THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This story (Wind farms may pose risk to shipping) in today’s Sunday Telegraph suggests an amusing example of the law of unintended consequences. I particularly liked the comment that “diverting large cargo ships and tankers around wind farms will lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from heavy shipping, which would cancel out much of the carbon dioxide savings wind farms are intended to deliver”.
I wholly agree with Max (and Nassim Taleb) about the need for scepticism about expert prediction. Like Max, I had scientists and engineers reporting to me in a “previous life” – and, regarding the “cost and timing of R+D programs or new capital investment projects, etc.” I found that a useful rule of thumb was to multiply estimates of both costs and timing by three. If the project still made sense, I examined the detail – if not, I cancelled the project. It never let me down.
If, however, a proposal was based on computer simulation, the best approach was to reject it at once.
JZ: you may find this interesting.
Max,
Thanks for restating my position. I was writing in a tongue in cheek sort of self deprecating mode, but the opinion is still valid. The larger image that I was attempting to convey is an elitist attitude of members of the IPCC and politicians……they seem to feel that they are somehow better equipped to manage my affairs or the affairs of “the little people”.
More often than not, I find that the proponents of global warming express opinion and innuendo rather than facts. In an effort to forward their opinion and ideology they resort to intimidation and character assassination.
I write and speak in a self admittedly Bohemian style……(maybe an inaccurate description……possibly stark, non-parsing, no-nonsense), you’ve rephrased my thoughts accurately.
I’ll take a look a Taleb.
Max,
One other thought:
I was listening to congressional testimony yesterday featuring Ben Bernake and Alan Greenspan…….”experts” in the field of economics and economic policy, (former and current Chairman of the Federal Reserve). Both stated that they did not realize until after the fact that the economy of the United States (or as it now appears, the world economy) would suffer/fail as it has. In this instance, the “experts”, (Bernake and Greenspan) were horribly wrong.
A wise man would have listened to what these two men had to say and possibly others that expressed differing views and formulate an educated opinion possibly considering their motivation(s) and positions in government as well as other factors. I believe that it is healthy to allow dissenting views to be injected into any discussion; the global warming Alarmist seeks to silence/suppress dissenting views. In my opinion, this, in and of itself, compromises the credibility of the Alarmist argument.
Hi Brute,
Yeah, I saw part of “Maestro” Greenspan’s humble acknowledgement that he may have overlooked some early warning signs of the current crisis. I actually felt a bit sorry for the old “Maestro” as he was getting beaten up by firm-jawed, self-righteosly pontificating congressmen, who were using the occasion for free TV exposure for the up-coming congressional elections.
I have yet to see Hansen make such acknowledgements, despite the fact that his predictions have been shown to be totally incorrect. I suspect that he is too much of an AGW-activist (and too little of an objective scientist) to ever do that.
Pachauri has grudgingly acknowledged that there has been a “plateau” in warming since 1998, but has not yet conceded that the IPCC projections on expected warming were wrong, just that some “natural factors” may be compensating.
Taleb describes this behaviour as “except for that, the prediction was correct”, where an anomaly or “Black Swan” (as he calls it), which throws the whole prediction into a cocked hat, is written off as an “outlier” that (of course) does not affect the accuracy of the prediction itself.
Guess we’ve got to keep ’em honest.
Regards,
Max
Max,
This made my laugh out loud……I startled our dog who looked at my as if thinking…. “Humans, curious creatures”……
Yes, all of these so called “experts” and they couldn’t figure out that loaning hundreds of thousands of dollars to people with no job, no collateral, no down payment and no incentive to pay it back was a bad idea. Then they bundled all of these worthless pieces of paper and sold them to other poor suckers, (brokers) as mortgage backed “securities”. What a joke. The sad part is that hard working taxpayers will now be paying for it……A Socialist government run scheme that caused the demise of the entire world economy…….and people are standing in line to vote for Comrade Obama…….Horrifying.
After all, as the Leftists proclaim, everyone has a “right” to own a home, correct?
