Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
Open thread
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted May 25, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
178 Comments
What are you folks in Wichita doing for the long weekend? Are you going to the lake? Staying home and BBQ? Going to an amusement park? Lots of folks here head to Orlando but the traffic down there is horrible and I don’t mess with it so we will stay at home and the kids will go to Six Flags this year. I hope all of you wonderful people (yes even you Republicans) have a nice holiday!
Thanks Kev!
We’re going to spend the weekend at a herding clinic near St Louis. I’m sitting in an RV park near a little farm now. After breakfast we’ll go over and help set out sheep.
Nice quiet weekend with my dogs and friends. Hope everyone has a great holiday!
Hank
We were planning a motorcycle trip this weekend, but it doesn’t look like the weather is going to cooperate. My lovely wife wants to see Pirates, so we’ll probably do that. Otherwise, I have “honey-do” projects.
Hank, tell Sampson the wonder dog I said best of luck.
Hey XXX,
Samson says thanks! He’s doing fine. It’s Boo Bear the pup that needs the luck! What a clean slate!
It’s going to be a long weekend, you might get that ride in yet.
We’re waiting for our ride to the farm right now. Supposedly I’m unable to get the motor home in there.
“honey-do” projects! I’m glad you’ve got some adult supervision in your life! Tell her hi for us!
Hank
I think I will just go and donate to the poor indians up in Topeka.
$17 Billion: The Price of Democratic (Party) Values
Adam HobsonNewsvine
“In November of 2006, the Democrats achieved a sweeping victory of the midterm elections, winning back both the House and Senate on a platform of ethics and ending the Iraq war. Several months into power and the Democrats have already abandoned those two values and have traded an end to the Iraq War for $17 billion in earmarks and pork.
In last year’s election, the American people found themselves tired of a Republican Party that saw two Representatives sent to jail, connections to dirty lobbyists like Jack Abramoff, and numerous others investigated for various misdeeds. The voters had also grown weary of an Iraq War with no end in sight.
Democratic strategists wisely centered their campaigns on those very issues, downplaying William Jefferson and Harry Reid’s numerous land deals as well as turning Senator Clinton’s war position as ambiguous as possible. The Democrats were going to turn Washington around and run the most ethically sound Congress ever. Or so they claimed…
Instead many of the rookie Democrats who actually do want to clean up Washington are finding it hard to get any changes past the many veterans throughout Congress who are more than content with the extra power and luxuries afforded by lax ethics rules.
The Senate was able to pass new laws doubling the ban on lawmakers from lobbying for one year after leaving office and requiring lobbyists to disclose campaign contributions they collect for politicians. However, neither measure has had much success in the Democrat controlled House.
Even worst, Congress recently voted along party lines to censure Democrat leader John Murtha of Pennsylvania after he threatened Republican Mike Rogers of Wisconsin when Rogers removed pork intended for Murtha’s district. Choosing party over ethics, most Democrats voted against censure.
The coup de grace comes in the form of a $120 billion dollar spending bill for the Iraq War. A bill that comes with no time line for withdrawal from Iraq, a major defeat for anti-War Democrats. However, what the bill does contain, and what makes the bill palatable for many in the Democratic leadership is $17 billion of additional funds not requested by the President. This $17 billion contains plenty of earmarks and pork projects to keep many an ethically challenged Congressperson content.
Not all Democrats were eager to settle for their thirty pieces of silver, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin was very critical of this bill and the Democratic surrender, There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action. House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, though instrumental in creating the bill, planned to vote against the measure.
In order to allow Democrats to appear principled, procedural trickery will be used to pass two separate bills in the House, one for the war money without a time line that many Democrats can oppose but that Republicans should support, and a second bill containing the pork and earmarks as well as a minimum wage increase that should gain the support of most, if not all, of the Democrats while being opposed by the GOP. The two bills will then be combined in the Senate to disincentive President Bush from vetoing the Democratic friendly pork.
With the refusal of the Democrats to clean up Congress or even attempt to stop the Iraq War, and Congressional approval levels at lower levels than even President Bush’s, the Democrats may find themselves out of power again by as early as 2008. But if the Republicans do find themselves victorious in 2008, will the GOP have learned their lessons from 2006, or will the entire cycle just repeat itself once more, continually trading corrupt party for corrupt party…”
We are going to Tulsa, oklahoma this weekend. Today is our 33rdwedding anniversary, so off we go!
Congrats, LJ!
Thanks Tom.
Plan to play with grandkids, bbq, hot dogs, etc. A bunch of friends Monday at Sedg County park.
Anniversary NEXT month – 36 – gotta stay ahead of lj! ;^)
Plan to play with grandkids, bbq, hot dogs, etc. A bunch of friends Monday at Sedg County park.
Anniversary NEXT month – 36 – gotta stay ahead of lj! ;^)
I usually go the graves of my relatives on Memorial day to clean up their gravemarkers a bit and put out fresh flowers.
I then write a few letters to my friends I met in the Military, updating them on what is going on with my life and exchange some photos. Unfortunately, there a few less letters to write, as some of the older generations have passed on.
Gosh LJ, you got married the same year I graduated from high school. I guess that make both of us old timers these days?
Congrats to both you and Ben.
Glad to know my partner and I didnt damage your marriages…
LOL KFG!
LOL KFG!
Death to EarmarksBy Sean Aqui | Related entries in General, Money, General PoliticsYou want a Congressional achievement? Here’s one.The spending bill passed by the Senate on Wednesday contains not one shred of new pork. And the bill is not accompanied by a report, which in the past is how many earmarks found their way into the budget.It’s not that simple, of course. Sen. Tom Coburn charges that the bill still contains between $11 billion and $17 billion in hidden earmarks, and there apparently is a growing campaign to keep funding previous earmarks. And Congress has not yet done away with narrowly targeted tax breaks that by some measures cost up to three times as much as earmarks.But even $17 billion is better than the $64 billion in earmarks that was larded into the budget bills that died with the 109th Congress. That cut dwarfs Bush’s call to cut the number and value of earmarks in half. And while keeping previous earmarks alive is odious, at least Congress isn’t adding more to the pile.Even better, the White House is doing more than talking about earmark reform. The Office of Management and Budget has ordered federal agencies to ignore earmarks that are not written into law. That would appear, in one fell swoop, to solve the problem of hiding earmarks in reports, as well as eliminating the pressure to keep funding previous years’ earmarks.A previous OMB memo carefully defined earmarks and made rules for cataloging them, making them that much harder to hide.Both are moves the administration could have made any time in the past six years, so let’s mute the applause a little bit. And it’s executive branch policy, not law, so it’s rescindable at any time. But give credit where credit is due: it’s a powerful and practical move that plugs the holes in Congress’ earmark rules. I’ll take this sort of hypocrisy any day.
“Turning State and Local authority over to the Feds is a long and scary road, and one our Founding Father’s were smart enough to provide protections against.
Isn’t it just like the libbies to try and undermine all our Founders stood for?
Posted by: GSheridan | May 25, 2007 at 07:53 AM
“What would be next if we based all of our decisions on popularity rather than principled decisions of our founding fathers?
Posted by: Republican | May 25, 2007 at 07:45 AM
Is disagreement with the government ALWAYS pissing in the ears of the founding fathers?
Only in the land of wingnuttia, where disagreement with dear leader equals hatred of the founding fathers…
Or is this just the wingnut/republican meme of the day?
“……where disagreement with dear leader equals hatred of the founding fathers…”
They’re desire to abolish freedom of speech is just like ahh ahhh hmm let me think Communists?
If the weather is good, thinking about going to the Zoo. I’m sure it’s going to be busy with the new penguin exhibit.
