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
- Rage on Let immigrants run
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- george on Open thread 11/23
- sursum on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- gster on Open thread 11/23
Open thread 9/4
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted Sept. 4, 2007 at 1:06 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
208 Comments
HEY Kansas!
I noticed a “paper” by your scientist, Dr. Bob Carter.
It’s published in the prestigious science journal (NOT!),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Free_Press“Canada Free Press is a Canadian website, which publishes conservative news stories, features, and editorials.”
His co-author, Tom Harris, is an ex-registered lobbyist for the Canadian electricity and gas associations.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_%28Canadian_engineer/technology_specialist%29
Harris is executive director of NRSP,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project
Dr. Carter’s and Harris’ “paper”(sic) praise a 15 year-old high school student.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/harris081707.htm
“Ms. Byrnes also demonstrates how simple it has become to effectively challenge today’s climate change hysteria. To do so you need merely some elementary science knowledge and a modicum of courage.”
Examples of her “elementary science knowledge”.
Byrnes: “Solar activity is and has always been what drives the climate system.”
She needs to study the planet Venus’ atmosphere.
Byrnes: “The CO2 molecule has been given way too much power in Earth’s atmosphere. The CO2 molecule did not come from the same man who sold Jack his beanstalk beans.”
Jack and the beanstalk???
Perhaps the best display of her “knowledge” is her graph drawing. She draws (with the mouse) a CO2 graph starting in the year 800, on top of a temperature graph that begins in 1880. Is she “abscissa” challenged?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/ponder-maunder-tony-at-deltoid-points.html
And she does NOT seem to have read the IPCC, and other reports.
But the BIG question is WHY are Dr. Bob Carter, and ex-energy-lobbyist Tom Harris, at the NRSP, praising her “science”(sic)?
Cosmos,
You do realize that Carter is not the only person who disagree with the IPCC, don’t you?
Well, Nathie. Where is YOUR published paper?
Nathan, you DO realize that Kansas has been beating this Carter horse ad nauseum, don’t you?
Hi Roo!
Hi, Rage!
Finally, I’m back. It’s been a busy summer running around with Jr. He’ll be 2 next month. May God have mercy on his parents!
The main job of the parent of a two-year-old is to yell “no.” Success is keeping them alive.
http://www.hazink.com/pix/flipphone.jpg
Nathan, you DO realize that Kansas has been beating this Carter horse ad nauseum, don’t you?
Hi Roo!
Posted by: Rage | September 04, 2007 at 02:22 AM
Actually it’s troll cosmos beating the Carter horse ad nauseum. The last several posts have been by cosmos, with a dozen previous posts by cosmos.
cosmos is the designated “dead horse” beater on this blog by a long shot.
Rubber Ducky Science
Thousands of rubber ducks to land on British shores after 15 year journey
They were toys destined only to bob up and down in nothing bigger than a child’s bath – but so far they have floated halfway around the world.
The armada of 29,000 plastic yellow ducks, blue turtles and green frogs broke free from a cargo ship 15 years ago.
Since then they have travelled 17,000 miles, floating over the site where the Titanic sank, landing in Hawaii and even spending years frozen in an Arctic ice pack.
And now they are heading straight for Britain. At some point this summer they are expected to be spotted on beaches in South-West England.
While the ducks are undoubtedly a loss to the bath-time fun of thousands of children, their adventures at sea have proved an innvaluable aid to science.
The toys have helped researchers to chart the great ocean currents because when they are spotted bobbing on the waves they are much more likely to be reported to the authorities than the floats which scientists normally use.
And because the toys are made of durable plastic and are sealed watertight, they have been able to survive years adrift at the mercy of the elements.
Boxes of the bathtime toys – made in China for the U.S. firm The First Years Inc – were washed overboard in the eastern Pacific Ocean one stormy January night in 1992 and broke open.
In the intervening time an oceanographer, Curtis Ebbesmeyer, has devoted his retirement to tracking the little yellow ducks and their friends over 17,000 miles, and it is he who has predicted that this summer they will land in the
West of England. Mr Ebbesmeyer said: ‘We’re getting reports of ducks being washed up on America’s eastern seaboard.
“It is now inevitable that they will get caught up in the Atlantic currents and will turn up on English beaches.
“Cornwall and the South-West will probably get the first wave of them.”
Map and continued story at the URL below:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=464768&in_page_id=1770
Since 2000, the carbon dioxide output rate in the USA has dropped 2%.
