Slingin' that ol' Mississippi Mud
 |
| Thad Cochran and Chris McDaniel |
What a dance do they do!
Lordy, how I'm tellin' you....
It's a treat to beat your feet on the Mississippi mud
It's a treat to beat your feet on the Mississippi mud
Then again, maybe not.
I've said on this site many times something that I need to repeat: I miss Molly Ivins More than words can express. She, Jim Hightower, and my cousins (the fabulous Barras Family of Port Arthur) were a constant reminder to me that there are still pockets of reason in the Lonestar State. She once offered up a prayer of thanks to the state of Mississippi:
I've said on this site many times something that I need to repeat: I miss Molly Ivins More than words can express. She, Jim Hightower, and my cousins (the fabulous Barras Family of Port Arthur) were a constant reminder to me that there are still pockets of reason in the Lonestar State. She once offered up a prayer of thanks to the state of Mississippi:
"But for Mississippi we here in Texas would be dead last in everything."
That gal was a hoot!
`
`
 |
| Remember this guy? ` |
Thad Cochran came within an inch of joining Eric Cantor in History's Losers Club. A Tea Partier named Chris McDaniel, an unknown entity who is even more extreme than Cochran (four years ago I would not have thought that possible) challenged Cochran for his senate seat by claiming that the five-term senator just wasn't right-wing enough for the good folks of Mississippi. That unlivable state has something called "cross-filing", which allows Democratic voters to vote in Republican primaries and vice versa. The Democratic voters of Mississippi - damn-near all of whom happen to be African American - were properly horrified at the prospect of someone like McDaniel representing them in Washington. Mr. McDaniel is no relation to Hattie - I'm almost certain of this.
Cochran squeaked by with a mere 7000 vote advantage. McDaniel refuses to concede. He claims that Republican primaries in his beloved Mississippi should not be decided by a buncha goddamn elitist liberals. This is all quite amusing.
Someone said the other day that if McDaniels loses this primary, it will spell "doom" for the GOP. Forgive me for not remembering the name of the person who made that statement. It was one of the few true things that have been said during this entire, tragicomic process. The clock is ticking for "the party of Abraham Lincoln". They are decades past the point where a good housecleaning might have saved them from their inevitable fate. It's too late for any of that now. The clown car is on fire, spiraling into the abyss. It's such a funny thing to behold. It really is!
For my purposes, a McDaniel victory would have been the icing on the cake - but then again, I don't live in Mississippi (as I'm sure you've figured out by now); I won't be effected one way or the other by whomever ends up winning the booby prize. I can't blame the black citizens of that shit-hole of magnolia for doing whatever humanly possible to sabotage the McDaniel campaign. Who could blame them? These knuckleheads in the party of Tea want to bring us back to the days of Jim Crow. This is not merely my opinion - this is a statement of purpose that has been made by enough of them to make a person with dark skin nervous as hell. One seventy-three year old black man, identified only as "Wilkie" (he was probably named after the 1940 GOP nominee - there used to be black Republicans way down South) was quoted this morning in Gail Collins' New York Times column saying, "First time in my life I ever voted in a Republican primary." He's no fool. It was an act of survival on Wilkie's part, I'm sure. I'm certain that not too many Jews voted for Hitler in 1932. That's not an unfair comparison either. Although at that early point no one could have foreseen the Holocaust that was coming, Adolf's vicious antisemitism was a matter of record. So it is with the overt racism of more-than-a-few "spokespersons" within the Tea Party.
How can it be that a fool such as McDaniels should come as close as he came to winning a primary for the United States senate? What is it about the people in that miserable place that they are unable to grasp the fact that the most right wing state in the union (as Mississippi surely is) is also the poorest? What the hell is the matter with them?
Just as happy as a cow chewing on a cud....
This is - without a doubt - the most interesting of times to be alive. All I can say for sure is that the next two-and-a-half years are going to be many things. "Boring" is not one of them. My glee notwithstanding, put into it's proper, historical context, the ideological demise of the party that used to be the home of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Teddy Roosevelt is a sad thing to watch. As an amateur historian, I say that in all seriousness....
Then again, we all gotta go sometime. Cheers!
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
.jpg) |
| Dr. John J. Dermigny |
Please forgive the slight lull in postings. I fell down a flight of stairs on Sunday evening and banged my face up pretty good. A Special thank you to my doctor-in-law, Dr. Jack Dermigny (and nephew Pete) for bringing me to his office in the middle of the night and stitching me up. He is a conservative Republican. How's that for dedication? He does indeed adhere to the Hippocratic oath!
By the way, recently Jack was made head of the residency program at Orange Regional Medical Center in Middletown, NY. And to think that I knew him when!
SUGGESTED READING:
Tchaikovsky: A Quest for the Inner Man
by Alexander Posnansky
If you're as infatuated with the music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as I most definitely am, you might want to read this book. Then again, you might not. There is such a thing as "too much information" and that appears to be what I'm getting from this otherwise fine biography. Tchaikovsky was, in many ways, a good man. The problem is that he was not always an admirable one in many respects. That he was a troubled, tortured soul there is no doubt. I'll spare you the details. See for yourself if you insist. SUGGESTED LISTENING:
Adante Cantabile
by Peter Ilyitch Tchaikovsky
from Symphony No. 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2AM7GrJxfM
Still, whatever my misgivings toward Tchaikovsky the man (Hey, who's perfect?) his music never fails to send me into the clouds. This particular piece, Adante Cantabile, is a particular favorite of mine. In the 1930's it was turned into a big band hit in America and retitled "Moon Love" - which is kind of nice in a way. The melody invokes an enchanting, moonlit setting in my mind.
Cha! Cha! Cha!
posted by Tom Degan @ 7:04 AM
84 comments
84 Comments:
Tom,
So very sorry to read of your recent mishap and misfortune. Hope your healing is fast and complete.
Were the steps you fell down in the night yours or someone else s?
Here's to the ACA for helping you with your medical needs!
Cheers.
Wow...I was going to say "Anonymous Obama whinefest to follow" but he managed to beat me to it. The first reply to a blog that has NOTHING to do with Obama and he nails it.
You gotta give the guy credit for being consistant, even if he does come off as a complete retard.
Anonymous has just shown WHY he's the laughingstock of this forum.
"Overly patriotic" is also known as "Nationalistic". It's the kind of attitude that does not allow for any improvement or change because you cannot admit your nation has any problems, and you view ANY attempt to fix the problems as an "attack on traditional values". You also think you have to kill everyone that disagrees, even in other countries that are no threrat to you.
ANd you can tell they hate fellow Americans by denying them healthcare, food, a job, or any other thing that provides dignity and human respect.
Then they call them LOSERS.
ANd there are enough teabaggers to cause serious problems moving forward in this country. They have to go. NOW.
Mozart,
Putting words in Jay's mouth? He didn't say nationalism, he said patriotic.
"ANd you can tell they hate fellow Americans by denying them healthcare, food, a job, or any other thing that provides dignity and human respect"
What a line of pure libtard b.s. It's my responsibility to provide all of the above? Well idiot, you first, I'll follow your lead.
Show me the Americans whose healthcare you have provided.
Show me the Americans you have given food
Show me the jobs you have created
Show me how you have provided Americans with dignity and human respect.
Right behind you Mozart, (the view sucks by the way) lead on.
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA
TUCSON, Ariz. (CBS Las Vegas) — Border Patrol agents in Arizona were reportedly fired upon by a Mexican military helicopter that traveled across the border.
KVOA-TV reports that Mexican authorities were conducting a drug interdiction operation when the incident happened early Thursday morning on the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. The Mexican chopper fired at the agents and then flew back into Mexico.
Art del Cueto, Border Patrol Tucson Sector union president, tells KVOA that they called and apologized for the incident.
“The incident occurred after midnight and before 6 a.m. Helicopter flew into the U.S. and fired on two U.S. Border Patrol agents,” del Cueto said in a statement to KVOA. “The incident occurred west of the San Miguel Gate on the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. The agents were unharmed. The helicopter went back into Mexico. Mexico then contacted U.S. authorities and apologized for the incident.”
Andy Adame, Border Patrol spokesperson, said that Mexican authorities fired two shots at the border agents.
“Two shots were fired from the helicopter but no injuries or damage to U.S. property were reported,” Adame told KVOA.
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA
After a week of complete media malpractice, in which scurrilous accusations that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker participated in a “criminal scheme” were plastered all over the headlines, a lead prosecutor has completely backed off.
The Wisconsin State Journal reports, Scott Walker not a target, John Doe special prosecutor says:
Randall Crocker, the lawyer for special prosecutor Francis Schmitz, noted the investigation has been halted, saying, “At the time the investigation was halted, Governor Walker was not a target of the investigation. At no time has he been served with a subpoena.”
Crocker issued the statement a week after a court document Schmitz wrote late last year and made public late last week identified Walker as being part of an alleged “criminal scheme” to coordinate with outside groups and violate campaign finance laws.
Crocker said no conclusions have been made about whether there is enough evidence to charge anyone with a crime.