Interesting post, Republican, especially the last line about:
“…continually trading corrupt party for corrupt party…”
Your post is proof once again that corruption and pork barrel politics is not limited to any particular party.
NEW RULE: REPUBLICAN AND HIS MANY NICS NO LONGER EXISTS ON THIS WEB.
He’s been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a liar who conjures up personal experiences out of whole cloth, nic-switches, cuts and pastes selectively to make people sound bad, plagiarizes and lies about it.
He’s just an all-around jerk.
From now on, he’s a scroll-over.
And I encourage those of us who value informed discourse to do the same.
Jeez Capn, I was just starting to give him the “Deluxe Tripple X Treatment”. Does that mean you want me to stop? I have a really sick agenda planned for him. And you know how twisted I can be when I set my mind to it.
Uh oh…
Republican must have pushed all the right buttons yesterday.
You realize, that I have been accused of the exact same things. It was because of the typical over reaction by many of you on the left here.
What did Republican do which was so bad so I don’t have to scroll through all the posts yesterday?
Capn is out of contol and blinded by his own myopia. On another thread, he accuses a couple of us of “circling the wagons” in defense, when he and his fellow fisters have done the exact same thing. Yet, it is perfectly fine for him.
Capn needs a reality check. He is not empowered to make rules. He is making accusations based without any substance. He attacks anyone who disagrees with him, as if is it a crime to DARE to have a different opinion than him.
Maybe it would help if he cut back on coffee?
Capn is out of contol and blinded by his own myopia. On another thread, he accuses a couple of us of “circling the wagons” in defense, when he and his fellow fisters have done the exact same thing. Yet, it is perfectly fine for him.
Capn needs a reality check. He is not empowered to make rules. He is making accusations based without any substance. He attacks anyone who disagrees with him, as if is it a crime to DARE to have a different opinion than him.
Maybe it would help if he cut back on coffee?
XXX–
Posting is really laggy on my end today.
Hope this isn’t a dupe.
Feel free to take Republican to task any way you want to.
I feel I’ve wasted too much time on this inDUHvidual. It’s obvious what kind of person he is . . . my work is done.
*****
Here’s something pretty funny from Wonkette.
Members of Free Republic, the beloved wingnut online forum, have a message today for George W. Bush and his great new immigration plan for The Mexicans. They’ve got lots of messages, actually.
“We need to have a vote of ‘no confidence’ on Bush,” wrote one commenter. “He just spoke and looked so proud of himself. He couldn’t wipe that crappy grin off his face.”
After the jump, we’ll hear from some of the other hundreds of furious “freepers” who just figured out George W. Bush could give a shit what they think.
dEPORT tHE pRESIDENT aND cLOSE tHE bORDERS.We still have Tancredo, Hunter and Fred Thompson on our side. This bill wont go anywhere when our representatives start receiving our faxes
The rule of law has just been thrown out the window. I agree that impeachment is in order.And the SELL OUT of the AMERICAN people begins!
Bring my Step-Son home from Iraq now El Presedente. You don’t deserve his service.
Bush blasphemy! Shameful leader!I’m done with him on this and many other issues. I’ll never vote for him again. Illegal invaders are going to kill us all.
“BUSH SUCKS” And the leftists blogs are now PROUD of this fool! What a dichotomy.
I just said the same thing to my husband – my nephew has been ordered back for the second time after being home for only 10 months. I want them home now, why fight and die for this country of Mexico. I just can’t believe I worked so hard to get this man elected not once but twice. NEVER AGAIN – no more money and no more volunteer hours for the grand ole GOP
His brother Bill was the first black president, now we have the first Hispanic president.
The conservative movement has now been set adrift….like so much jetsam. Our champion has become our betrayer, IMHO.
My husband just recently retired and we where planning on going back to Texas but we are now seriously considering Australia. It looks better and better each minute. Our kids want to leave also !!! And you are right, we have been betrayed.
An thus the united States of America is being sold out by those that claim to love her. May they rot before they die. I see the end of my great nation, the shining star in a morass of mediocre to outright scum countries.
This is what happens when you kill 40 million unborn US citizens.
I pray he gets IMPEACHED. This is a dark day in America.
I have long thought that BJBilly was the worst president in history, now I am not so sure………..At least Clinton stuck to BJs instead of trying to f*ck the entire country, like Jorge.
Look this is what it all boils down to, these people in Washington are no different than the celebrities in hollyweird, they do not respect the rule of law or the ten commandments. These people feel they are above the law and can do as they please. And that means they can turn the United States into a third world country.
Right now these Washington jackasses are NOT paying attention to Iran because they are too busy making life easier for the RICH in MEXICO.
The invasion of the United States by the criminal army of Aztlan is complete.
Sorry about the double posts..something is funky with my connection…
Nathan,
You’re confusing correlation with causation. You always accuse everyone with a certain discussion style as being on the left. In fact it is the discussion style that’s the issue, not the “handedness” of the person’s politics.
Let me try to explain. It is always appropriate to cite evidence or research to support one’s position on matters under discussion. In papers, there are always footnotes and/or endnotes directing the reader to sources. The same is or should be true for any activity where information is being presented for review/action.
In addition, it is always appropriate and expected to provide references when they are asked for. The idea is to learn from what other people have done so that one might form a rational, coherent, position. Further, it allows one to change one’s mind in the face of new evidence. Changing one’s mind in the face of overwhelming evidence is no sin. The sin is NOT changing your min in the face of the evidence….commonly referred to as cognitive dissonance.
Many of us here try to abide by the above guidelines. We try to take in peer-reviewed as well as non-peer-reviewed information on a subject, regardless of the conclusions drawn by the authors. We check the references to make sure they are legit and that we’ve seen them.
There seems to be some opinion here that there is always a vast conspiracy of people when the evidence doesn’t agree with their opinions. I can assure you this is NOT the case. Scientists, for example, are motivate3d by the highest ideals of honesty and integrity, but they also look for fame and recognition. You don’t achieve fame and recognition by following the herd; you achieve it by bucking the established orthodoxy and PROVING you’re right. EVERY example of a major breakthrough has occurred in this way: Newtonian gravitation, common descent, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics and on and on and on. Therefore, researchers LOOK to be different. If they can prove something that challenges the accepted orthodoxy, then their reputation is established. If you find the majority of researchers at a given time supporting a given position, then you can be sure that there is no other good explanation at that point in time. That’s not to say there is not a better explanation…it just hasn’t been found or proved to the satisfaction of the research community.
When people here ask for references or sources, this is an attempt to learn. It isn’t throwing down the gauntlet. However, those who you see as being “attacked” here do not follow the above established conventions for rational discussion. I personally don’t care if you’re on the “right” or on the “left” so long as I can review the basis for your opinions.
It happens that more people you classify as being on the “left” follow these conventions, while those you classify as being on the “right” often don’t follow these conventions. Republican is one example. You should recognize this and distinguish “left” and “right” from “opinion based on fact” versus just plain old opinion.
Interesting comments today. So BFAH, which Fister are you?
You never answered my question BFAH whether or not you are a Scientist.
So are you a Scientist BFAH or a Op-Ed enthusiast? :)
I have a PhD in chemical engineering, minors in math and physics….yourself?
Really PhD BFAH? Where did you go to school?
Perhaps you could explain to me the fractional Atmospheric partial pressures as applied to CO2 ocean sinks. I can’t seem to get a handle on how to determine what portion of anthropogenic is responsible for warming.
Do you know of such a method to determine this?
According to Cosmos, the oceans are saturated and I need to find out to what percentage of CO2 is natural and what is man-made.
Can you give me those percentages and what methods used?
BFAH
You ignore one other huge motivation for scientists – the one which counts the most.
Keeping the grant dollars flowing.