Funny, I was always taught that a person must earn things. Oh, how the world has changed. Next the Leftists will claim that it’s every person’s “right” to have a wide screen television set.
Peter should be happy though; now all of the deadbeats that have defaulted on their half million dollar loans are suing in court for the “right” to stay in those houses…..it seems that they were “duped” and we should pay for their McMansions.
Ever try to get someone evicted from a property? It takes an act of God to get them out.
Obama is an interesting character and probably rather more radical than most Americans realise as yet. He would certainly be seen as a socialist in the UK and probably well on the left wing in current British Labour party terms. The link below gives a well rounded view of the man
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930136.html
This link here is somewhat more polemic and it becomes more difficult to know what is fact and what is supposition. I think the interesting bit is his involvement in Bill Clintons ‘ninja’ laws which seemed to have had such an effect on sub prime debt all these years later.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article
Who the Americans vote for is their business but he has certainly had a more radical past than would be expected from the candidate for a Democratic party that in British terms would be considered only mildly left wing. Obama is a bit more equivalent to Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner-real old style socialists.
TonyB
Max,
Maybe you could substantiate this comment a little more:
Physical scientists are no more immune to this problem {getting it wrong in a big way-PM} than economists, sociologists, etc.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that many economists have got it wrong big time in the past, and socilogists too, but Physical scientists? I don’t think so.
Arrogantly over confident? The IPCC reports are quite clear about what is unknown and what is known. Their honesty actually allows a misrepresention what they are saying. When they write that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degs C and that there is much uncertainty about the effect of clouds, you guys seize on that, making out that if there is so much uncertainty then, maybe we should wait and do nothing until they have all the answers.
Hi Peter,
Sorry, Peter.
Physical scientists are no exception to the phenomenon that Taleb explains so well. Read his book and you will see that it applies very well for the IPCC predictions (oops! sorry; projections).
“Honesty” of IPCC reports? Get serious, Peter. These reports (in particular the SPM summaries) are “sales pitches”. As Brute pointed out, they can be compared to statements by used-car salesmen, as far as objectiveness and honesty are concerned.
You wrote, “they write that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degs C and that there is much uncertainty about the effect of clouds”.
The IPCC admission of uncertainty on cloud feedbacks was confirmed by previous reports (Ramanathan among others), which stated that the magnitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks was very much in question due to the unfortunate lack of physical evidence at the time to support the model assumptions.
Despite this admission of “uncertainty”, IPCC models all assumed a strongly positive net feedback from clouds in arriving at their “range of 1.5 to 4.5 degs C” climate sensitivity for 2xCO2.
Had they been “honest”, Peter, IPCC would have stated clearly that a strongly negative feedback from clouds would result in a 2xCO2 sensitivity of less than 1°C (but they did not say this, did they?)
The subsequent Spencer et al. and Norris studies helped clear up this “largest source of uncertainty”, confirming that the net cloud feedback was indeed negative and quite strong, rather than strongly positive as assumed in the IPCC models, and that the range of 1.5 to 4.5°C range was, therefore, totally wrong, and should be well below 1°C instead.
We’ll see how “honest” IPCC are in their next report; if they reverse their 1.3°C warming estimate from an assumed positive feedback from clouds to a 1.0 to 1.5°C cooling from the observed negative feedback, plus correct their erroneous assumption of “constant relative humidity” for water vapor feedback to reflect the actual physical observations, thereby concluding that the 2xCO2 sensitivity is 0.5 to 0.8°C, rather than 1.5 to 4.5°C, then I’ll agree with you that they have been “honest”.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
Let’s delve in more detail into your proclamation of faith in physical scientists, “there is plenty of evidence that many economists have got it wrong big time in the past, and socilogists too, but Physical scientists? I don’t think so.”
Did you ever hear about “cold fusion”? How about the historical climate “hockey stick”? Or “static continents”? Or “metal-organic molecular magnets”? Etc.
Sorry, Peter. Physical scientists are no more infallible to “getting it wrong” than others, in particular when they are attempting to predict the future.
Regards,
Max
To TonyB (2258):
As another outside observer, I agree with you that Senator Barack Obama is a radical socialist, in European terms.