“Contained in these documents is a reference to the request for production of documents that relates to an alleged criminal scheme. Gov. Walker’s name was included in this reference,” Crocker said. “While these documents outlined the prosecutor’s legal theory, they did not establish the existence of a crime; rather, they were arguments in support of further investigation to determine if criminal charges against any person or entity are warranted.”
Crocker added, “Mr. Schmitz has made no conclusions as to whether there is sufficient evidence to charge anyone with a crime.”
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA
PC-Obsessed WaPo Outraged Military Uses Indian Names For Its Attack Helicopters…
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA
While much of Washington grapples with international crises, chronic economic troubles, and upcoming midterm elections, Senate Democrats are steadily pushing forward with what they hope will become the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The proposed amendment would give Congress authority to regulate every dollar raised, and every dollar spent, by every federal campaign and candidate in the country. It would give state legislatures the power to do the same with state races.
Framed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as a response to campaign spending by the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the proposed amendment, written by Democratic Senators Tom Udall and Michael Bennet and co-sponsored by 42 other Senate Democrats, would vastly increase the power of Congress to control elections and political speech.
The problem is, Democrats aren’t quite sure exactly what the amendment should say. In a move that received virtually no attention, they recently re-wrote the measure — and in the process revealed its fatal flaw.
This is the heart of the amendment as originally written by Udall and Bennet:
To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including through setting limits on -
(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, federal office; and
(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.
There are literally no limits to congressional power in those words. In the name of “political equality for all,” Democrats proposed to change the Constitution to allow lawmakers to impose any restriction they want on campaign fundraising and spending — in other words, on campaigning itself.
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA
A former White House counsel during the Clinton administration said Thursday that it’s time for an independent counsel to look into the growing IRS email scandal.
Lanny Davis, a close adviser to Hillary Clinton and a frequent defender of the Obama Administration, appeared on my morning talk show in Washington, D.C., on WMAL. I asked him to comment on the latest hearings on the lost IRS emails conducted earlier this week in Congress:
If this were a Republican administration I’d be saying when hard drives have been obliterated and this recent Lois Lerner—I think very inappropriate, maybe innocent but completely inappropriate—’maybe we should look at Mr. Grassley’ uh … there’s no Democrat that I know of that wouldn’t be asking a Republican administration to conduct an independent investigation.
I asked Davis if he meant a special prosecutor should be appointed and he argued that a special counsel reporting to the attorney general would be sufficient. “Yes, there ought to be another look at this by somebody that President Obama chooses to appoint who’s independent,” Davis explained, “or at least the Republicans would see as independent.”
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA
HOUSTON, Texas--An unaccompanied minor from Central America who entered the U.S. illegally has been confirmed as having the Swine Flu, also known as the H1N1 flu.
A spokesperson from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that the sick child is at the Lackland Air Force base in San Antonio, according to KRGV. 2,000 H1N1 vaccinations are being brought to the air base, where more than 1,000 illegal immigrant minors are currently staying.
Congressman Louie Gohmert told Breitbart Texas that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services--the agency currently caring for many of the unaccompanied minors--is not doing an adequate job of screening and treating diseases.
"Having spent the weekend on our border, I can tell you that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is not taking charge of the undocumented children in any kind of reasonable time frame as they are absolutely required to do," Gohmert said. "It is becoming more and more apparent that the Obama administration’s reckless disregard for enforcing this nation’s laws at the border has become a reckless disregard for human health and life. Even when they spend a hundred times more than necessary, they can’t even build a website."
This is not the first time health concerns have been raised regarding the illegal immigrant population.
Breitbart Texas previously reported on an outbreak of scabies among the migrants. Several Border Patrol agents contracted the skin infestation.
Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol spokesman Omar Zamora told Breitbart Texas, "We don't screen for diseases. All we are is a processing center, so we don't do that.
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA
UNC law professor’s holdings include $1.5M in real estate, and meanwhile he chastises Republicans for their ‘unforgivable war on poor people’
A controversial, outspoken law professor who frequently bashes Republicans and specializes in poverty issues as a self-proclaimed champion of the poor earns $205,400 per year – for teaching one class per semester.
The University of North Carolina School of Law pays Professor Gene Nichol $205,400 annually for his one class per semester workload. On top of his teaching salary, he receives a $7,500 stipend as director of the law school’s Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.
The News & Observer maintains a public database of public employee and educator salaries, and lists Nichol’s salary at $212,900. Nichol, in an email to The College Fix, confirmed the figure is accurate.Nichol
Nichol is slated to teach federal jurisdiction this fall and constitutional law in spring 2015.
I think the above shit bomb of spam could be safely removed, and no one would claim censorship.
And for once, it's not from Anonymous.
NO Scandal HERE Just made up by the Tea Party
Veterans Administration hospitals have spent at least $420 million on solar panels and windmills while vets wait months — or even lay dying — to see a doctor.
In total, VA hospitals reported 23 deaths due to 76 instances of delayed care, an April 2014 VA fact sheet said. Then on June 5, Acting Veteran Affairs Secretary Sloan Gibson revealed that at least 18 Phoenix patients died while waiting for treatment on a secret list kept off the books. It is not clear if that number is in addition to the 23 deaths reported earlier. During the past month, the scandal has resulted in the resignations of both the VA secretary and the leaders of its health care component.
According to a June 3 audit, 100,000 veterans had lengthy wait times for appointments. Of the nation’s 216 VA hospitals, 37 percent will require further investigation.
A whistleblower revealed Tuesday that seven of the patients listed on the Phoenix VA hospitals waiting list are already dead. That same Phoenix facility spent $20 million to build the nation’s largest solar carport. Phase one of the project was completed in 2011. The hospital also had an $11.4 million shortfall that year, an Inspector General’s report stated.
Also in 2011, only 49 percent of first-time patients nationwide got a full mental health evaluation within the VA’s own goal of within 14 days after initial contact, the IG’s report said.
The Phoenix hospital is not the only VA hospital to have installed solar panels while hiding long wait times. Millions in stimulus funds were used to install panels on two facilities, one Albuquerque, N.M., and another in nearby Tucson, Ariz.. With the latter, the VA spent $14.7 million between 2010 and 2012 to install solar panels on the roof of its medical center. The contract was awarded to REC Solar, the sixth-largest recipient of stimulus funds from the VA.
During the time of the solar project, one patient at the Tucson, Ariz., hospital died of colon cancer after not getting a routine colonoscopy. That death was revealed in a fact sheet the VA released in early April after an internal investigation.
Ironically, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., recently praised the Tucson hospital for its “exemplary services.” The Inspector General’s report gave the hospital three out of five stars for performance in 2013 while the Phoenix facility earned just one star.
Even though the epicenter of the scandal remains in Phoenix, Albuquerque, N.M., has come under fire recently for falsely stating wait times and manipulating statistics to receive bonuses.
A 2012 audit by the VA’s Southwest Health Care Network revealed that VA administrators have known about the fabricated reports for two years. That audit went public only after the Arizona Republic received the document in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
During the time the VA was made aware that wait times were being falsified, it was spending nearly $15 million to fund solar panels for the hospital.
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA
Gas prices continued to rise in most parts of the country the past week to a national average of $3.68 for a gallon of regular unleaded, the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report said Thursday. That's just 2 cents off of 2014's previous peak price.
In its weekly assessment of price trends, AAA said concerns over the ongoing violence in Iraq were keeping oil prices hovering around $106 a barrel, making it more expensive to produce gasoline.
Previously, AAA predicted gas prices would fall 10 to 15 cents per gallon during June, following a typical pattern for lower pump prices in early summer, but in a statement the organization said "that now appears unlikely due to higher oil costs. This means that even though the national average has only increased a few cents per gallon since the Iraq violence intensified, drivers are likely to pay substantially higher gas prices than they would have otherwise."
Indeed, the national average for regular unleaded gasoline is 14 cents higher than a year ago, and AAA pegs it as the highest early summer average since 2008.
The national average crept up a penny the past week, and if prices continue to climb, it could soon approach the 2014 peak of $3.70, set on April 28. Diesel fuel also rose 1 cent the past week, to $3.90, which is 6 cents higher than a year ago.
Motorists in some states are paying substantially more for gas than a year ago. In Ohio, for example, the $3.68 average for regular unleaded is 25 cents higher than on June 26, 2013, even after prices fell 12 cents the past week. The $3.78 average in Pennsylvania is 28 cents higher than a year ago, and drivers in Kentucky and Michigan are paying 31 cents more per gallon this year.
BLAME OBAMA
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
President Obama is emphasizing global warming ahead of the November elections, but a new poll suggests he faces an uphill climb.
According to a Pew Research Center poll, 35 percent of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to suggest mankind is warming the earth while another 18 percent says the world has warmed due to “natural patterns” and not human activity.
That’s a 53 percent majority against the president’s position.
115Tom -
Thought you had decided to pull those comments that were not relevant to the topic.