Researchers who buck the accepted line don’t get grant dollars. Their peers, who’s own research (and thus prestige, grants, etc. are on the line) may well be challenged, may not favorably review their work.
So . . . . bucking the accepted ideas costs, too. Towing the party line keeps the grant dollars, favorable peer reviews, etc. flowing.
Let’s not pretend that “scientists” are somehow morally different than anyone else. They’re people, and are fully capable of being just as petty.
“He’s just an all-around jerk.
From now on, he’s a scroll-over.
And I encourage those of us who value informed discourse to do the same.”————
Oh, come on. No one’s a bigger jerk than farmie – and you don’t see me trying to get everyone to ignore her.
Why do you feel the need to try and rally others to fight your battles for you?
I like Republican. He stayed here when you guys turned tail and ran away like crybabies.
You can always try to gather the clouds and do the same thing if you still don’t like it here.
But the rest of us can make our own decisions and we don’t need your insecurities trying to cause problems.
Live and let live, Capn.
If you want to ignore someone – go for it. You don’t need to play the Middle School, I’m-popular-and-you’re-not card.
Do you?
Ah yes, back to condescension and snide comments.
Sure, as soon as you can help me to understand Bearmsn’s statistical mechanical formulation of multicomponent diffusion. I can’t seem to grasp how to calculate the cross-terms.
GMC…
EVERY scientist I know would prefer the Nobel prize of a Fields Medal to a government grant. The time it takes a new researcher to get her/his first NSF grant is now about 12 years. You think that’s a big motivator? You think these grants are just given out without withering review? You think all research is government funded? What about industrial research? Paul Flory opened up the whole field of the statistics of phase transitions because he was trying to come up with a model for how rubber polymerizes. Based on this work, P.G. deGennes won a Nobel prize in physics.
GMC,
Are we really supposed to believe that the whole research establishment is in a vast conspiracy to MAKE man-made global warming an issue? Are you saying that an administration opposed to that very idea is impotent to get those with opposing viewpoints funded?
Here’s another example. If one does a literature search over the past 10 years for peer-reviewed papers advancing evolution, or Darwinism, or common descent, you come back with about 190,000 hits.
If you do a similar search for intelligent design or any of it’s other pseudonyms you come back with exactly 1.
Is this a vast conspiracy too?
AND….. they’re OFF!!! Here we go again!!!
Well, it’s a holiday weekend… flowers to take to the cemetery… goodies to get for the grill… doggie treats to buy for the mutts… laundry to do and dishes to wash… no time for Blogger games today… however, I wish I did… gonna be another juicy one, I see… Didnt know you could spell all those words Republican…
By the way, you ignored BFAH’s question as to what YOUR degrees are… by implying that you question his PhD, etc.
Oops my bad -
I would have thought a PhD in Chemical Engineering would have a idea on permeability studies when applied to pressure gradients for hydraulic conductivity and absorption.
I surmise that isotopic tracers could be utilized to establish forcing values in atmospheric columns extending from said bodies of water and along with combining momentum transfer of these gradients would be akin to parallel transport mechanisms.
But since neither you or IPCC can explain this mechanism in precise terms, I guess there remains a huge hole of knowledge/doubt about what percentage of anthropogenic CO2 is accounted for in Ocean sinks.
Now that we have determined that there is no basis that IPCC can determine how they conclude ocean absorption can’t really be assign to a specific percentage of anthropogenic CO2, let’s move on to the next anthropogenic GW myth.
What would you like to discuss PhD BFAH?
“EVERY scientist I know would prefer the Nobel prize of a Fields Medal to a government grant.”———–
Um…..I don’t think so.
Many grants are awarded annually.
What is YOUR degree in Repub?? See, you are doing it again… Ignoring a request for information that you Demand from others…
Spell it out fat boy…
“AND….. they’re OFF!!! Here we go again!!!”——
Well, at least you didn’t start it this time like you have been doing.
That’s good.
“Spell it out fat boy…”
————
Oh dear, I spoke too soon. Starting that old name-calling pretty early in the day, aren’t you?
Don’t make us call you the Sinister Minister.
Sounds great coming from you GS. People that live in glass houses……yada yada yada.
Sheridan,
How special.
Repub — BTW, one of your article citations yesterday answered each one of the questions you are “asking” today…
Go read those again, and you will find the answers…
Anybody ever notice how FAST GS jumps to Repub’s defense when he is called out by somebody?? And boy howdy, GS can sure come up with the name calling, but doesnt want anybody else to do the same… Go stuff it GS!!!
BFAH
I made no comments about global warming. I’ve avoided the “all warming, all the time threads,” the endless blather between cosmos and Republican, and I’m not gonna dive in now.
I simply point out that scientists have no moral claim to any higher ground than anyone else, and that financial considerations play a part; I think a larger part than you want to admit. WHERE those dollars flow from is less relevent than THAT the dollars for research flow.
Scientists are people, not angels. Nothing more, nothing less.
Actually no Chas, as PhD BFAH pointed out, the equations for solving such a thing doesn’t really exist. There are holes in current theories to explain in exact terms on how to determine consistently the amount of anthropogenic gases in atmospheric columns.
Unless that is, Chas, you can point out which mathematical model can be used to determine such.
This is quite crucial for the Anthropogenic GW supporters, because if they cannot determine the precise percentage of CO2 above the largest cycler of greenhouse gases (the ocean), then their subsequent theories fall like a line of dominoes.
You can be a hero Chas, and explain how to determine these percentages in a precise manner. No other scientist has been able to do so.
“pressure gradients for hydraulic conductivity and absorption.”
Um, what does this have to do with anything, repub?? Hydraulics refers to viscous flow…you know, the Navier-Stokes equations, boundary layer theory, shock fronts and the like. It has nothing to do with conductivity, assuming you mean, of course, electrical conductivity…in which case you would be referring to the dissociated ionic species in the water..you know, cations, and anions.
Absorption refers to, well, the uptake of a material in one phase by another. I assume, you mean in this case, CO2 being absorbed by sea water. Of course, CO2 reacts with some of the ionic species already in seawater. I assume that this is somehow related to your obtuse reference to conductivity.
Simeple question, Republican. What is the Henry’s law constant for CO2/water at STP?
You can be sure that when someone tries to couch a response in such a way that it obscures rather than explains or clarifies, that the speaker/writer is full of it and himself.
Republican,
“According to Cosmos, the oceans are saturated …”
Thank you for again LYING about what I said, and the issue. Republican again proves that he has zero credibility.
This is what I posted. Note the ‘headline’.—”Ooops! Happening earlier than scientists expected!
‘Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2′http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11876-southern-ocean-already-losing-ability-to-absorb-cosub2sub.html “Corinne Le Quéré at the University of East Anglia in the UK, and colleagues say their study suggests that climate feedback loops – whereby more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming which in turn releases even more CO2 from the oceans – are happening between 20 and 40 years before they were expected.” “
Well, since I am not a scientist, anymore than YOU are, I guess neither one of us is a candidate for that option… and since neither one of us is a scientist, I guess that ALSO means that YOU have no foundation to prove BFAH to be WRONG… So, why not get back to the holiday thing, and just forget it!!
I think repuke has PhD envy.
First he demands credentials, then he administers a little quiz to test it? All without answering about HIS degree?
And he wants to hammer on COSMOS about degrees? hehehehehehehhe!
I think I know BFAH and if I do, his degrees are legit. He has posted them here before.
unlike republican…
Maybe it’s not PhD envy. Maybe it’s degree dysfuncion?
KFGT –
Me thinks Repub’s degree is about 98.4 — a little below normal…
“Maybe it’s degree dysfuncion?”————
Ah – so THAT’S the problem with you.