He has become the darling of the left-leaning media and the puppet of the left wing of the Democratic Party (Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, etc.), who could not stand the Clintons for being too “centrist”.
The Democratic left has had poor experience in the past with left-leaning presidential candidates. They appear to be hoping to change their luck this time, due to the general unpopularity of President Bush, the current financial crisis plus the somewhat lackluster personality of Senator John McCain.
In a few days we’ll all see if they succeeded this time or not.
As the American baseball player (and philosopher) Yogi Berra said, “Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future”, and “It ain’t over till it’s over”.
Regards,
Max
Max/Tony B/Robin,
This is getting way off topic but I had a rather in depth conversation tonight with a woman that emigrated from Cuba to the United States (through Spain) in 1972. The story that she related to me regarding conditions in Cuba, then and now, was truly shocking. Private property “commandeered” by the Castro regime, businesses nationalized, religious practices banned. Cuba has become Haiti…..this paragon of Socialism cannot even feed itself or provide electrical power for its hospitals, schools or public/private buildings. Millions of people killed for speaking out against the “State”. Forced labor and political indoctrination…..truly sickening and subhuman.
Another conversation a few weeks ago with a woman that had previously lived in Lithuania, (she cleans our home), was similar regarding oppression and virtual slavery to the “State”, (prior to the fall of the Soviet Union).
I cannot understand why anyone here in the United States, (or anywhere in the world), would voluntarily succumb to anything resembling Socialism.
I also haven’t noticed a mass exodus of citizens from the United States, Australia or the United Kingdom to Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam or North Korea lately. One would think that if a Socialist society was more appealing than we would see boatloads of people thronging to these “workers paradises”.
Much like the hype of rising global temperatures and environmental catastrophe, the observations don’t match the rhetoric.
Could one or all of you give me a “European” opinion on the popularity of Comrade Obama?
Max,
I don’t understand; are you writing that Obama’s policies would be considered extreme Leftist even compared to European standards? Isn’t that fairly hard to beat? I mean, even the European “right wing” are known to be Socialist…..am I incorrect in my assessment?
Brute,
You are right that the real crimes of the Cuban regime can be described as “Private property “commandeered” by the Castro regime, businesses nationalized, religious practices banned” etc etc. Furthermore they are far from compliant with US interests.
Of course, oppostion to the Cuban government is dressed up by one American government after another as opposition to their lack of democracy. And don’t misunderstand me: I am saying that the problem with the Cuban regime is that they don’t allow democracy and they don’t allow independent trade unions.
However, it is clear to see that the USA government does not really care if overseas regimes are democratic or reactionary. The key criterion is compliance. Just run through a few key examples with a ‘tick’ or ‘cross’ test:
Saudi Arabia,Reactionary, Compliant,Tick
Australia,Democratic, Compliant,Tick
France(pre 2006),Dem, Not Compliant,Cross
Iraq,(pre 1991),Reactionary, Compliant,Tick
Chile(pre 1973), Democratic, Not Compliant,Cross
Chile(1973-mid 90’s), React, Compliant, Tick
Greece (pre 1966), Democratic, Not Compliant, Cross
Iran, (pre 1953, Democratic, Not Compliant, Cross
Guatamala (pre 1954), Democratic, Not Compliant, Cross
Venezuela, Democratic, Not Compliant, Cross
Bolivia, Democratic, Not Compliant, Cross
I don’t think that even Barack Obama would dare to publicly acknowledge what is a self evident truth. Dangerous radical? I don’t think so.
Peter M,
I notice that my 2244 contained a few typo’s and clumsies etc, and wonder if you were confused by it.