Anonymous, just because some people are ignorant and refuse to see the facts, does not mean Global warming is not happening. I'll go with the 98% of the worlds CLIMATOLOGISTS that say it IS happening.
Tom,
Is it an extreme position for someone like Chris McDaniel to believe we should not be adding able bodied loafers like yourself to the now bloated Social Security Disability rolls? SSD is going to go bust in a few years.
Freeing oneself from the sheep following the false prophet Obama's Hopium and Change disease and saying the truth does not make you an extremist.
Mozart,
Show me the results of a experiment that using the scientific method, proves that GW exists, and if so it is being caused by the actions of man. Key words SCIENTIFIC METHOD, not computer models, not models based on the very short time man has keep climate records compared to the earth's age. Good science is not something to be feared, it is not political, it is not capitalistic, it is not socialistic, it is a fact that can be recreated using the scientific method. As I've said before, if that standard is met and man caused GM is proven, then I will gladly become a believer.
Until then man caused climate change and global warming is a theory at best, a religion at worst.
At one time 98% of people believed the earth was flat, that the solar system revolved around the earth. Using the scientific method, these beliefs were proven false.
Once there was an Ice Age. What caused it to end, GW? If so what was mankind's role in warming up the earth then?
Can it be said that in the earth's history it's average temperature is higher or lower than it is now?
If so, what caused those changes?
The theory is man produced CO2 is causing a green house effect. Show me the facts resulting from the use of the scientific method to PROVE that theory.
Question, in a year, which event produces more CO2, volcanism or man?
Can man control volcanism?
"What if?" is not real science.
Yellowstone,
I did post a comment that was relevant to Tom's topic. It was the very first comment. Jay followed with a comment relevant to Tom's topic.
The comments went off the rails with the 3rd post, by Mozart. That would be a good place to start pulling comments.
I would say however that the election results in MS, while interesting, have no where near the impact on our country and it's citizens as the events unfolding in Iraq and Syria, the flood of disease carrying illegals swarming uninhibited over our southern border, the latest report of our economy going in reverse, the "lost" emails of the IRS, the failure of the VA to provide single payer health care to our Vets, as was promised and claimed, and the poverty stricken Clinton's.
As it has been said before, this is Tom's blog, he comments about what he wants.
I've been watching the World Cup Soccer games and I think they should have every game declared a tie. Everybody should get a trophy for participating and there should be no winners and losers. Thats my vision of social justice for soccer.
Aww, Chuckie's playing with my name again. His man crush is sooo obvious. LOL!
Isn’t it hilarious how Chuckie needs to compare medieval beliefs to today‘s science? Pure Desperation.
Chuckie wants to see proof of climate change in a lab “experiment”. He forgets the “lab” is our planet. Greenhouse gasses are scientific fact, not theory, but as we’ve shown Chuckie is utterly ignorant of what scientific theory is. He ignores facts and the vast amount of documented evidence of ongoing greenhouse effects.
Maybe Chuckie would like some quick and easy cash:
This Physicist Has $10,000 for Anyone Who Can Prove Climate Change Isn’t Real:
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/06/26/physicist-will-give-you-10000-if-you-can-prove-climate-change-isnt-real
The money awaits. The proof against climate change hasn’t appeared. Well, Chuckie? Easy money, right? How about cutting me in for a 10% finder’s fee?
For those curious about CO2 from volcanoes and humans we learn from the folks at Hawaiian Volcano Observatory:
Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.
Of course really smart guys like Chuckie know waaayyy more than the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, just like they know waaayyyy more than NASA:
NASA: Climate change How do we know ?
So why isn’t Chuckie smart enough to collect that $10,000? And he never did explain to us how he plans to correct NASA, the Pentagon, and 97% of scientists on their “religious” following of science.
I suppose if trusting a 97% consensus of scientists could be considered “at worst, religion”, I’m sure we could consider those who trust a mere 3% of scientists, along with Rush and corporate PR, a cult.
And it is, of course, The Radical Right Bubble Cult.
Chuckie is a proud and loyal member of his beloved RRBC.
It seems to me Conservatives have created a new religion out of disbelieving Global Warming. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable in 2014. The forensics of climate science is based on millions of hours of research by thousands of scientist all over the world.
Anonymous has to willfully keep himself ignorant of all the latest information relating to GW so that he does not risk becoming Liberal!
All this bullshit and nonsense because Republican politicians take a lot of money from the fossil fuel companies.
Dave, I was writing my post so I did not see yours but I see we both think their views are based on some sort of religion.
When you have a billion facts stating one thing and you believe the opposite, that is an example of faith but not reality.
"It seems to me Conservatives have created a new religion out of disbelieving Global Warming."
Great, I'm all in, just show me the experiments using the scientific method that proved GW/Climate Change is man caused.
Until you do that I feel it is you whose faith is an unproven theory and therefore would be called a religion. Faith in the unproven, isn't that a religion?
Simple enough.
Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)
Robin Wylie, University College London October 15, 2013 07:11pm ET
www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
You "happily accept the usgs data without considering their very questionable methods of estimating. the usgs have a personal interest in the climate debate because they stand to have many more jobs and greater importance and pay if the govt gets fully into the very questionable area of moderating the earth’s temp via co2 restrictions and exchanges. in short the usgs data you cite was disproven by real scientists without personal profit motives and in fact the only reason the usgs paper even EXISTED was to support the idea of man made solutions to earth’s temp variations. the weatherman cannot accurately predict the next two days in any city but san diego but we should believe the climate predictors that see oceans rising a hundred feet and the death of living creatures??? i sure as heck will not listen to those fools. the more likely scenario is changes and fluctuations over the next 20000 years that do not render earth uninhabitable but that require some adjustments, just as humans have had to adjust over the last 20000 years."
"This Physicist Has $10,000 for Anyone Who Can Prove Climate Change Isn’t Real" Ah yes the odd prove a negative trick.
No argument that Climate Change isn't real, it happens every 3-4 months, it's called the changing of the seasons. That's not the argument, that's not the debate. Just give me proof found using the scientific method, an experiment which can be duplicated, that the change is man caused.
Tell me what caused the climate change that brought about the Ice Age and ended it. Was it caused by man?
Simple enough.
"What if?" is not real science. But what is intersting is what
As for Dave who seemingly can not help himself from being the internet version of the grade school yard bully and enforcer, I would say again that he is so classless, he could be a Marxist utopia.
Perhaps in an effort to ward off yet another long cold winter, officially-sanctioned climate science has been pumping out hot air at exponentially-increasing rates of late. An IPCC report in September told us that global warming "paused" unexpectedly in 1998, and shows no sign of resuming. Actually, the work that went into that report found that warming had stopped altogether, but the wording was altered to describe it as a "pause". You'd think that a pseudo-acknowledgement like this from on-high would dampen the Global Warmists' enthusiasm, but you'd be wrong.
Their driven need to 'fit the facts around the policy' is illustrated by a couple of recent articles that caught our eye. Here USA Today reports on the findings of a study that claims:
"The middle depths of a part of the Pacific Ocean have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than they did during the previous 10,000 years."
Then this BBC article cites "the world's leading experts on ocean acidification", who claim that:
"The world's oceans are becoming acidic at an unprecedented rate and may be souring more rapidly than at any time in the past 300 million years, [...] causing a 30% loss of species in some ocean ecosystems."
And, as you can probably guess, these experts are certain that it's all your fault.
By now you know the drill:
You produce too much CO2 ---> this contributes to the 'greenhouse effect' --> planet heats up --> ice caps melt --> sea levels rise, etc...
Take note that the Pacific Ocean data they used to come up with this "warming 15 times faster than ever" claim concerns the middle depths of the Pacific Ocean. Meanwhile, another study published back in August reported that the Pacific Ocean's surface temperatures are cooling. The warming middle depths were attributed to man-made CO2 being "pumped into" the ocean, while the cooling surface layers were attributed to "a natural warm and cold cycle."
What's it gonna be guys? Man-made climate change or a natural cycle? You can't have your cake and eat it!
But apparently they believe they can have it both ways, so the established sequence of cause-and-effect has been amended to the following: an increase in CO2, predominantly or solely caused by man, causes an increase in heat. That CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which heats them up... except for the surface layers - that's nature's fault!
If we follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion, we would have to believe that the oceans are cooling by absorbing heat that is sinking down to lower layers!
When the lower-than-expected ocean surface temperatures were announced, climate scientists - as superbly economical with the truth as ever - suggested that the naturally-caused cooler surface ocean temperatures had "flattened out" the warmer 'human-caused' atmospheric temperatures and given us the appearance only of a "pause" in global warming!
But remember, in any event, the September IPCC report established that there never were any warmer atmospheric temperatures to begin with, so there was nothing for these cooler surface ocean temperatures to "flatten out"!
It's CO2 Jim, but not as we know it
What there is good evidence for, however, is increased CO2 levels, in both the oceans and the atmosphere.
As we've already noted, the experts are also telling us that ocean acidification, the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans due to increased absorption of CO2, has reached unprecedented levels. Now, it is assumed that this extra CO2 is coming from human activity, via the atmosphere.