I wondered.
Hey, you all know what?? I think maybe Repub has another new “nic” I think it might be GS
“Me thinks Repub’s degree is about 98.4 — a little below normal…”
———
And methinks YOURS is 104.3.
Fried egg range.
lol
The soluble concentration of CO2 in water is about 0.034mol/L
This of course would vary with different “atm” variables as applied to the ocean model.
Hey, at least MY eggs are fried… and not poached!!! LOL
Chas – good try, but no cigar.
I’ve never met the guy.
But he has more sense in his little finger than you have in your whole entity.
Cosmos,
You have avoided the question at hand. That is, how to determine what percentage of anthropogenic CO2 exists in atmospheric columns above the oceans.
This is important to your beliefs as it shows that this is extremely difficult to determine as currently Scientists have no clue how to quantify this. They can only guess.
Hey Repub — how long did it take ya to Google that last post?? I mean, we ALL know you dont have that kind of information tucked away in your brain, now dont we??
OMG, now we’re going to play “my degree is bigger than yours”?
I’d say there is too much testosterone in here, but gs is pushing it.
Then again…
You can be sure that when someone tries to couch a response in such a way that it obscures rather than explains or clarifies, that the speaker/writer is full of it and himself.Posted by: BFAH | May 25, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Yeah you sure can.
You can also be reasonably certain that Republican plagiarized what he wrote (based on the handful of times he’s been caught plagiarizing other stuff). It reads as clearly as chocolate pudding because he’s scrambled a few words here and there, but his lack of fundamental understanding stood him in poor stead there.
GS — if you call that sense, then I do believe you are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic… ’nuff said…
Can one hold a degree in sucking the government teat?
hee hee hee Pedant, maybe he secretly makes his living as a speech writer for the preznit?
heheheheeheheheheheheh!!!!!!
Good one XXX!
I dont think you all need me to play the dozens in here so I’ll just mosey on into town.
XXX — not sure, but I bet Repub could google that and find out for ya… LOL
“I’d say there is too much testosterone in here, but gs is pushing it.
Then again…”————-
Then again…what?
GMC70,
Your “funding” logic is backwards, and a flawed ’skeptic’ talking point.
If scientists wanted more funding on the “are humans causing GW” question, they’d raise doubts, NOT form a consensus.
Scientists themselves are the biggest skeptics on issues. They try to disprove theories, etc.
Check out the history of climate research.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm“1977: Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century”
Three decades, and a huge abount of research later, the debate is over. Funding now is going for ‘how soon’, ‘how bad’, mitigation, adaption, etc.
Chas, long enough to find out where I put my CRC Chemistry handbook. I don’t have a Lange’s,never did – always filched the University one.
Heheheehehe XXX, still laughing.
Maybe not in “teat sucking” but perhaps in just plain sucking?
I seem to remember an intern who studied the subject in the white house…
hee hee hee Pedant, maybe he secretly makes his living as a speech writer for the preznit?Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 25, 2007 at 01:06 PM
aHA!
That would sure explain that great >cough< news conference yesterday, the one where Augustus Stupidus regurgitated a bunch of past speeches and tried to sell it as new wisdom.
“Can one hold a degree in sucking the government teat?”————
I believe that’s a title held by Democrats.
“I seem to remember an intern who studied the subject in the white house…”—————
Broaching that topic is antisemitic.
KFG, you know I’m always glad to entertain you!Been away some. Still in the restraunt business? God, I miss your fried chicken!
Well, the dryer alarm is buzzing… way past time for lunch… mutts need food… and dishes are all soaked… yep, the holiday weekend is in full swing!!
Have fun with all your friends Repub!! And GS I am sure you have some family members or friends somewhere that need your remembrance…
And remember — Support our troops… Bring them HOME!!
Republican,
I didn’t avoid the “question at hand”. I pointed out that you LIED about what I said, AND the GW issue.
Maybe Republican cannot post his degree, because it’s the same as JM’s? Industrial Hygiene?
GS, how clever! How original! I bet you’re so bright, your Dad called you “Sun”, lol!
Heheheheh XXX, not only am I frying chicken but I am raising them now too.
I plan on frying MY chickens on July 4. I’ll have some early tomatoes by then too.
I’m sure you will get to sample both at the next meet up. But I have one request.
PLEASE dont tell your new wife that you like my fried chicken better than hers or her mothers. I hate the fights that follow THAT!
“GS, how clever! How original! I bet you’re so bright, your Dad called you “Sun”, lol!”————
Nope, my dad called me Tinkerbell.
Like chas, I gotta go. The public awaits.
Okay Cosmos, if you want to play the blame game so be it.
See, I tried to take Tom’s advice and discuss the issues.
Notice the type of responses I get.
Sorry Tom, I tried – gonna eat some lunch, bbl.
Republican,
How is my accurately pointing out that you lied playing the “blame game”?Are you unable to accept personal responsibilty for your lies?
Maybe Republican cannot post his degree, because it’s the same as JM’s? Industrial Hygiene?Posted by: cosmos | May 25, 2007 at 01:12 PM
LOL
My money’s been on Criminology (probably didn’t get papered, either), but hey IH could be right. You probably have to take an undergrad course in inorganic chemistry, too. It fits.
I have a BS degree.
Gee repub,
That’s the SATURATED value of the solubility at ambient conditions…I asked for the HENRY’S LAW CONSTANT…you know the little temperature and pressure dependent front factor that adjusts for the varying solubility of CO2 with temperature and pressure.
Oh, BTW, that’s the value for PURE CO2 and PURE water. You were giving me crap about experiments which didn’t contain the trace compounds found in the REAL atmosphere and ocean.
How do you account for your using a lab measured value, and then insisting I use “real” values from a “real” system?
I have a BS degree.Posted by: GSheridan | May 25, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Uh, that’s very good, Sheridan. Good girl, Tinkerbell.
Do you need a hug or something?
KFG, She doesn’t cook and we don’t speak to her mother, lol!
back with TV dinner, meatloaf :\
Well BFAH, if you want to change the question after I give the answer at least acknowledge partial credit. :)
Back to the original premise – There is currently no way to determine the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in atmosphere above the oceans with current methods.
So, therein lay the fault of the whole GW Anthropogenic theories. They are using “guesses” as their foundations of science.
If you find facts otherwise, please let me know when this theory was settled and also answer why IPCC listed scientists are not using this method of determination.
GMC,
Of course it matters where the $ comes from. Industrial research is done to make money. It is less concerned with models or theory than it is with results that put $ on the bottom line.
Now, NSF is calling for results oriented reviews..same thing…what did your money DO that helped improve American competitiveness?
In short, I’d say you’re the guy who needs to re-evaluate his position. I’ve been in industry for 20 years now..I’ve published 20 papers, some reasonably highly cited. I’ve never gotten dollar one back for doing the work or developing the model…except for my at-will salary and the satisfaction to know I knew something before anyone else did.
Here is a repost of the ENTIRE post, with the relevant parts italicized.
“pressure gradients for hydraulic conductivity and absorption.”
Um, what does this have to do with anything, repub?? Hydraulics refers to viscous flow…you know, the Navier-Stokes equations, boundary layer theory, shock fronts and the like. It has nothing to do with conductivity, assuming you mean, of course, electrical conductivity…in which case you would be referring to the dissociated ionic species in the water..you know, cations, and anions.
Absorption refers to, well, the uptake of a material in one phase by another. I assume, you mean in this case, CO2 being absorbed by sea water. Of course, CO2 reacts with some of the ionic species already in seawater. I assume that this is somehow related to your obtuse reference to conductivity.
SIMPLE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE HENRY’S LAW CONSTANT FOR CO2/WATER?