Sorry, here it is again but with some changes/additions:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see you still cannot let-go of your dogma that the regional variation that we are seeing in the Arctic is the “canary” for the whole of the world. (Regardless of what the so-called global average temperatures might say in recent years)
OK, so let’s have a reality check:
According to Ref 1 below, Arctic sea-ice covers between roughly 14-7 million Square Kilometres, (SK), depending on season. This equates to roughly 2.7 to 1.4 % of the entire global surface area, (of 510 million SK) per Ref 3. This also compares, as a matter of relative disaster perspective, with roughly 9 million SK of the Sahara Desert per Ref 2 although the latter of course has HUGELY more THERMAL INPUT from the Sun, because of the relative solar zenith, and much lesser effective atmospheric depth. (See also my later post on the Sahara)
1 [[http]]://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/reports/seaice3.html
2 [[http]]://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_area_of_the_Sahara_Desert
3 [[http]]://www.net-comber.com/worldarea.html
Paste in your browser less 123 [[ ]]
SO; perhaps you could also give us your wisdom concerning albedo’s (reflectivity) of various kinds of snow/ice and water depending on the zenith angle of the sun in the sky; very important above say ~70 degrees latitude?
Hint: take a look at the sun anywhere as it sets over the sea, and let us know if you have ever observed a reflection of it upon the waters. (and what that might mean)Thus you might explain why a tiny-weenie percentage of the earth’s surface in the far north, (but not the opposite trend in the Antarctic), has such a huge effect in your Gotterdammerung of the world as we know it!
Another Hint: That tiny-weenie percentage of global area only receives any energy at all from the sun for about half the year, but because of the low solar zenith, that energy is spread over a hugely greater unit area, and it has to battle through a much greater effective atmospheric depth.
Yet Another Hint: Please listen carefully to the DW audio identified on my 2226:
a) To the leading questions from obvious fundie interviewer
b) The carefully worded responses from the German oceanographer
Footnote: The NW passage lies at around 75 degrees latitude
Sahara Desert Doom
Hi Max,
Concerning the SURPRISINGLY ATYPICAL comedy show; ‘Living Planet’, from DW, an otherwise excellent information source (?); (Re: 2226/2230, P.15), I also thought the DW prediction of 60 million environmental refugees onto your patch, whilst being very good news for the AGW fundies, did not actually coalesce well with reports that I recollect over some past years, concerning the actual physical state of the African desert .
Such as……. typically by a quick Google a short while ago:
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Satellite data and ground rainfall measurements have been used to study variations in the size of the Sahara Desert from 1980 to 1997. Through a combination of the satellite and ground data, the 200 mm yr –1 precipitation boundary was mapped for the Saharan-Sahelian region by year. Although highly significant year-to-year variation in the size of the Sahara Desert has occurred, no systematically increasing or decreasing trend from 1980 to 1997 was evident. The area of the Sahara Desert varied from 9 980 000 km2 in 1984 to km2 in 8 600 000 1994 and had an average 1980-1997 area of 9 150 000 km2.
[http:] //www.ambio.kva.se/1999/Nr7_99/nov99_3.html (Remove [ ])
(BTW, according to Wiki‘, see my 2244, it is much the same size recently)
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
Africa’s deserts are in “spectacular” retreat
New Scientist; 19:00 18 September 2002
[http:] //www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2811
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
The Green Sahara, A Desert In Bloom
ScienceDaily (Oct. 7, 2008)
[http:] //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080930081357.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This last reference from German researchers, (keeping it to just three), should be especially appealing to Peter M, because it also includes MODELLING that shows that the Sahara will receive increased rainfall as a consequence of global warming. (And elsewhere, it is reported that it takes only a little rain to make the Sahara bloom, not doom….. Presumably because of the locally adapted genetics of the seed species…… the same can be spectacularly observed from time to time in OZ deserts)
SORREEE ALL, Re my 2267:
In the final paragraph, I wrote:
This last reference from German researchers, (keeping it to just three), should be especially appealing to Peter M, because it also includes MODELLING that shows that the Sahara will receive increased rainfall as a consequence of global warming. (And elsewhere, it is reported that it takes only a little rain to make the Sahara bloom, not doom….. Presumably because of the locally adapted genetics of the seed species…… the same can be spectacularly observed from time to time in OZ deserts)
I can’t believe that I actually wrote that! because on reflection:
Whilst Peter M is very obviously a lover of computer modelling which forecasts “the end of the world”, it is clearly a huge-huge stretch to suggest that he would also accommodate any other modelling that suggests a brighter future for us threatened species. (Homo Sapiens S‘)
I could ramble-on, and perhaps even mention the IPCC, but will that do for now?