But from where, you might be wondering, did they find the hard data to support their "300 million years" claim?
From volcanic vents on the ocean floors:
Emissions of CO2 driving rapid oceans 'acid trip'
BBC, 17 November 2013
Studies carried out at deep sea vents where the waters are naturally acidic thanks to CO2, indicate that around 30% of the ocean's biodiversity may be lost by the end of this century.
These vents may be a "window on the future" according to the researchers. "You don't find a mollusc at the pH level expected for 2100, this is really quite a stunning fact," said Prof Gattuso. "It's an imperfect window, only the ocean's acidity is increasing at these sites, they don't reflect the warming we will see this century."
[...] The effect of acidity is currently being felt most profoundly in the Arctic and Antarctic oceans. These chilly waters hold more CO2 and increasing levels of the gas are turning them acidic more rapidly than the rest of the world.
The researchers conclude that human emissions of CO2 are clearly to blame.
[Emphases added]
Notice anything funky about this 'scientist's' understanding of a 'fact'?!
At most, human emissions of CO2 are in the 4-5% range of a gas that makes up 3% of the atmosphere. Humanity's potential contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is therefore statistically insignificant. Yes we have toxified the entire biosphere in every way imaginable, yes we treat our fellow Earthlings abominably, and yes, there is evidence that CO2 levels are higher than ever observed by modern man, but the notion that one tiny factor in a complex and interdependent system, one that transfers vast quantities of energy around the world, is responsible for the weather extremes and mass animal die-offs we've seen in recent years is utterly absurd.
A more rational explanation, and one that's far more serious in its implications for everyone today, whatever about people in 2100, is that increased quantities of CO2 and heat are coming up from below, i.e. passing up through the oceans from within the planet, heating and acidifying the planet's oceans.
Volcanism is the most likely culprit here.
The oceans' chemistry and temperature is probably changing due to direct contact with known, observable vectors of CO2, namely increasingly active and newly formed volcanic vents and underwater volcanoes on the sea floor. Volcanic activity has been steadily brewing and increasing above ground for years. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the planet's volcanoes are located underwater. With landslides, rifts and sinkholes opening up - swallowing cars, people and buildings along the way... can we even begin to imagine what is happening on the vast and relatively unexplored ocean floors?
Countless accidental discoveries of underwater vents, volcanoes, plumes and geysers have been made in recent years, many of which we've archived on SOTT. Here's just one example:
Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.
The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.
"In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times - or possibly 20 times - bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre. [...]
"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."
Remember what the September IPCC report said about all of the allegedly man-made global warming constituting the energy equivalent to "4 atom bombs"? Well here's just one underwater volcano approaching that level of energy all by itself! The volcanoes above water are erupting all over the place, so it's probably safe to assume that, combined with underwater volcanoes, the total energy involved here dwarfs even the IPCC's highest energy estimates for man-made warming.
As we write, the Ring of Fire is super-active, with dozens of new and 'dormant' volcanoes erupting on a weekly basis. New islands formed off Japan and Pakistan in recent months, while new underwater volcanoes are being discovered all the time:
Underwater Antarctic Volcanoes Discovered in the Southern Ocean
Scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have discovered previously unknown volcanoes in the ocean waters around the remote South Sandwich Islands.
Using ship-borne sea-floor mapping technology during research cruises onboard the RRS James Clark Ross, the scientists found 12 volcanoes beneath the sea surface -- some up to 3km high. They found 5km diameter craters left by collapsing volcanoes and 7 active volcanoes visible above the sea as a chain of islands.
Methane is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2and both are stored in vast deposits in the form of clathrates under the ocean floors, particularly at the poles. These deposits are being ruptured by the increased volcanic activity (and accompanying seismic activity), then dissolving into the ocean depths, and are currently outgassing at levels that have observers seriously concerned because they know from the geological record that this happens during real climate change, which, like a phase transition, builds up to an abrupt and invariably catastrophic climate shift:
Climate change crisis intensifies: 'Methane levels are going through the roof'
Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas which can lead to unchecked and rapid climate change, has been referred to as "the canary in the coal mine" and its release has been theorized to have caused past mass extinctions, known as the the "clathrate gun hypothesis."
Many scientists believe that a sudden release of methane clathrates in the past from the seabed and permafrost led to a sudden rise in global temperatures, also known as "abrupt climate change." Large amounts of methane being released can lead to a runaway process that is irreversible, much like "firing a gun." Abrupt climate change can cause global temperatures to change within a matter of years.
We can discount the part about "runaway temperatures" because while the deep layers of oceans may be warming, the upper layers are not, and neither is the atmosphere, and...Newsflash! it is the upper layers of the oceans that carry warmth to land masses! If the upper layers are cooling, what effect do we think that might have on our climate, in the Northern Hemisphere for example? Has no one noticed the severe winters over North America, Northern Europe and Asia over the past few years? In addition, the ice core data tells us that methane spikes are signatures marking the boundaries between glacial and interglacial periods.
No discussion about the real causes of 'climate change' would be complete without mentioning Earth's celestial visitors. With Comet ISON currently approaching perihelion, and at least four other comets in close proximity, their connection to the dramatic increase in volcanic eruptions and seismic activity in the past couple of days is completely overlooked by the authorities' myopic reassurances that none of them pose a threat to us because we're not directly in their line of sight and ignores the potential for celestial objects to exert influence on our environment indirectly, at-a-distance.
But really, should we expect any different given that NASA et al were caught completely by surprise when the largest comet fragment since Tunguska exploded over southern Russia just 9 months ago?
Comet dust is electrically-charged so it in turn may also be causing the Earth's rotation to slow down slightly, as observed on Venus and Saturn. Such slowing of the rotation could be responsible for reducing the strength of the planet's magnetic field, exposing the planet to more dangerous cosmic radiation and stimulating even more volcanism.
More volcanic activity means more moisture is evaporated, and more dust and CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Combined with a lower, cooler upper atmosphere that is loading with comet dust (a.k.a. 'meteor smoke') from the significant increase in comets reaching the inner solar system in recent years, expect to see even greater weather extremes than we've already had to face in recent years. Eventually a threshold may be reached, at which point heavy rainfall becomes heavy snowfall and ice age conditions set in for the long term.
We say "eventually", but bewarned, a sudden-onset global Ice Age happened very fast the last time around.
In the meantime, disregard the Warmists' tepid scenario of gradual inundation of coastlines over the next hundred years due to non-existent man-made global warming, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
The climate is changing alright, but it's not warming, and it certainly isn't your fault.
James,
It it's so easy to disprove, give us the results of an experiment done using the scientific method to back up your claim.
C&P is easy, two clicks and you have a whole page of some ones work. Formulating a well thought out argument takes time and effort and I am not about to type all night to change your mind about anything.
Especially for someone is too lazy to even make up a screen name and clicks Anonymous instead of going through the Herculean effort of typing Pete!
I wonder if Chuckie the Troll knows where the phrase "fit the facts around the policy" came from.
Hint:
"Faith in the unproven, isn't that a religion?"
Just like their cult faith in Bush Cartel lies about Iraq. Unproven WMD's and unproven Iraqi ties al-Qaeda were good enough for their faith to send thousands of Americans to death in a war for crony profit and political gain, based on lies.
Their faith, cult, and religion is all written by the GOP and corporate PR, for to the RRBC, they alone speak the sacred truth.
Period.
And speaking of RRBC lies...
Have they apologized to Susan Rice for being right all along about Benghazi?
What happened to their sacred beliefs on that one? LOL.
Evidence shows climate change is happening all over the globe. Chuckie won't believe it until he's seen it in a "lab experiment".
And Chuckie's evidence of no climate change? Wahh, I can't prove a negative.
He can't produce evidence either.
All evidence shows the reality that Chuckie's cult hides from.
Chuckie and Rush know more than NASA.
Yup. LOL!!!
Anonymous. Have you ever been in a greenhouse?
Lab work accomplished. We are pumping TONS of CO2 (as well as methhane and other pollutants" into the air every day. Tell us again how that has no effect. Then go cash your check from EXXON/ Mobile
Stop spamming the site with your BS. You lost this argument before you started. You are just chasing your own tail and looking like an idiot doing it.
Mozart, James,
Yes I've been in a green house. Yes I've clicked.
Here's one result I found, are you intellectually brave enough to view it?
wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/
"The charts and graphs devised by NASA and the government’s other science agencies back up the president’s words. And well they should, because the charts, like the “science,” were faked.
The “Steven Goddard Real Science” blog compares the raw U.S. temperature records from the Energy Department’s United States Historical Climatology Network to the “final” processed figures, to demonstrate how the historical data have been “corrected,” using computer modeling.
The modifications made to the past temperature record had the effect of cooling the 20th century, which makes temperatures over the last 14 years appear much warmer by comparison. Such changes don’t square with history, which shows the decade of the 1930s the hottest on record. The Dust Bowl storms were so severe they sent clouds of debris from Texas and Oklahoma to the East Coast, even darkening the skies over the U.S. Capitol one day in 1934.