You can be sure that when someone tries to couch a response in such a way that it obscures rather than explains or clarifies, that the speaker/writer is full of it and himself.
No change, Repub, you just refuse to answer by obfuscating the answer. So now, please oblige me, and at least give me a source for the Henry’s Law value.
BFAH, I already cited the source:
Chas, long enough to find out where I put my CRC Chemistry handbook. I don’t have a Lange’s,never did – always filched the University one.
Posted by: Republican | May 25, 2007 at 01:08 PM
If you want to examine data that some scientists have tested and measured using CFC’s in determining anthropogenic CO2 uptake, you can read it here. It’s a hard read, many formulas and some data referenced that isn’t available online.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/9/3037
Their conclusion was this for the 2007 study:
Anthropogenic CO2 Uptake by the Ocean Based on the Global Chlorofluorocarbon Data Set
Ben I. McNeil,1* Richard J. Matear,2 Robert M. Key,1 John L. Bullister,3 Jorge L. Sarmiento1
We estimated the oceanic inventory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from 1980 to 1999 using a technique based on the global chlorofluorocarbon data set. Our analysis suggests that the ocean stored 14.8 petagrams of anthropogenic carbon from mid-1980 to mid-1989 and 17.9 petagrams of carbon from mid-1990 to mid-1999, indicating an oceanwide net uptake of 1.6 and 2.0 ± 0.4 petagrams of carbon per year, respectively. Our results provide an upper limit on the solubility-driven anthropogenic CO2 flux into the ocean, and they suggest that most ocean general circulation models are overestimating oceanic anthropogenic CO2 uptake over the past two decades.
1 Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Program, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.2 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Marine Research and the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.3 Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA 98115, USA.
BFAH–
I went against my own rule when I saw such a fat target as Republican actually attempting to answer a question about chemistry.
Yup. Here’s where Republican plagiarised his Henry’s law BS.
Calculate the solubility of CO2 in water at atmospheric conditions if the solubility at 25oC and 1 atm is 0.034 mol/L. The partial pressure of CO2 in air is 0.00030 atm.
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rogerlal/116_s07/chap13lec1.html
He wouldn’t know Henry’s law from Tom or Dick’s or Harry’s law.
Whenever he says anything verifiable, assume it’s either a lie or plagiarized.
This assumption will never let you down with this guy.
Right Angle–
What was that score your son got on the Stanford-Binet test again?
I forget . . .
Posted by: CapnAmerica | May 24, 2007 at 04:43 AM——————————–I could give you any number if you forgot. It is one of the following: 176 182, 190.
Now if you remember tell me which one.
Posted by: Right Angle | May 24, 2007 at 05:44 PM
Pedant,
JM said he took college science classes to get his IH degree — and seemed to believe those classes (decades ago?) made him MORE qualified than the worlds top climate scientists today.
Planning to sleep the weekend… Baby’s been cranky all week long, hard to concentrate at work due to sleep deprivation. The thread on bathroom phobia was entertaining though…
Right Angle-JM-RepubliKhan
Actually, I didn’t forget. I wanted to see if YOU could remember . . . obviously.
It’s none of those.
But now that I’m pretty sure you’re just another Republican nic, you’re ignored too.
Sorry, go play by yourself now.
Although I’m guessing you do entirely too much of that . . .
CapnAmerica,
SORRY BUT IT IS ONE OF THOSE NUUMBERS BUT NOW WE KNOWWHAT YOU ARE. If you didn’t forget what is it. I have proof of what it is. you either don’t remember and are lying when you say you do or you are lying and don’t remember and blowing smoke.
Which is it?
Sorry captin, I TRANSPOSED THE LAST TWO NUMBER ON ONE OF THE NUMBERS, I will give you another chance
It should be obivious.
Right Angle -What year was your child tested with the Stanford Binet – what version was used?
JM said he took college science classes to get his IH degree — and seemed to believe those classes (decades ago?) made him MORE qualified than the worlds top climate scientists today.Posted by: cosmos | May 25, 2007 at 02:20 PM
And I am assuming JM=Republican, sorry.
So I think we’re on the same page now.
And yeah, I’ve noticed that these same guys in their spare time do us all a HUGE favor by acquiring via armchair tons more knowledge than evolutionary biologists (you know, the people who devote an entire career to the study of biology), too.
They’re able to master *both* climatology and molecular biology, in just their SPARE time.
Ahem.
Many years ago when he was tested for the Gifted program, I have noidea of the version. Yes the number is 167. Now we will never know if the captin remembered or not. When he went to High school and took the Wechsler test the number droped. I ask why and the school told us that was as high as the test went.
As one of the professors at the showing of the _Flock of Dodos_ said, there is a reason why it takes 8 years to get a Ph.D. and it is not all just anger managment training.
Republican-Right Angle-JM
When I asked that question, I knew that Republican knew.
I had asked him the same question when he first appeared under that nic some months ago.
He had to “google” it to find out if he had said it or not . . . which is kind of funny since Republican claims to have never been married, no kids etc.
Now it turns out that you are all suspicious and playing games too.
Which would make no sense unless you are really Republican.
Obviously.
But this isn’t even fun anymore.
Your cover is blown. You are what you are.
Everyone who has taken the time–and Lord knows it’s been a waste of time–can see what you are.
Have a nice day, loser.
In 1986 there were norms drawn up that do not include the high numbers you claim. There were some extrapolation tables published by Thorndike.
This resource discusses these facts:
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/sblm.htm
It is noteworthy to me that Right Angle used to post here fairly often, but hasn’t been seen for the longest time and then shows up so suddenly. I do not know if that means anything or not.
Steven Davis,You sound like you are in the education field. Is there more than one version of the Stanford Binet test?
As for the right-wing canard about how much CO2 in seawater is a result of “anthropologic sources” is really an easy one.
It would be the exact same as the percentage of CO2 in the environment created by human activity.
If it’s 5 percent, then it’s 5 percent, etc.
The fact is that natural geological and vegetative processes create CO2 and others absorb it. Volcanos and forest fires create it and trees and grasslands absorb it.
That’s an obvious given.
The problem is that the extra CO2 humans liberate by burning coal and gasoline–even though it’s a small percentage of the total–has a big impact.
Two tons of sand on each end of a steel beam can be in perfect balance over a fulcrum. Throw a silver dollar on one end, and the whole thing crashes heavily down.
The silver dollar is a tiny percentage of the total weight (on the order of 1 ten-thousandth of the total), but it’s enough to tip the balance.
A blanket you throw over yourself on a cool evening in bed is a small percentage of your total body weight, but it raises the temperature of the air contacting your skin dramatically.
While Republican is nit-picking, and demanding “precise” #’s re ocean CO2, one important region, the’Southern Ocean [is] already losing ability to absorb CO2′http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11876-southern-ocean-already-losing-ability-to-absorb-cosub2sub.html
CO2 is at 380 ppm.http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Carbon_Dioxide_Gallery
What happens when oceans absorb less CO2, soil, etc release more due to higher temperatures — and humans continue burning fossil-fuel, etc??
What is an IH degree? International Harvester?
Thanks for your question to Republican-JM-Right Angle, Steven.
You notice that “Right Angle” gives a very non-specific answer of “many years ago.”
I know when my kids were born, when they went to first grade, when they graduated from middle school, high school and college.
A real parent with a real kid doesn’t say “many years ago” to a question like that.
If you kid is 28 and they took the test when they were 14 . . . ohmygosh, it’s 14 years ago.
Industrial Hygiene
And you’re right. When a friend of mine took the Stanford-Binet test in . . . (ahem) . . . 1972 or close to it, he scored 150 “because the test didn’t go any higher.”