Hi Brute,
You’re right in saying that Europe is generally more “socialist” than the USA today, when it comes to socialized medicine, higher degree of unionization, income tax systems that favor income leveling, shorter work week and more vacation days by law, etc. Switzerland may be an exception, but there are political forces here that are trying to push more and more into that direction. And, of course, there are the “watermelon socialists” (green on the outside but red on the inside), who are fairly strong in Europe (except in France).
Angela Merkel is a bit of an anomaly. Having grown up under the old East German socialist regime, she has mixed emotions about the pros and cons of socialism; however, she now has to walk a tightrope to accommodate her coalition partners, the social democrats, who try to push the country more to the left. And one of her biggest problems is that essentially all the government employees are unionized and the governments (federal, state and local) are by far the largest employer.
France has gotten a breath of fresh air under Sarkozy, and is moving away from the socialization under many years of leftist control, which has the country stagnating. The (formerly) communist- and socialist-led unions (CGT and CFDT) have lost the power they had during the Mitterrand years, but are still quite strong. And, as deGaulle once remarked, France is not a country that can be governed, because of the French, so Sarkozy has his job cut out for him in trying to revitalize his nation.
In general, I’d say the trend here is away from socialism, whereas, if you elect Obama, the trend in the USA will be toward a more socialistic government. He has already espoused taking from the wealthy to redistribute to the poor. He claims he will give 95% of the people a “tax cut” (at the expense of corporations plus the other 5%), but this is a hollow election promise that will be dropped the day he enters the White House as a result of “bail-out realities”. Interestingly, US corporate tax rates are already higher in the USA today than they are in most European countries; this was not the case 10 years ago.
So over here we are all watching your up-coming election. General popular sentiment here appears to be pro-Obama, but it’s hard to tell whether this is real or just the media bias.
Regards,
Max
Max,
Are you really trying to compare the ‘case’ for cold fusion which would have had a handful of supporters, at most, with the general consensus we have today on the AGW issue? Get real. If physical scientists were in the habit of getting it wrong, nuclear power stations would be built but not be capable of delivering any power, the internet and your PC would not work, even your transistor radio would’nt work !
Bob_FJ,
Do we have to go through this all again? The Arctic is normally frozen, even in summer. If it starts to thaw, surely this gives a lot of credence to AGW theory. Doesn’t it? There isn’t much ice in the Sahara, so if the Sahara warms there is not much change to see.
So, you are prepared to accept the results of climatic models if they predict that desertification will decrease but not the other way around?
This is just the ‘global warming is a good thing’ argument which you guys fall back on if pushed hard enough. But then when you think no-one is looking you sneak back to your usual ‘but it isn’t really happening anyway’ type of argument.
Hi Peter,
Not to digress from our primary topic of exaggerated 2xCO2 climate sensitivity assumptions supported by “delayed equilibrium” postulations, but I found your “reactionary/democratic”, “compliant/non-compliant” list a bit strange.
“Compliant with US interests” is sort of a nebulous concept.
Level of trade with another country is one indicator of common interests.
You list France as “non-compliant” (until 2006). Yet France has been a US ally and friend for decades, and now appears to be considering re-entering the NATO military alliance under the new Sarkozy government (which deGaulle left in a huff in 1966, because he could not be in control, in sort of a residual WWII “pout” for the way he felt he was “snubbed” by his allies, UK and USA, who were doing most of the actual fighting to free his country at the time). France has a long history as a major trade partner with the USA today (both in imports and exports).
Trade with pre-Allende democratic Chile was strong, was reduced following takeovers of US companies there under Allende, grew again under Pinochet regime and is at an all time high under present democratic government.
Listing Venezuela today as a “democratic” country is a bit of a stretch. I’ve also got my doubts about Bolivia. You’re probably right that neither is “compliant”. Colombia, on the other hand, is probably both “democratic” and “compliant”, yet its trade with the US is smaller (both imports and exports) than that of Venezuela, a “not compliant” country.