In an inconvenient article from 1999, written before the data had been “corrected,” James Hansen, then a NASA scientist, acknowledged that the climate had held steady after the Dust Bowl storms. “In the U.S.,” wrote Mr. Hansen, “there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.” Mr. Hansen, recognized as a godfather of the global warming doomcriers, then predicted that the first decade of the 21st century would be even hotter than the 1930s.
To produce this hotter result, the scientists “adjusted” the temperature records to make it appear so. NASA redrew the temperature chart Mr. Hansen used in 1999, and the new chart shows a dramatically cooled 1930s. The 1990s that Mr. Hansen once said were not so hot became warmer than the 1930s.
With the global warming scam unraveling before his very eyes, President Obama and his administration want action now. “The question is not whether we need to act,” says Mr. Obama. “The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest. The question is whether we have the will to act before it’s too late.”
Too late for what? The planetary thermometer hasn’t budged in 15 years. Wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes and other “extreme” weather events are at normal or below-normal levels. Pacific islands aren’t submerged. There’s so much ice the polar bears are celebrating."
As Czech president (and economist) Václav Klaus, once explained, "Environmentalism is the successor to failed socialism as justification for all-pervasive rule by a politburo of experts. Only now, it acts in the name of, not the proletariat, but the planet.” In other words, destroy the middle-class & the elites will be in total control.
Mozart, you and Dave, (unlike James)
are practitioners of several kinds of the ad hominem method of argument/debate.
Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy.
Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).
When you defend the President you do not do so based on the merits of his actions or the results of his actions but use instead the Ad hominem tu quoque (literally: "You also") This method refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony to support the argument.
The most disturbing form of Ad hominem used by both of you is your use of Guilt by association. This can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
IE: Conservatives are more likely to be racists because they believe in limiting the power of the federal govt, just like the KKK does. Or to reverse that, The Communist Party of the USA has endorsed Obama for President twice. Is that the kind of person you would want to vote for?
The statement that those who disagree with your positions are living in a bubble, hate Americans, do not believe in science, belong to a cult, etc. do not prove any of your arguments to be true. They only strengthen my view that both of you are self appointed monitors of the internet hallways, and grade school play ground bullies.
"ad hominem". Someone's trying to impress us with his vocabulary again.
How about you try NOT to WHINE about Obama for just ONE blog?
Here's betting you can't. You'll probably just use one of your other names and claim you did it.
The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of global warming.
The new record was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere Today, early Sunday morning.
It's not apparent if the record actually occurred on Friday or Saturday, says Harold Ambler on his blog, Talking About the Weather.
Ambler is a journalist and author of the book "Don't Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change."
"The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007," said Ambler. Meanwhile, he pointed out, global sea ice area on Sunday was standing at 0.991 million square kilometers above average, a figure he arrived at by adding anomalies for the North and South hemispheres.
While early models predicted the sea ice would decrease because of global warming, other models are showing that the opposite is happening around Antarctica, where sea ice growth is increasing.
"A freshening of the waters surrounding the southernmost continent as well as the strengthening of the winds circling it were both theorized as explanations for the steady growth of Antarctica’s sea ice during the period of satellite measurement," said Ambler.
However, he pointed out that climatologists have discounted the importance and growth of the Antarctic sea ice.
According to Walt Meier, formerly of the National Snow and Ice Data Center and currently of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most of the Antarctic sea ice does not survive between years, and it's less significant to the Earth's climate than is the ice around the Arctic.
Meanwhile, Ambler said that the growth of the Antarctic sea ice is providing "a public relations problem, at a minimum, for those warning of global warming’s menace."
During the past 18 months, global sea ice "has seen its most robust 18-month period of the last 13 years, maintaining, on average, a positive anomaly for an 18-month period for the first time since 2001," he wrote.
In addition, Ambler said, the South Pole's temperature has been dropping over the past 40 years.
Now, about the latest data from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere Today regarding the ice thickness around the
Antarctica.
First of all this report does not prove or disprove anything, it is simply reporting the ice thickness around the Antarctica. Just like a report that the ice around the Arctic has grown or shrunk does not prove the cause is man. Support for either reason has not been scientifically tested and found.
Secondly, I find it "interesting" Walt Meier, formerly of the National Snow and Ice Data Center and currently of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claims that most of the Antarctic sea ice does not survive between years, and it's LESS significant to the Earth's climate than the ice at the Arctic. I would expect a scientist when making that claim could back it up data from tests using the scientific method. Are there any?
Finally, if Climate Change and Global warming are truly GLOBAL and are truly caused by man, then why would some parts of the earth not be warming up as much as other parts? Explanation for that anomaly would be nice.
You realize Mozart, that I have not said one negative word about Obama on this thread. But you however, continue claim posters are whining about Obama. You realize, I hope, that your statement makes you sound a bit anti-intellectual. Odd position for one who claims those who do not share the same views on GW as you do, are stupid and not getting the facts from real scientists..
Now if I was you or Dave, I would launch into an "ad hominem" attack on you. But instead, I will simply let the facts speak for themselves on this.
There are a lot of political hacks writing articles that are basically pure bullshit. Stating that polar ice has been increasing since 79 is a lie. Here is a C&P from the BBC science section:
Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season.
This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012.
It is a rare piece of good news for a region that has witnessed a rapid decline in both area cover and thickness in recent years.
But scientists caution against reading too much into one year's "recovery".
"Although the recovery of Arctic sea ice is certainly welcome news, it has to be considered against the backdrop of changes that have occurred over the last few decades," said Prof Andy Shepherd of University College London, UK.
"It's estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years," he told BBC News.
Cryosat is the European Space Agency's (Esa) dedicated polar monitoring platform.
It has a sophisticated radar system that allows scientists to work out the thickness of the ice floes covering the Arctic Ocean.
In the three years following its launch, the spacecraft saw a steady decline in autumn ice volume, with a record low of 6,000 cubic km being recorded in late October 2012.
But after a sharply colder summer this year, the autumn volume number has gone up.
Measurements taken in the same three weeks in October found the floes to contain just shy of 9,000 cu km.
Ice breaker Thicker ice has been retained in the Arctic
Part of this stronger performance can be put down to the greater retention of older ice.
This is evident particularly around the Canadian archipelago and North Greenland, where there is much more two-year-old and three-year-old ice than in previous years.
"One of the things we'd noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent - at least for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012," explained Rachel Tilling from the UK's Nerc Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM).
"This is why we're really quite surprised by what we've seen in 2013.
"We didn't expect the greater ice extent left at the end of the summer melt to be reflected in the volume.
"But it has been. And the reason is related to the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic."
Dr Don Perovich is a sea-ice expert at Dartmouth College, US.
He said Cryosat's data tallied with observations made by other spacecraft.
"In previous summers, some of the [multi-year ice] migrated over to the Alaska and Siberia areas where it melted. But this past summer, it stayed in place because of a change in wind patterns. And so there'll likely be more multi-year ice next year than there was this year," he told BBC News.
Continue reading the main story
Satellite altimetry: How to measure sea-ice volume
Infographic (BBC)
Cryosat's radar has the resolution to see the Arctic's floes and leads
Some 7/8 of the ice tends to sit below the waterline - the draft
The aim is to measure the freeboard - the ice part above the waterline
Knowing this 1/8th figure allows Cryosat to work out sea-ice thickness
The thickness multiplied by the area of ice cover produces a volume
The minimum ice extent in the Arctic this summer was recorded as 5.10 million sq km. Again, this was a figure almost 50% larger than the all-time satellite-low mark achieved 12 months previously - when floes were reduced to just 3.41 million sq km by mid-September.
Area/extent is easier to measure, but scientists regard thickness/volume to be the best metric with which to judge the health of the ice pack, which is why Cryosat's unique data-set is so important.
Here's one result I found, are you intellectually brave enough to view it?
Chuckie’s link to a blogger’s whining about a simple lab experiment features an interesting statement:
I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment,
Was Chuckie intellectually brave enough to read that far in his own link?
So the next question becomes, “Is Chuckie intellectually brave enough to read and accept that statement”.
This part in particular.
“CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere”
Is Chuckie intellectually brave enough to read anything we link to?
So far he has shown zero indication of reading anything we say or link to.
Bwaack!
Chuckie believes he, Rush and some bloggers are better qualified than scientists.
How is it possible to respect that kind of belief?
Have they apologized for being so nasty to Susan Rice for being correct about Benghazi?
Not a peep.
Con-servatism. It’s about character, right?
James,
Are you calling the University of Illinois "political hacks, writing articles that are basically pure bullshit"? Should we hold writers to that same standard if they are employed by the federal govt?
Did you review the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere webpage for their records of Antarctica Ice Cap?
Do you see the scientific double standard you have to hold in order to continue to believe that GW is caused by man?
I'll explain. "scientists caution against reading too much into one year's "recover" Yet these same scientists have been telling us for the past 30 years that the ice caps would melt and the sea levels rise, if man caused GW isn't stopped NOW!