Yes, there are different editions. In the 1986 – 4th edition of the SBLM there weren’t enough kids in the normative sample to justify an IQ above 148. This led some people knowledgable about testing gifted kids to suggest using the old version of the SB, but there are problems with doing that also, as outlined in the link I provided.
I have a gifted kid too. They might have tested him with the SB if the Wechsler tests had failed to find a ceiling for him. But that was not necessary for him.
cosmos,if you are still around, I have been wanting to ask you if you have read Michael Creighton’s (sp?) “state of fear”. I was troubled by it. In the past I have found him to be pretty tight on the science in his novels and I was perplexed by his stance the in reality “nobody knows” too much about GW. This is a sincere question, not a challenge to fight.
Notice how quiet it’s gotten from Republican-JM-Right Angle’s corner all of a sudden.
That’s ’cause he’s furiously googling to find some evidence–ANY evidence–he can use to cover his lie.
Just sad, isn’t it . . .
If you go follow Steven Davis link deep you will get to:
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/PDF_files/a10.pdf
and Find on page 3 that the Stanford Binet goes much higher than 167.
Captin,Put your money where your mouth is. I got proof. Make it worth my time to dig it out.
kg,
There’s lots of reliable info on his book here,
‘Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
What would the course content in an Industrial Hygiene degree be? Sorry for that awkward sentence. What type of work would such a graduate do?
cosmos,thank you. i will read up.kg
Interesting, Republican started posting on this thread at before 8 am and he last posted at 1:59.
Then Right Angle started posting at 2:16 and posted all the way through the last post at 3:23.
DURING WHICH TIME REPUBLICAN NEVER POSTED.
I guess it’s just a coincidence that you don’t see Republican and Right Angle posting at the same time . . .
Too bad, ’cause it’s not that hard to open two screens and post under two nics at the same time.
(Shakes head) You’re getting sloppy, JM-Republican-Right Angle-Uncle William-Eier . . .
“and they suggest that most ocean general circulation models are overestimating oceanic anthropogenic CO2 uptake over the past two decades.”
This actually doesn’t make your case at all Repub…what it says is that the models say MORE CO2 is trapped by the ocean than actually is. That means there is actually MORE CO2 in the atmosphere than the models say there is, which means that the models are actually UNDERESTIMATING the temperature rise caused by man-made CO2.
Where the money CapnAmerica.put up or shut up.
Still waiting on BFAH opinion on the paper. It’s a hard read and I know it takes time to digest.
I noticed Cosmos has completely ignored it and chosen the path of argumentum ad hominem.
And to prove to Tom, no matter what I do or write here, the Liberal Left will continue with their tactics of hate, confusion and general misinformation.
So whenever you get time BFAH, let me know what you think of the paper that suggests the Climate Models have overestimated the amount of CO2.
RA,
You are correct the older versions of the Stanford Binet went up pretty high. I remember reading that Truman Capote was tested in the 1930’s and achieved an IQ of over 200 (a record). If this was in fact true, he was undoubtedly tested with an older version of the Stanford Binet.
In the link they make the point that there is a lot of variability in gifted kids. A kid that my son went to middle school with was one of those gifted kids who was 3 or more standard deviations above his fellow gifted kids. He would probably be bored with regular college classes at the tender age of 14. The needs of kids like that are quite different from your average gifted kid – which is the point of the link I provided.
This kid I mention was just so incredibly bright, it was almost creepy. I think the most help the program he was in gave him was that it taught him a sense of humor, so that he seemed more normal.
Damn,I MUST BE FAST. POSTED AS RA AND REP AT THE SAME TIME.3:33.
For the record, at 3:33 Republican pops back on.
Speak of the devil, and he appears . . .
“This actually doesn’t make your case at all Repub…what it says is that the models say MORE CO2 is trapped by the ocean than actually is…”
should have read
“This actually doesn’t make your case at all Repub…what it says is that the models say LESS CO2 is trapped by the ocean than actually is…”
Easily done Repuke/right angle/whatever else you go by…………just open multiple windows and use each name in turn.
Yeah, it’s not that hard to post two posts at the same time, just like I’m doing now.
You open two screens, type your message in both screens, and hit post at almost the same time.
Obviously, you slipped up by not remembering to do it until I pointed out that you were showing your hand by not doing it LIKE I AM NOW.
That’s not the old troll master we’re used to, Republican-JM-Right Angle et al.
Getting old and sloppy . . .
Yeah, it’s not that hard to post two posts at the same time, just like I’m doing now.
You open two screens, type your message in both screens, and hit post at almost the same time.
Obviously, you slipped up by not remembering to do it until I pointed out that you were showing your hand by not doing it LIKE I AM NOW.
That’s not the old troll master we’re used to, Republican-JM-Right Angle et al.
Getting old and sloppy . . .
Believe what you want, gets goes to show how some people will fall for anything.
WHERE THE MONEY CAPTIN?
WHERE THE MONEY CAPTIN?
“Damn,I MUST BE FAST. POSTED AS RA AND REP AT THE SAME TIME.3:33.
Posted by: Right Angle | May 25, 2007 at 03:37 PM”
Actually, no.
You posted as Right Angle four minutes later . . . which means you had both screens open at 3:33 and THOUGHT they were both going to post at the same time.
Looks like the captcha check got you on the second one.
Really sloppy, Troll Master.
Just ain’t what you used to be.
WHERE THE MONEY CAPTIN?
I wish there was a way to prove this nic-switching charge. The only way could ever know for sure, would be if the person doing were to admit it. Which will never happen, so we are stuck with these circumstantial bits of evidence and no definitive answer.
I know that the Republican has posted that he doesn’t care if people use multiple nics. Does that mean he himself is guilty of doing so? Not necessarily.
Republican,Do you want to go on the record one way or the other about this nic-switching accusation?
Let me rephrase the above posts… I was in a rush trying to get things done at work before the holiday.
According to the reference that Repub cites, more CO2 enters the deep ocean than has been previously estimated. That only says that there is more CO2 being captured at deeper depths than expected. It is a BIG step to come to the conclusion (NOT STATED ANYWHERE IN THE PAPER) that this has completely disproven climate models..in fact NO MENTION IS MADE OF CLIMATE MODELS.
The paper does say…
“Approximately half of the anthropogenic carbon released to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning is stored in the ocean, although distribution and regional fluxes of the ocean sink are debated. Estimates of anthropogenic carbon (Cant) in the oceans remain prone to error arising from (i) a need to estimate preindustrial reference concentrations of carbon for different oceanic regions, and (ii) differing behavior of transient ocean tracers used to infer Cant. We introduce an empirical approach to estimate Cant that circumvents both problems by using measurement of the decadal change of ocean carbon concentrations and the exponential nature of the atmospheric Cant increase.”
In short, while 1/2 the CO2 is taken up by the ocean (more or less), 1/2 isn’t!!! So what’s your point Repub?
That means over time a buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere…which is happening…and that would imply more greenhouse heating, which is happening.
Posted by: BFAH | May 25, 2007 at 03:31 PM
Where the money CapnAmerica.put up or shut up.
Posted by: Right Angle | May 25, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Still waiting on BFAH opinion on the paper. It’s a hard read and I know it takes time to digest.
I noticed Cosmos has completely ignored it and chosen the path of argumentum ad hominem.
And to prove to Tom, no matter what I do or write here, the Liberal Left will continue with their tactics of hate, confusion and general misinformation.
So whenever you get time BFAH, let me know what you think of the paper that suggests the Climate Models have overestimated the amount of CO2.
Posted by: Republican | May 25, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Sorry these are the two posts.
Where is the money captin
“Where’s the money, Captin?” he whines over and over again . . .
Where’s your brain, Cretin?
You just revealed to the whole Blog that Republican and Right Angle are one in the same post-er.