All nations are primarily “compliant” with their own interests. Would you day that China (the second largest US trade partner, just behind Canada) is “compliant”? Would you say its government is “democratic” or “reactionary”?
How about Russia or South Africa, both also significant US trade partners?
The US has essentially no trade with Burma, North Korea and Cuba and very little trade with Zimbabwe and Iran, all “not compliant” and “reactionary” states, but the US is doing a brisk business with Saudi Arabia (both exports and, of course, imports), whom you list as “reactionary” and “compliant”.
During the Cold War, the USSR and USA did play the “your dictator / my dictator” game, and there may still be some holdovers from that time, but as most Europeans are directly aware, the USA has generally opposed aggressive dictatorial regimes (whether fascist or communist) and supported free, democratic societies. Europeans are generally grateful to the US for freeing them both from the Nazis and later from the threat of the Soviet Union.
In general, Peter, I think your “Weltanschauung” is a bit oversimplified into “black and white” thinking. Sort of a reversed “axis of evil” approach.
But that’s just my opinion.
We should get back on topic, though.
Regards,
Max
“General popular sentiment here appears to be pro-Obama, but it’s hard to tell whether this is real or just the media bias.”
It’s not that hard and you know it! How many turned out to see Obama in Berlin? Its real enough in Australia too, even among Liberal voters.
Hi Peter,
You wrote: “Are you really trying to compare the ‘case’ for cold fusion which would have had a handful of supporters, at most, with the general consensus we have today on the AGW issue? Get real. If physical scientists were in the habit of getting it wrong, nuclear power stations would be built but not be capable of delivering any power, the internet and your PC would not work, even your transistor radio would’nt work !”
It is not the ability of scientists and engineers to implement new technological advances that I question, Peter. They have been doing this successfully for centuries.
What I question (as does Nassim Taleb) is the ability of “experts” in any field, including the physical sciences, to predict the future.
The “general consensus” which you quote is (a) a myth, since there are many scientists that do not support the AGW predictions and (b) quite meaningless (just read Taleb and you’ll see why).
Regards,
Max
Max,
I notice that you have added trade into the mix of arguments. Naturally the USA will prefer to trade with compliant States. But if Venezuela, Russia or Iran has oil and the US needs it ….
No-one is suggesting that the USA overthrew the democratic Allende government becuase of trade concerns. It was basically a ‘don’t mess with us’ statement to the people of Chile and the rest of South and Latin America.
I was reading recently that Cuba may have found sizable oil reserves. If these fields are developed in a few years and the USA still needs oil, will the embargo remain? Not likely I’d say.
I’m not sure about your point about South Africa. Do you mean now or in the apartheid era? There was plenty of trade then. Much of it in contravention of UN resolutions. The US, along with many other Western countries too, weren’t too particular at the time on whether or not South Africa or neighbouring states were democratic.
Pete,
RE: #2265
Predictably, you’ve missed the point entirely. How you’ve managed to misdirect a critique of the internal policies/state of the nation of Cuba with the foreign policy of the United States I’ll never know. You’ve turned an assessment of the state of the nation of Cuba into an attack on the United States. How typical.
The point is that Cuba has, for 50 years, with the aid of the Soviet Union, (another Communists society), the opportunity to flourish under the banner of Socialism/Communism. The result has been mass murder, starvation, suppression of free speech, agricultural failure, failure of industry, mass political corruption, misery and a general failure to meet the needs of its citizens.
That is the factual record of the nation of Cuba under a Communist society……tens of thousands of forced or voluntarily exiled citizens…….divided families, political indoctrination, refugees who brave shark infested waters in row boats or floating on inner tubes to escape the place. Think about how desperate a person would have to be to risk almost certain death to leave their home……and you blame Cuba’s problems on the United States, not Castro and his “experiment with Communism”…..pathetic.
Again, I haven’t noticed any US citizens fleeing the United States to go live in this “Socialist Paradise”.