Well, it looks like the Antarctic ice cap has stopped melting (if they ever were melting in response to something man kind was doing), even though the amounts of CO2 being pumped out from Australia has not decreased (they use coal almost 100% for power) and China and India have not stopped their pollution of the atmosphere.
(1) How can there be a reversal of GW if man is still doing all the things that is claimed to be causing GW?
(2) What caused the one year improvement if it wasn't something mankind did, or if it was nothing mankind did, then what caused it?
Wouldn't you want to know the answer to those two questions before you invested any further belief in man caused GW?
I think you will have to accept that I am a GW agnostic, waiting for proof provided through the scientific method to prove or disprove man caused GW. Note that I always say Man Caused GW. I'm not denying there has been GW in our planets history and may be again in our future. Actions of man as it's cause it what I am waiting for the scientific provided proof of. As I've asked before, what caused the Ice Age to end, if man is the cause of global warming?
Thanks for the adult debate and for not using the "Ad hominem" method to discuss or argue a difference of view points. It is refreshing.
Dave,
If I run into Chuckie, I'll ask him your questions. I'm sure James and Tom and Jay and Mozart will do the same for you.
Anonymous, you lost this argument before you started. Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself?
So, neither Chuckie nor his Anonymous "secret identity" cares to admit to a statement he linked to.
“CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere”
Is Anonymous Chuckie intellectually brave enough to read anything we link to?
So far he has shown zero indication of reading anything we say or link to.
How "Chicken Chuckie" and Anonymous Chuckie behave as one is amazing.
Bwaack!
Mozart,
One of the claims supporters of the man causing GM/climate change theory is that 97% of scientists believe the theory is fact.
Did anyone ever ask 97 percent of the world’s scientists?
Could you supply the list of scientists who make up that 97%?
Who asked the worlds scientists?
When were the world scientist asked?
How were the world scientists asked?
Did you believe if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it?
Did you believe if you liked your DR, you could keep him/her?
Just trying to determine who the fool is and who isn't.
Do you believe Obama when he says the invasion of thousands of illegal minors caught his administration by surprise?
Then explain this. RFB Issued 1/29/2014 by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Procurement Type: Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought
Title: Escort Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children
Classification Code: V- Transportation/Travel/Relocation
NAICS code: 561612
Primary POC: Rachel Ali, Contract Specialist/ Rachel.Ali@ice.dhs.gov
Secondary POC: Tony Ross, Contracting Officer/ Tony.Ross@ice.dhs.gov
A. Introduction
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has a continuing and mission critical responsibility for accepting custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) from U.S. Border Patrol and other Federal agencies and transporting these juveniles to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States. ICE is seeking the services of a responsible vendor that shares the philosophy of treating all UAC with dignity and respect, while adhering to standard operating procedures and policies that allow for an effective, efficient, and incident free transport. The Contractor shall provide unarmed escort staff, including management, supervision, manpower, training, certifications, licenses, drug testing, equipment, and supplies necessary to provide on-demand escort services for non-criminal/non-delinquent unaccompanied alien children ages infant to 17 years of age, seven (7) days a week, 365 days a year. Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air. Escort services include, but are not limited to, assisting with: transferring physical custody of UAC from DHS to Health and Human Services (HHS) care via ground or air methods of transportation (charter or commercial carrier), property inventory, providing juveniles with meals, drafting reports, generating transport documents, maintaining/stocking daily supplies, providing and issuing clothing as needed, coordinating with DHS and HHS staff, travel coordination, limited stationary guard services to accommodate for trip disruptions due to inclement weather, faulty equipment, or other exigent circumstances. In emergency situations, the Contractor shall be called on to provide temporary shelter locations (such as trailers) with shower facilities for juveniles who are pending placement with HHS when bed space is unavailable nationwide for extended periods of time. The Contractor shall provide temporary guard services and other support as necessary during these emergencies.
In addition, the Contractor shall have personnel who are able to communicate with juveniles in their own designated language(s). While this may not require each employee to be fluent in all of the encountered languages, personnel should have access to and knowledge of translation services.
“CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere”
Anonymous Chuckie must agree with this...or he's STILL running scared like the chicken Chuckie he is.
Bwaaack!
Mozart,
Now who looks like the fool?
NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.
July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.
According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”
“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.
Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”
Need proof to support this, you can find the graphs using this link
dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/
Hooray for Hobby Lobby!
Those graphs were created by Anthony Watts not by NOAA, I could not find any information about changing the hottest month from 2012 back to 1936 on the NOAA website.
Of course you are ignoring 200,000 articles about GW on the NOAA website. And 150 years of scientific record keeping and 35 years of satellite measurements and thousands of peer reviewed papers published and and and ...
James,
The RRBC loves to elevate paid shills of energy companies and Right Wing bloggers.
The Right's disinformation machine is working like it did when the Bush Cartel had 70% of Americans believing Saddam had something to do with 9-11.
From sourcewatch, Chuckie's latest false prophet:
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
The ex-post facto data manipulation has been cataloged by climate blogger Steven Goddard and was reported by the UK Telegraph earlier this month.
“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” writes Christopher Booker for the Telegraph.
“The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data,” Booker writes. “In several posts headed ‘Data tampering at USHCN/GISS,’ Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time.”
“These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on ‘fabricated’ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century,” Booker adds.
When asked about climate data adjustments by the DCNF back in April, NOAA send there have been “several scientific developments since 1989 and 1999 that have improved the understanding of the U.S. surface temperature record.”
“Many station observations that were confined to paper, especially from early in the 20th century, have been scanned and keyed and are now digitally available to inform these time series,” Deke Arndt, chief of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring Branch, told TheDCNF.
“In addition to the much larger number of stations available, the U.S. temperature time series is now informed by an improved suite of quality assurance algorithms than it was in the late 20th Century,” Deke said in an emailed statement.
But NOAA has apparently not just been adjusting temperatures downward, but also adjusting them upwards.
“This constant change from year to year of what is or is not the hottest month on record for the USA is not only unprofessional and embarrassing for NOAA, it’s bullshit of the highest order,” Watts wrote. “It can easily be solved by NOAA stopping the unsupportable practice of adjusting temperatures of the past so that the present looks different in context with the adjusted past and stop making data for weather stations that have long since closed.”
"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)."
Anonymous, YOU look like a fool. AGain, you have to learn the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE.
Why don't you just sit back, have a drink box and chill for a while? You need to build up your strenth for the NEXT President who will in all likelyhood be a WOMAN. (your cheering of Hobby Lobby proves you hate them). WE already know it's gonn a be a Democrat so you might want to rest up and save your WHINING AND CRYING for the next POTUS. We have already heard all your infantile gripes about Obama.
There he goes again, citing some non-scientist, pseudonym of a blogger as his authority.
Note how authoritarian is always an authority to them. Scientific credentials? Not needed, just Right Wing authoritarians.
Why not just cite Rush? After all he knows everything right? LOL!
Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.
The climate of a location is affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents. Climates can be classified according to the average and the typical ranges of different variables, most commonly temperature and precipitation. The most commonly used classification scheme was originally developed by Wladimir Köppen. The Thornthwaite system, in use since 1948, incorporates evapotranspiration along with temperature and precipitation information and is used in studying animal species diversity and potential effects of climate changes. The Bergeron and Spatial Synoptic Classification systems focus on the origin of air masses that define the climate of a region.
Paleoclimatology is the study of ancient climates. Since direct observations of climate are not available before the 19th century, paleoclimates are inferred from proxy variables that include non-biotic evidence such as sediments found in lake beds and ice cores, and biotic evidence such as tree rings and coral. Climate models are mathematical models of past, present and future climates. Climate change may occur over long and short timescales from a variety of factors; recent warming is discussed in global warming."
Wikipedia
A review the above.
1. "weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region." Weather records for the USA started in 1895. Does this mean we have no long time measure of climate change but only changes in the weather? The data being used to support the theory of man caused climate change is short term in relationship to age of the planet. The question then becomes are we measuring climate change or weather changes.
2, "The climate of a location is affected by its latitude, terrain, and altitude, as well as nearby water bodies and their currents." What a minute! No actions of man impacting climate?
3. "The most commonly used classification scheme was originally developed by Wladimir Köppen. The Thornthwaite system, in use since 1948" is what is used today. 1948 is less than 70 years ago, shouldn't the measurements of 1948 be the baseline for evaluating climate change? Is 70 years long enough to differentiate between weather and climate?
4. "Since direct observations of climate are NOT available before the 19th century, paleoclimates are inferred from PROXY variables that include non-biotic evidence such as sediments found in lake beds and ice cores, and biotic evidence such as tree rings and coral. Climate MODELS are mathematical models of past, present and future climates."
MODELS based on INFERRED variables. Am I the only person who is skeptical of using MODELS and INFERRED variables to guide our economic policy and future? Surely opened minded people would recognize the danger in doing so, unless the desired economic policy is one that fits their political agenda.