That’s a good day’s work for me.
Time for a well-earned break.
TGIF.
Capt:
I though you were “ignoring” Republican? He was “banned from the web?”
and Republican too:
Let it go; both of you. It’s pointless. Capn – get over yourself. And Repub – why respond to this constant baiting with more baiting of your own? You’re both like 4 year olds playing “gotcha.”
Grow up.
Captin,
Sorry, that you decided to shut up, I could haveused the money.
Go drink so cool aid, I am not Republican but I can see you will believe anything.
Yup, good advice, GMC.
BFAH,
The problem with your conclusion is that deep oceans consist mostly of pre-industrial CO2. CO2 decay in the atmosphere has a half-life about 38 years. So the CO2 from 38 years ago or more is just being dissolved into the ocean.
The upflow in oceans is due to the “eddy” theory. The problem IPCC has with uptake into the ocean and the subsequent constant airborne fraction factor of 50 percent is that they use a 2300GT carbon diffusion which shows that 680ppm would result by 2100 not the 500ppm they predict.
The IPCC can’t even fudge their numbers properly. They have come up with this artificial forcing. The delay of the actual uptake by oceans is hundreds of years and that release is from pre-industrial carbon.
However, the numbers are just not working out for the IPCC as they cannot match up their climate models with the actual data, hence their “fudge” factors.
Also, it now appears that the uptake method and it’s efficiency varies widely between different oceans and hemisphere. For example, the Southern Hemisphere has less than 10 percent of mixed anthropogenic CO2 inventory, yet contains 60 percent of the total of oceanic anthropogenic inventory.
When know that the Southern Hemisphere is cooler because of the larger mass of water. This is also inline with the transfer of heat from one cyclic region to another may affect the uptake of CO2.
More to be discussed about this, but I’ll leave this unfinished for now.
RightAngle, we’ve never met, but for some reason the Capn seems to think I’m you. I’m sure you’re much better looking than I. :)
So, why so silent Tom? Look at your “Boys” today and draw your own conclusion. :)
“…and they suggest that most ocean general circulation models are overestimating oceanic anthropogenic CO2 uptake over the past two decades.”
This is from your own post.
And again I say, if the models are OVERESTIMATING the amount of CO2 being taken up, then that means there is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
My conclusion here is certainly not nearly as big a stretch as the one you’re trying to make by referring to a paper which doesn’t even address the specific issue that you have your bowels in an uproar over.
OK — Mr. Republican, or whoever you are — Answer this one:
Let’s suppose that man-made GW doesnt exist, in spite of the science… Let’s suppose you are right on this…
WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make, if we work on developing alternative fuels; cut back on fossil fuels; and decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by human civilization??
Surely, you cant make the assumption that any of these “green” activities will somehow HARM the ecosystem???
On the other hand, I guess you COULD make that assumption… But it would be the laugh of the day…
BTW, that was a nice post Republican. Keep it up!! It’s a lot more interesting an fun to talk civilly than it is to throw sputum as we have all been tending to do.
Yes, I was president of the Wichita Association for the Gifted, A parent advocacy group of students in the USD 259 School Dist. We tried to get the number and quality of teachers as well as resources needed for those students. My son was reading at 4th grade BEFORE he entered kindergarten. Can you think how bad it would be for a child at the 4th grade ability to be put in kindergarten? I also served on several USD259 Committees during the time the kids were in school. I did a lot of work with the USD 259 Special Ed Committee for all special education students
This kid I mention was just so incredibly bright, it was almost creepy. I think the most help the program he was in gave him was that it taught him a sense of humor, so that he seemed more normal.Posted by: Steven DavisYes, I was president of the Wichita Association for the Gifted, A parent advocacy group of students in the USD 259 School Dist. We tried to get the number and quality of teachers as well as resources needed for those students. My son was reading at 4th grade BEFORE he entered kindergarten. Can you think how bad it would be for a child at the 4th grade ability to be put in kindergarten? I also served on several USD259 Committees during the time the kids were in school. I did a lot of work with the USD 259 Special Ed Committee for all special education students.
Chas,
Absolutely we should work alternative fuels and energy. We don’t have an unlimited supply of fossil fuels after all. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of the stinky, oily stuff.
One solution goes with the other, reduction of fossil fuel use goes hand in hand with less “stuff” in the air.
Let’s turn on the brains and figure out how to reduce gas and other pollutant emissions.
One way you can start is by not speeding on Memorial Day Weekend.
Not only is driving the speed limit or slower safer, it is very fuel efficient and you can save many cents on the gallon by reducing your speed by at least 10 mph.
Thanks… I think that should be a good end to this ongoing absurd argument over GW and anti-GW…
Have a good weekend
Capn, Tom, BAHF, et al — The amazing thing to me is not the presence of Right Angle, but the absence of GS in all of the posts… Hmmmm….
All my family is buried in Oklahoma which is their homeland. Some in Blackwell, others in Bartelsville. I don’t make it there too often.
BTW, that was a nice post Republican. Keep it up!! It’s a lot more interesting an fun to talk civilly than it is to throw sputum as we have all been tending to do.
Posted by: BFAH | May 25, 2007 at 05:04 PM—————————I agree, that is the reason that I don’t post very often. As you can tell from my post history, I don’t like people calling people names. I always try to be civil. When they get off the subject, it tell me they have lost using logic and are trying to win by intimidation.
Republican,
“I noticed Cosmos has completely ignored it and chosen the path of argumentum ad hominem.”
I attacked your strategy, not you personally. Repub lies again.
Try to explain and defend your logic. You’re attacking the IPCC for not being able to provide precise predictions for 2100. That’s 93 years from.
Explain why that lack of precision is MORE important than what is happening TODAY.
‘Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2′http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11876-southern-ocean-already-losing-ability-to-absorb-cosub2sub.html
Do you want want to claim that less CO2 being absorbed TODAY is not important?
Do you want to claim that the change in the Southern Ocean, 20 to 40 years earlier than scientists predicted, has NO impact on future predictions?
IPCC’s predictions are conservative, and a few years out-of-date.
These NOAA Scientist disagree with your scientists assessment Cosmos. And I’m pretty sure they write peer-reviewed papers.http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-12/uoa-soc120406.php
“Previous climate models did not have the winds properly located. In simulations of present-day climate, those models distorted the ocean’s response to future increases in greenhouse gases.”
Right Angle–
Well . . . it appears that I may have misjudged you.
Could you tell me more about this Wichita Association for the Gifted?
Is it still in operation? When were you president?
Also, your son. What is he doing now?
Sorry you feel that way, RA. I thought your contributions were interesting and consistent with the facts as I know them. I gave more Stanford Binets in graduate school than I could count. That is one awful test to administer. Never administered one after grad school.
I also swore I would never give another Rorschach after grad school, but ended up giving two per week for about 4 years during the 1980’s. The guy who was my supervisor was big on the Exner system which is supposed to be the most empirically defensible. One of my prized possessions is a book where they used the Exner system on the Rorschachs given to the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. The main finding from that study was that their problem solving habits were so poor, they probably were “just following orders”.
I believe your writing style is quite different from Republican’s — not a bad thing. You seem pretty different to me, even if that difference isn’t real; but ultimately who knows about such things.
Good night.
Actually, repuke, as usual, is incorrect in both his assumption and his link. Look at the date of his link, then look at the date of this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm
Hmmmm . . . Looks like the southern ocean is at odds with itself.
Seems to be a reoccuring theme here every day. Repub and GS spout attention seeking statements and people continually respond. Not sure which is worse. But, as i’ve said, it does make for humor while reading. Be kinda neat to stay on topic instead of reacting to the two fishermen.As to the topic, a nice relaxing weekend spent with the family with the bbq going and my favorite hydration module to keep my thirst in check. Everyone have a Great Weekend.