Not a whole hell of a lot, but a start. I wonder how China and India are doing? Oh Forgot! Exempt from Al Gore’s theory!
Same old endless argument, same two boring posters. Looks like it’s starting early this morning.
Scroll-over.
And now for some good news:
Dispatchers report accident-free Labor Day
Monday was uneventful on Wichita-area roadways as motorists returned home from the Labor Day holiday.
Only minor non-injury accidents were reported on the Kansas Turnpike, according to dispatchers. Emergency officials with the Kansas Highway Patrol, Butler, Harvey, Reno and Sumner counties reported an accident-free Labor Day.http://www.kansas.com/news/updates/story/164997.html
In Sunday’s Eagle there was an article that stated that U.S. troop deaths were down. But there was a question as to why? Here might be a clue for some, the Sunnis are now focusing on Al-Qaeda, it just could be that the Sunnis were the main ones killing American Soldiers! I guess I wanted to spin it before Fox News did.
I’m amazed at how many Americans still believe Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks. How can we keep from sinking into this abyss when people choose to stay so igorant?What the hell is wrong with us that so many listen to these right wing pundits who continue to perpetrate so much misinformation?
Mary,20% of Americans can’t find the U.S. on a world map.
How do you explain raging stupidity?
Out of curiosity, I wonder how many of our conservative bloggers believe Iraq was behind 9/11?
Posted on Opinion Line today……
“Why are so many people angry at President Bush for the war? Shouldn’t you be angry at those who brought down the twin towers and those who continue to threaten all of our lives today?”
No explanation needed. The Administration sold the non-existent connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and many have chosen to continue the believe that Saddam was behind 9/11.
HOUSTON – The district attorney prosecuting a racially charged beating case in the small Louisiana town of Jena abruptly reduced attempted-murder charges Monday against a black high school student accused of attacking a white student, drawing cautious praise from civil rights leaders who contend the charges were excessive and part of a pattern of uneven justice in the town.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-jena_wittjun26,1,3186370.story?coll=chi-news-hed
If 6 white boys had attacked a black kid from behind, beat him senseless, and sent him to the hospital, this would have been a hate crime.
It’s a rule…You’re given a pass to be a bigot if your skin isn’t white.
1) There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda pre-9/11. Different story, today – mission accomplished.
2) In the famous words of Leonard Pitts, regarding white race victimization – “cry me an effing river” – okay, not an exact quote.
So true Mary. I’ve been watching this story on the news for the last couple of days. Seems like blacks can do anything they want to a white and it’s ok. The white kid who was beaten had nothing to do with earlier incidences in Jena. Basically he was beaten for being white.
In the famous words of Leonard Pitts, regarding white race victimization – “cry me an effing river” – okay, not an exact quote.
Posted by: Steven Davis | September 04, 2007 at 10:26 AM
So much for racial equality. I guess we just can’t expect civil behavior from blacks because, well, they’re black. How racist is that?
HEER DE EBONICS LESSONS
http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/ebonics.htm
As most of you know I am a black man. I do not agree with the DA in this small LA town. Charges should be brought according to the law.
However, for those of you that would like to spin this into “equality is not just for the white man” please. How many 1,000’s of lynchings and murders of black perpertrated by whites went unpunished for over 100 yrs? Now you got OJ and this case to hold up and scream inequality. Give me a break. Yes OJ did it. He should be in prison. But lets not twist this into some kind of poor white man speak. The tables are somewhat level in most parts of the country. But far from level everywhere.
Oh please Mike…I’m a woman and I could cry discrimantion all the time, even since I was a kid. NO ONE has the right to persecute, assault, torture, kill, and discriminate against others no matter what the color of their skin is. I’m sick of hearing about how people who have been “kept down” are only leveling the playing field. I never discrimated against anyone and I have the right to be treated with the same respect I show to others. If when you look at another person and teh first thing you notice is the color of their skin, you have a problem and need to take a good hard look at yourself.
The best way to create a level playing field is always to LEVEL the playing field. Don’t skew it the other way to make up for past problems. Just level it now.
Then, if there are disparate outcomes, address those problems. It seems like the mindset of many people is person treated badly before, treat them better than others now so the average treatment is the same as everyone else. That does not work.
It is amazing how CA dropped AA, and yet the world did not end. Minorities find themselves with more opportunities.