One of the claims supporters of the man causing GM/climate change theory is that 97% of scientists believe the theory is fact.
Did anyone ever ask 97 percent of the world’s scientists?
Could you supply the list of scientists who make up that 97%?
Who asked the worlds scientists?
When were the world scientist asked?
How were the world scientists asked?
Did you believe if you liked your health insurance, you could keep it?
Did you believe if you liked your DR, you could keep him/her?
Just trying to determine who the fool is and who isn't.
I remain a man caused GW/climate change agnostic.
Keep those "Abusive ad hominems" coming, they only weaken your argument.
“CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere”
Since this was found in Chuckie's link we accept his admission of the reality of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Chuckie's cult tells him there are no greenhouse gasses, or they have no effect when exacerbated to historic levels.
Chuckie and his ilk see no disconnect in their anti-science faith.
Ad hominem attack is unnecessary. They define their hypocrisy, and narrow minded ignorance more than adequately by their own words.
Right Chuckie?
As the Right’s blogger climate “experts” prattle on about computer models they refuse to understand and their other selective bits of ignorance, what do they say about Worldwide glacier retreat ?
I guess they just close their eyes and cover their ears as they whine about Benghazi being worse than the war on Iraq. Say didn’t the leader of the Benghazi attack corroborate Susan Rice?
Why no apology from the radical Right? What about that video, Chuckie? Tell us what you know that the attacker and Rice didn’t know. LOL!
It’s about character, right?
Just trying to determine who the fool is and who isn't.
Good. Tell us about those retreating glaciers. What melts ice? Hmmm. Computer models, perhaps? No? Then whatever could cause that?
DD –
Gonna take one more crack at this issue (GW, CC, whatever…), since no one is interested in partisan B.S. (for the life of me I don’t know why Tom devotes so much energy to the topic). Life is too short… Anyway, I digress…
First, I am NOT in any way predisposed or ideologically bound to a mindset of “business good, government bad”. Frankly, I think both power structures are flawed, do some good, do some harm. And, I can think of instances where we’d likely agree – (e.g. - genetically modified foods and the takeover of our food supply by large corps… disaster in the making in my opinion… I am very disturbed and concerned). So, I don’t come to the global warming issue with any predisposition regarding the outcome, though both “sides” do pour lots of money into research that bolsters their position. And, I feel both gov’t and business DO hold to positions that are tangential to whether the claim is true, and seek to make the “science” support. And, I don’t claim that man-caused GW/CC could not be the case – it’s not impossible. But, I find it improbable based on my study of the topic, and I am VERY skeptical that they have proved it – not even close - in fact, I see problems in their methods all along the way. If they had, I’d be calling for man-made CO2 reduction as much as the next guy.
So, I am 100% above board when I say I come to this as a person who does have a background in science (chemistry & physics) at the university level. And, my career as an engineer is science-based. And, though I certainly don’t have specific expertise in climatology, all it is is a targeted application of chemistry and physics. So, I feel I do have the ability to look at the evidence and make perhaps a better judgment than the average American. And, I certainly don’t appeal to “Rush”. The only Rush I listen to involves one of the most musically talented trios in rock history (seen them twice).
To clarify a fine point, man-made CO2 is indeed a small % of the total GHG inventory in the atmosphere. That’s all I was saying and it is a bullet-proof fact, I assure you. I know there are theories of it acting in such a way as to cause a feedback loop of CO2/Temperature influencing the predominant GHG (water vapor). OK.
One of the biggest areas I could lead you to is the problems involved in the much heralded and touted ice core research. I would suggest you read from the late Zbigniew Jaworoski as an example of someone who is not in agreement with the “consensus” – purely on a scientific basis. Certainly a man of science and pedigree. And there are others like them, but their voices are squelched, although you may not believe that. So be it. Though, for the life of me, has not history taught you that the loudest voices aren’t always right? Especially when it comes to affairs of science and affairs of power structures? I’d assume you’d be a bit more skeptical, especially when something so enormously complex as climate is presented as matter-of-fact and cut-and-dried as it is.
Harley,
We also agree only one Rush is worth listening to. I love power trios. (I include the WHO and Led Zeppelin, singers don't count.)
Here's the funny thing. Climate change is an issue where I wish I were wrong. I would be happy to deny such a possibility.
I cannot. I admit I really can't support or deny the accuracy of computer models and future predictions. That is for the experts. And I would trust a 97% scientific over 3% as any rational person would. I agree paranoia and politics enters the scene from both perspectives.
But I do care about what is happening now, and must allow for what is clearly observable.
Glaciers are disappearing, permafrost is thawing, Arctic coastline is eroding, atmospheric greenhouse gasses are increasing, and ocean temperatures are rising. Credible and peer-reviewed sources inform us of these facts.
If contrary proof can be shown, I would welcome it. $10.000 cannot seem to buy it. Since I wish I was wrong about this, convincing me should be easy.
As I have said at least twice, when it comes to believing GW/climate change is the result of actions done by mankind, I'm an agnostic. Show me the science!
I want the results of using the scientific method to prove it is fact, not theory. What I find interesting is even such an open minded approach to the subject as mine, is reacted to with the same fervor as Islamic fundamentalists bring offered a pork chop. Outrage and Ad hominems.
As far as the 97% of scientists claim, I would be more than happy to accept that number if it could be supported with answers to my questions that should be not only readily available, but be demanded by those with inquiring minds
Who asked the worlds scientists?
When were the world scientist asked?
How were the world scientists asked?
Who are the 97% of scientists?
As far as glaciers shrinking, the link provided is over 9 years old. Which brings up my question, that no one has yet to address, the retreat and shrinking of the worlds glaciers happened at the end of the ICE AGE. What role did mankind have in that climate change? What role did mankind play in the climate change that gave the planet the ICE AGE?
It simply amazes me that disagreeing with man caused GW/climate change theorists is reacted to with such a high degree of vitriol, anger and hate. One would think I had called their mother a name.
"After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.
The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower, warmer elevations.
2008
"The Associated Press reported that the climate panel’s report erroneously suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. The actual data indicated that this event would not occur until 2350 – which was apparently transposed as 2035.
The climate data available to date does not demonstrate that any catastrophic melting has taken place or is about to occur. Instead, it shows that the melting of glaciers began SLOWING around 1950.
A study published by The Cryosphere, website of the National Snow & Ice Data Center, found that glacier melting occurred more rapidly from 1900 to 1950 than during the second half of the 20th century. This conflicts with global-warming theory, which holds that increased emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide would warm the planet and cause glaciers to melt more quickly and dangerously.
In September, The Washington Post reported that the most recent data show that Antarctic Sea ice “has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year.”
Bavarian Public Television reported last month that permafrost, the soil or rock that remains frozen for more than two consecutive years, in the Alps shows no indication of warming. German meteorologist Dominik Jung wrote in The Huffington Post that Austrian weather data from the Alps shows that winters there have become much colder during the past two decades.
A few years ago, climatologists counseled businesses in the Alps to cut their investments in skiing and other winter sport facilities because rising temperatures would render these products obsolete. Now, according to Jung, local residents want to know what happened to the warming they had been promised.
Athumani Juma, a guide and a veteran hiker at Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, laughed when questioned by a reporter in 2012 about the likelihood that the mountain’s snowcap would soon disappear. He told McClatchy News that glaciers there had stopped shrinking and started growing two years earlier.
5/2014
As Chuckie pretends to be a victim here, he will ignore the courtesy of my showing him some information.
Typical. But for those with any curiosity:
97% source from NASA:
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Not that the end of the last Ice age has anything to do with today’s pollution levels:
Ice cores from both Antarctica and Greenland show that the last ice age started to become milder 19.000 years ago, completely in accordance with increased solar radiation from the earth’s favourable orientation in its orbit around the sun.
http://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/
Chuckie claims without evidence:
Instead, it shows that the melting of glaciers began SLOWING around 1950. A study published by The Cryosphere, website of the National Snow & Ice Data Center, found that glacier melting occurred more rapidly from 1900 to 1950 than during the second half of the 20th century.
Show us proof of this claim. None cited.
Tell us about the photographic record being wrong as shown at The Cryosphere, website of the National Snow & Ice Data Center. (Chuckie never reads linked items, does he?)
Most glaciers around the world have retreated at unprecedented rates over the last century. These pairs of photographs can provide striking visual evidence of climate change.
http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/index.html
Has German meteorologist Dominik Jung explained why retreating Alps glaciers revealed bodies of the “iceman” and WWI soldiers?
Alpine glacier, unchanged for thousands of years, now melting: New ice cores suggest Alps have been strongly warming since 1980s
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131211132447.htm
Show us “Juma’s” measurements of Kilimanjaro ice, please. This claim is also empty without documented evidence.
Recent local weather is not a good argument against global warming/climate change.
I want to believe you guys, really. You’re not easing my concerns.
Congratulations to Pam Harris for standing up to the union goons and their allies, the despicable, liberty hating, anti-American DemocRats!
If AmeriKa's smartest prison guard Dave Dubya says man made global warming exists, then it must!
