          It would be so, so easy for him to prove me wrong by doing his calculations and showing , say 8 to 10 points over the period of his quaint, naïve little parabolic graph.

          But I suspect he already knows that would blow his little graph out of the water.

  17. RAH says:

    You folks that would vote for Trump in the primary are the chumps IMO. The man is saying what you want to hear in the way you want to hear it and that is all. Most of what he is saying now on major issues other than immigration and trade is directly contrary to positions he took in the past. This is not to say that I will not vote for him if he wins the nomination, but to say that I hope he does not win it.

    • gator69 says:

      I will also vote against the D.

      IMHO Trump never thought he would get the nomination, and simply ran to feed his ego and expand his brand. He is the dog that caught the car, and now he is learning to drive.

    • Andy DC says:

      Reagan was a liberal Democrat who “evolved” on many issues and he is probably now the conservatives biggest hero. If you had held Reagan to the same standard, you never would have voted for him either. What Trump is (as was Reagan), is a pragmatist and a deal maker. Far better than someone like Cruz, who is ideologically pure (except for personal behavior) and won’t make deals. Thus never will get anything done.

      • RAH says:

        Reagan had already proved what he was by actions when governing in CA. Trump has not. His record speaks for it’s self.

      • Ronald Reagan was clear about his position on deal making and negotiating at this 1969 press conference with Berkeley faculty.

        Reagan: “Those people told you for days in advance that if the university sought to go ahead with that construction, on that property, that they were going to physically destroy the university. Now, why did you …”

        Faculty member: “Now, Governor, there were offers to negotiate many times!”

        Reagan: “Negotiate? What is to negotiate? What is- don’t you …”

        More faculty crosstalk …

        Reagan: “Hold a minute. On that issue, don’t you simply explain to these students that the university has a piece of property that it bought for future construction of the campus and it was now going ahead with the plan? What do you mean, negotiate?”

        Faculty member: “Governor, the time has passed when the university can just ride roughshod over the desires of the majority of its student body. The university is a public institution, it’s an important institution …”

        More bluster about community, etc.

        Reagan: ”All of it began the first time some of you who know better, and are old enough to know better, let young people think that they have the right to choose the laws that they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.”

        We want park! The people want park!

  18. lance says:

    We could give you Trudeau!!!

  19. Margaret Berger says:

    I am not sure I understand how voting for someone who says what I want to hear makes me a chump. Why would I vote for someone who is taking a stand that opposes what I would like to see done? Why would I vote for someone who isn’t addressing the issues I want addressed.

    Will he do what he is saying he will do if he gets in the Oval Office. I don’t know. He might, he might not. He wouldn’t be the first politician to lie to get into office. My only recourse would then be not to vote for him again.

    • Barbara says:

      I totally agree with you, Margaret. Trump says what I want to hear, also. I am not offended by (to put it kindly) his less than smooth off the cuff comments. I do dislike the smooth, sleazy delivery of the practiced politicians. Cruz’ wife is his greatest handicap, other than the aforesaid politician “smooth” which makes my brain yell, “Liar!”. Heidi Cruz has an employment history that is totally unacceptable – Goldman Sachs- and then her other affiliation with the Council which wants to unify Canada, the U.S. and Mexico into a super nation is the ultimate negative.

      • Wait. The US, Canada and Mexico as one nation? That would be cool.

      • Dave1billion says:

        At least we might be able to have a male soccer team in the Olympics that way.

      • Because Heidi Cruz was both a successful investment banker and had government experience, she was retained as a reader for CFR reports. Her only contribution to the North American Community report, more than a decade ago, is in the minority objection section. In her paragraph, she suggests using private enterprise and free markets to facilitate trade among North American nations, not government intervention.

        This report does not advocate combining the countries; it ends with a paragraph talking about the importance of separate sovereignty. The “North American Union” bit is a John Birch Society hoax that was debunked a decade ago.

        The “financing by Goldman Sachs” was simply a loan using their own assets as collateral. It happens that the had an investment account at Goldman Sachs, since she works there managing big accounts (much larger than theirs). But a bank loan does not mean the bank is buying you; Goldman Sachs is not a donor.

        The “failed to report” bit is overblown. The loan was reported, and Cruz also reported a loan he was making to his own campaign. What wasn’t clear was that, since the loan against their assets formed part of what they loaned to the Senate campaign, it needed to be in an additional list as well. This is an obscure situation and one that the Federal Election Commission notes that many people get wrong. And it was only because he HAD reported the GS account loan that the issue was even spotted by an opposition researcher. It was subsequently corrected, no big deal and no fine.

        There are lots of imaginary “former campaign workers” and “former mistresses” and “secret informants” with connections to Trump coming out of the woodwork now; as these are examined closely, they tend to pop like soap bubbles.

        ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  20. Henry P says:

    henry @sparks

    I meant to say that the solar polar field strengths do vary, but predictably so.
    You can draw a hyperbole top 1972 to 2015 bottom and parabola bottom to top 2015?

  21. Henry P says:

    Caleb says
    I agree very much that we need to focus on issues.
    Henry says
    With the internet in the hands of almost every voter: How difficult can it be to ask the public for their opinion just before an issue is voted on in congress or parliament? At least to be looked at as a guideline?
    Why not ask your candidates their position on that sort of extension on democracy?

  22. Henry P says:

    @Keith DeHavelle
    Good points. I noted Cruz after the hearings [on global warming] he organized. Despite being mocked he stuck to his results and “the data”. I think he would [also] be an OK person for the job of president of the USA. Even though I am a socialist I note that the USA governing system has a habit of balancing things out: If there is a Republican president, sooner or later the governing houses will become democratic….

  23. Henry P says:

    Steven says
    Originally I was supporting Ted, but his turn to the dark side made him slightly less attractive.
    Henry asks
    please elaborate?

  24. Vote for Bernie—he’s not a member of a privileged class. He’s just an old white guy who can be kicked around as much as desired.

  25. Henry P says:

    I am having a problem getting a comment through on the issue of temperature in Ithaca.
    Anyway, here it is:
    I have good data from Ithaca from 1982.
    The trend over the past 3 decades there is as follows:
    Maxima: + 0.13K/ decade
    Means: -0.33K/decade
    Minima: -0.26K/decade

    So, we can see that average temperature in Ithaca has already dropped one whole degree K since 1982…
    Now I note from my results of Kennedy airport, that minima there have also been dropping, namely at -0.15K/decade since 1982.

    Now, I am intrigued as to know why this is happening. Clearly, in Ithaca, it is not maxima pushing the means down. It looks like minima are leading downwards, pushing down the average temperature.
    That would suggest deforestation at a considerable scale in that area.
    tell me if I am wrong?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s