Republican,
Please explain how “could” is stronger than ‘already is not’? Your link is, ‘Southern Ocean could slow global warming’.
J M Walker’s link is ‘Polar ocean ’soaking up less CO2′ ‘ Mine is ‘Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2′.
Republican also missed (uh-huh…) this very important point at his OWN link:” “But there are consequences,” Russell said. “This isn’t an unqualified good, even if more carbon dioxide and heat goes into the ocean.”
As the atmosphere warms, storing more heat in the ocean will cause sea levels to rise even faster as the warmed water expands, she said. Adding more CO2 to the oceans will change their chemistry, making the water more acidic and less habitable for some marine organisms. “—
What happens if the oceans get warmer? Ooops!’Climate Warming Reduces Ocean Food Supply’http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/warm_marine.html“This study shows that as the climate warms, phytoplankton growth rates go down and along with them the amount of carbon dioxide these ocean plants consume.That allows carbon dioxide to accumulate MORE rapidly in the atmosphere, which would produce MORE warming.”
“As to the topic, a nice relaxing weekend spent with the family with the bbq going and my favorite hydration module to keep my thirst in check.”
Sound like a plan to me, First. My master plan includes ribs, tenderloin, a smoky fire and liquid refreshments.
Keep the coals hot and the beer cold!!!
“Repub and GS spout attention seeking statements and people continually respond. Not sure which is worse.”
FT, we do it because ya gotta have some fun sometimes. Since neither gs nor repug can be taken seriously, so one can virtually throw the baby out with the bath water, and chuckle about it.
Right Angle–
Well . . . it appears that I may have misjudged you.
Could you tell me more about this Wichita Association for the Gifted?
Is it still in operation? When were you president?
Also, your son. What is he doing now?
Posted by: CapnAmerica | May 25, 2007 at 08:43 PM
Be happy to talk to you. You may email me at afriendict@aol.com..
No, not that I am aware of. the group lasted only a couple of years after I was President.My son is doing quite well. He got an architecture degree and is designing medical faculties such as hospitals. He also has his own business that is now doing business world wide.
I was President when Dr. Berger was Superintendent. Must have been about 1982-84. “”A very long time ago.
Sorry, I am getting old and the year have gone by so fast. But it would be in that time frame.
Cosmos and J M Walker, you should use the date that the piece was published.
The date for the study I referenced was just released in Dec 2006.
If you will re-read the statement I put in quotes carefully, it also says “Previous climate models did not have the winds properly located.”
This means that the data sets that your scientists used were in error because they had the winds improperly located.
Also in that piece:
“The poleward intensification of the westerlies will allow the ocean to remove additional heat and anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Thus, the deep ocean has the potential to slow the atmospheric warming through the increased storage of heat and carbon.”
Of course, I don’t mix and match with incomplete quotes like Cosmosto try and confuse people.
I stick the facts presented.
I’m still waiting to see where the connection is made showing that climate models are basically wrong and cannot be relied upon to make predictions…haven’t seen it yet.
Should have read “shouldn’t use the date that the piece was published.”
The date J M was referring to was the date that the Journalist put on his posting and it was an update,not the date of the original Journalistic piece.
The science J M alluded to is based an old data where the winds were not properly located.
Also Cosmos and J M, the research indicated the absorption of CO2, not just anthropogenic CO2.
J M and Cosmos seem to think everything that has to do with co2 is anthropogenic now.
Also notice I did not include a disparaging remark like J M did with his “repuke.”
Jeez, Republican makes a post without insulting someone or calling names and he wants a pat on the back.
Ain’t going to happen.
“I’m still waiting to see where the connection is made showing that climate models are basically wrong and cannot be relied upon to make predictions…haven’t seen it yet.”Posted by: BFAH | May 25, 2007 at 11:38 PM
So far PhD BFAH, I have shown were in two studies
(1)”most ocean general circulation models are overestimating oceanic anthropogenic CO2 uptake over the past two decades.”
(2) “Previous climate models did not have the winds properly located.” re: The Antarctic Winds.
That’s just two examples where dozens of the current Climate Models base their predictions up.
Just those two scientifically valid studies show that Climate Models are not as accurate as they claim to be as they are based on old, incomplete and inaccurate data.
Couple of interesting philosophical studies on Climate Modeling can be found here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000675myanna_lahsens_late.html
This talks about a study of how Scientists may confuse models with the world with reality. Interesting read. It’s a speculation, but well worth noting and warning to presenters of data.
Another interesting read on Climate Models:http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?cat=10
Let’s try not to discredit anything or draw a conclusion as there is none to be drawn.
All I am proposing that the Climate Models need improving and they are not as accurate as they claim them to be.
As one Scientist put it, it is easier to fix the IPCC data that was hastily drawn up than it is to fix the so-called rise of “anthropogenic CO2″ rises based on bad conclusions with Climate Models.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2704.htm
Recent research (see above link) shows that the ocean’s heat content declined substantially in 2003-2005, losing in these two years 20 percent of the heat that built up in the 1955-2003 period. This is embarrassing, to say the least, to advocates of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (especially NASA’s James Hansen, who has argued that “missing” atmospheric warming he’s been predicting for nigh on to 20 years is due to the ocean soaking up huge quantities of heat.) So, NASA has to spin mightily to explain away these results:
The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth’s oceans has cooled significantly since 2003. The new research suggests that global warming trends are not always steady in their effects on ocean temperatures. (Click NOAA image for larger view of Sea Surface Temperatures for the Western Hemisphere for Sept. 20, 2006, taken at 10:59 a.m. EDT. Click here for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.”)
Although the average temperature of the upper oceans has cooled significantly since 2003, the decline is a fraction of the total ocean warming seen over the previous 48 years.
“This research suggests global warming isn’t always steady but happens with occasional ’speed bumps’,” said Josh Willis, a co-author of the study at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “This cooling is probably natural climate variability. The oceans today are still warmer than they were during the 1980s, and most scientists expect the oceans will eventually continue to warm in response to human-induced climate change.”
“Note the assertion that the cooling is due to natural climate variability–but the previous warming is (implicitly) assumed to be man-made. And it is only an assertion on top of an assumption. Where is the evidence that rejects the null hypothesis that the 1955-2003 warming was due to natural climate variability, in favor of the alternative that it was anthropogenic in origin? If the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is so dominant relative to the natural variability of the climate, how could the latter overwhelm the former? This is a lame rationalization of results that contradict the dominant paradigm–something that should be familiar to anyone who has read Kuhn.”…However, as a globally averaged variable that per Dobrovolski is likely to be integrated, it is also very difficult to use as a measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on climate trends.”
RA,
What year was the Wichita Association for the Gifted begun? I know it’s amazing now, but I was one of 80 students in the first gifted program in Wichita. That was 1959, IIRC.
Actually, natural and anthropogenic CO2 are one in the same. C)2 is still CO2 whether it is man made or occurs via a natural process. Your argument is still a red herring, as are most if not all of your arguments.
The conditions occurring in the southern ocean, i.e., the loss of ability to absorb CO2 is valid. That is a real problem, and one that has a dramatic affect on greenhouse gasses.
RA,
What year was the Wichita Association for the Gifted begun? I know it’s amazing now, but I was one of 80 students in the first gifted program in Wichita. That was 1959, IIRC.
Posted by: RD | May 26, 2007 at 02:07 AM
I don’t know, I think that it was first started by Dr. Wherit (a WSU math instructor)and his wife Mrs Millie Wherit. It had went by the wayside when Mr. and Mrs Edward Petty and Hank Blase restarted it about in the 1976-78s period.