Just ignore the fudged East Anglica Hockey stick data!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/11/974986/-ExxonMobil-Linked-to-9-of-Top-10-Climate-Skeptics
This article kicks some GW deniers ass!
Big Oil is starting to spend some serious money to attack renewable energy also. And it is paying off, some Red state governors have eliminated funding for all wind and solar projects.
James Hansen,
Daily Koz is using the most disturbing form of Ad hominem, Guilt by association.
And I really thought you were above that.
Your statement clearly points out how Liberals and Conservatives look at reality from different viewpoints.
When a scientist or a group of people take money from an oil company they automatically become spokesmen for the oil company.
When the money comes in, objectivity and integrity go out the window. They are accepting payment to deliver pro oil propaganda 100 percent of the time. If they did not the money would stop immediately.
Thad Cochran's staff must have figured out that KFC coupons would get the needed votes.
So, James, your reaction to Zbigniew Jaworowski's opinions?
Ice core data is HIGHLY suspicious as he clearly lays out. And what is interesting is he details problems that I recognized on the surface when I first heard they were attempting to correlate centuries old gas bubble compositions to atmospheric gas compositions. A preposterous undertaking for anyone who understands the many problems associated with such a correlation. Not to mention the fact that there is science on record that would indicated it is NOT a valid correlation. It is a fool's errand at worst, highly suspect at best.
"When a scientist or a group of people take money from an oil company they automatically become spokesmen for the oil company.
When the money comes in, objectivity and integrity go out the window."
James, does that apply to any agency providing funding for research or just for oil companies?
Are the vast majority of funding sources for "good" climate change science (i.e. - studies that support man-caused climate change), then, perfectly unbiased? That is what is implied by your post...
I'm guessing the "good science" would be the peer reviewed science.
Thus the inclination to believe in a conspiracy of climate scientists by the Right. And then there's the lack of peer review required by corporate PR. Is Jaworowski's study peer-reviewed? I can't find it.
This makes it difficult for me to trust the conspiracy believers and corporate PR that shares the same view.
I don't understand how human generated CO2 levels that push us into record amounts in the atmosphere cannot have any warming effects. More greenhouse gas means more greenhouse effect. Logical or illogical?
I want to believe the deniers, but there's just to much observable evidence of global warming, like the Cryosphere photographic record of glaciers. Local effects of a cold winter do not change the big picture, right?
If it is possible that human pollution has a significant share of the blame, then we should both study it, acknowledge it, and take efforts to correct it.
Simple politically motivated denial will accomplish either nothing, or lead to catastrophic consequences.
But at least oily CEO's will get richer, and that is all that really matters to the sources paying the deniers.
The Takers in our society have been pampered and the Makers mocked. Americans have spent far too much time, money and stuff on the barbarians and the lax while not giving a hand up to hard working minorities and part of the underclass which wants to become good solid citizens. Dems have used these people, the Takers, along with white guilt to bring us all down fiscally, morally and culturally. Govt has made a huge mess of America especially as an example of the last 6 years of socialist transformation.
The Takers in our society have been pampered and the Makers mocked.
Just like the Jews and "Good Germans", right, Chuckie Thompson?
I suppose fascism is easy to embrace when one is ignorant enough to spew about "6 years of socialist transformation".
It would be amazing that a lone president can accomplish this. But not to a paranoid and hateful neo-fascist cult like the RRBC.
CHuckie thinks the poor are too rich and the rich are too poor. Chuckie forgets the rich are doing BETTER THAN EVER. Meanwhile the middle class and poor are taking a hit.
That must be the "6 years of socialist transformation" he's babbling about. LOL!
"But at least oily CEO's will get richer, and that is all that really matters to the sources paying the deniers?"
Fact or opinion?
"More greenhouse gas means more greenhouse effect. Logical or illogical?"
I would submit the question should be what science is there to support the claim that man produced CO2 is the source G/W? Did man have anything to do with the end of the ice age? There must have been GW/climate change to have ended and in fact, start the ice age. What role did man have with both?
Which country's are currently the largest producer of CO2?
What action can the UN and our EPA do to cause those nations to reduce their CO2 production? Do these large producers of CO2 believe that man is the source of GW/climate change, or are they deniers? Are these countries being run by big business?
The turning of the GW question into an issue of class warfare IE "oily CEO's" really detracts from the seriousness of the question that if found to be true, the solutions that will be needed. The question of GW is no longer just a question for the western industrialized nations, it is one that China and India need to be held accountable as well. Are none of the 97% of scientists (whose names will never be known) from China? Are they all in the pocket of the Chinese govt?
Here's a question I would think the GW proponents should answer. When Iraq's set afire the oil fields in Kuwait, did the smoke cause a spike in our planets average temperature or a decline? Did the measurable CO2 gas levels go up or down afterwards? What was the world wide impact of these fires, other than to drive the cost of a barrel of oil up?
I'm a man causing GW agnostic. If I can be interested in the answers to these questions, surely others would be as well.
Did anyone believe this promise in 2008?
"“But this is the part of the whole theory of George Bush, that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not gonna use signing statements as doing an end run around congress”
Does anyone believe GWB was wrong in doing what he was accused of doing?
Does anyone still believe our President should stand by his promise of 2008?
"More greenhouse gas means more greenhouse effect. Logical or illogical?"
I would submit the question should be what science is there to support the claim that man produced CO2 is the source G/W?
Chicken Chuckie asks what has already been documented, while he runs from the simplest of questions.
Bwaack!!!
For once, and only once, I really wish Chuckie is right and I am wrong.
But somehow my faith in Chuckie and his oily corporate masters lags behind my respect for NASA, the observable physical evidence, and the vast consensus of peer-reviewed science.
I want to believe Chuckie, but how can I trust him when he won't even address a very pertinent and important question?
Maybe he'd like to change the subject back to Benghazi. I seem to remember Chuckie being very derisive and upset over a claim about a video. I'm sure he's eager to apologize for his angry and hateful condemnation of Susan Rice, now that she's been corroborated by the leader of the attack.
After all it's about character, right?
"now that she's been corroborated by the leader of the attack."
Careful, you might have to eat those words.
Better read the indictment Obama's DOJ issued today against this suspect. Not once is the movie listed as a reason for the attack. In fact, the OBAMA DOJ is claiming the suspect conspired with unnamed others before the attack.
Hard to believe the attack was a spontaneous response to an internet move trailer if one is believe what the Obama DOJ is charging.
Let us know what you think of the Obama DOJ indictment.
Did anyone believe this promise in 2008?
"But this is the part of the whole theory of George Bush, that he can make laws as he goes along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not gonna use signing statements as doing an end run around congress”
The People of AmeriKa have spoken and the man who made the above comment from his teleprompter has been rated the worst President since WWII. Jimmy Carter is jumping for joy! Lets just hope the Liberal Fascists running Washington do not try to shut down Quinnipiac University due to a northern spotted owl being seen on campus.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056
July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better.
President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today. Another 28 percent pick President George W. Bush.
Ronald Reagan is the best president since WWII, 35 percent of voters say, with 18 percent for Bill Clinton, 15 percent for John F. Kennedy and 8 percent for Obama, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Among Democrats, 34 percent say Clinton is the best president, with 18 percent each for Obama and Kennedy.
Harley, I was wondering when you would be joining in the festivities.
I looked up Zbigniew Jaworowski but the papers I read were written in 1990 to 1994, that is a long time ago at the pace science moves nowadays. I believe some or most of his criticisms, such as CO2 contamination issues at the Mouna Loa lab have long been rectified. I would have to do more reading to see if his ice core opinions is still current or have they also fallen bu the wayside.
Chuckie forgot to clear something up for us...
"More greenhouse gas means more greenhouse effect. Logical or illogical?"
How can anyone convert to his side if he can't answer? How is this not an important question?
Run, Chicken Chuckie, run!
Ahmed Abu Khattala Capture May Shed Light on Benghazi Attack
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy’s walls — images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
Keep up the hate and delusions, as the kangaroo court in the House wastes more tax dollars. But it's always OK if Republicans do it. Just like war. Great idea, but only from a Republican.
How much is the bill for Iraq going to be now that Bush's war for crony profit and political capital has resulted in ISIS?
What do you bet the same crew who think Saddam had aluminum tubes for his "nukular" program and was pals with al-Qaeda, also deny greenhouse gases and their effects?
Glug, glug goes their bottomless pitcher of neo-fascist koolade.
The Takers in our society have been pampered and the Makers mocked.
Just like the Jews and "Good Germans", right, Chuckie Thompson?
And his "6 years of socialist transformation" gem of hateful delsion. Chuckie thinks the poor are too rich and the rich are too poor. Chuckie forgets the rich are doing BETTER THAN EVER. Meanwhile the middle class and poor are taking a hit.
That must be the "6 years of socialist transformation" he's babbling about. LOL!
What. A. Frickin'. Cult.
"May Shed Light" Apparently the Obama JOD doesn't agree with that.
Post a Comment
<< Home