I think it sad that too many blacks follow Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton’s victimhood mantra. I know too many successful black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals to buy that black are too stupid mantra from Sharpton and Jackson, and the NAACP. It is amazing how easy it becomes to better yourself when you stop playing victim.
Nonpartisan studies have shown that the welfare state, supported by the Democrats, has led to the breakdown of the black family.
I agree Brian, why keep focusing on the past (that most of us weren’t involved in) which can’t be changed? It’s a new day and we need to just move forward. No excuses for anyone.
It’s true that the welfare program has lead peole to believe that they don’t have the ability to achieve. When something is provided for you that you need to provide for yourself, it only adds to your sense of dependancy and poor self esteem. Peole only become strong and successful by working though their struggles and hardships, and no one can do that for them but themselves.
“People”..not “peole”..I need to check my spelling before I post! Sometimes my fingers move to fast and my old brain can’t keep up.
Someone please post where I said that the first thing I see is someones skin color? I am not one to play the victim card, but I grew up in an all white neighborhood and got discriminated against first hand. I am not blaming anyone for that except those that did it. I am not endorsing the “victim” card, but that goes both ways. I don’t expect whites to play it when an isolated case does not go their way. Everyone needs to realize that there are some from BOTH sides that utilize this card to promote themselves. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do not represent me. Their antics set black people back. And Brian you are right, the welfare state has broken the family unit. Has republicans done anything to change that? You are quick to point out that the dems are responsible for this. But has the right done any better?
As most of you know I am a black man. I do not agree with the DA in this small LA town. Charges should be brought according to the law.Posted by: Mike | September 04, 2007 at 10:47 AM
I agree. When 6 people (regardless of race) attack 1 person and administer a beating that requires a trip to the hospital, they should be charged with attempted murder.6 against 1 is not a simple schoolyard fight, it’s an attack. And he was attacked for being white.
Eagle, please give us a permanent sidebar link for Global Warming.
That eliminate 50% of the posts which fill up the other topics.
Just a suggestion.
Being discrimated against just made me stronger and more determined to be successful. I wasn’t going to let anyone keep me down..no matter what. I wasn’t about to let anyone succeed in keeping me from doing what I wanted.
The Reps have not had enough control of Congress to change that. Funny how that is the current excuse used by the Dems supporters when the Dems dont get something done. Double standard?
Dems are the ones pushing the agenda, and Reps arent willing to fight it, otherwise they get seen as the bad guy. That puts the Reps in a catch 22 situation. The EU is even worse. Britain is wising up about the problems of a welfare state, and with luck, America will follow its lead.
Personally, I am waiting for a new day when Americans realize there is only one party in Congress, and that party is screw the taxpayer and get everything I can before they vote me out. It splits itself in the Dems and Reps faction, but all that care about is getting reelected and with an average 98% reelection rate, they dont have much too worry about, unless they tick off enough voters.
Term limits work, check the damage done by Bob Knight that was revealed after he left office. He would still be in office without term limits.
From what I’ve read about the Jena incident, charges were brought, revised downward, and there were convictions. One issue seems to be the trial of at least one of the defendants at the adult level, not as a juvenile.
Given the media reports of what happened, I’m at a loss to understand the great hue and cry about the way the defendants were treated/tried. I suspect there’s more to the story, but at present, the fact that there were three nooses hanged from the tree that traditionally white students met under after some black students met there offers no justification for the attack.
Looks like the victim was attacked merely because he is white. Sounds like a racially motivated attack to me.
Eagle, please give us a permanent sidebar link for Global Warming.
That eliminate 50% of the posts which fill up the other topics.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Max | September 04, 2007 at 11:16 AM
It’s okay Max. cosmos is on permanent ignore, I won’t be responding to his Cult Religion of Global Warming Fanaticism.
Eagle, please give us a permanent sidebar link for Global Warming.
That eliminate 50% of the posts which fill up the other topics.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Max | September 04, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Max,I totally agree! We’ve got a couple of posters who absolutely fill these pages with their inane bickering about GW. Too bad the editors don’t just ban both…nobody would miss either one of them.
They obviously don’t have girlfriends/wives/jobs/lives.
What?No more Alcoholics Anonymous in California?Why wasn’t I informed?
So, for those who want a separate link for Global Warming, maybe if a few post the same thing here, the Eagle will listen?
Suggested verbiage to post:
Eagle, please give us a permanent sidebar link for Global Warming.
Eagle, please give us a permanent sidebar link for Global Warming.
Not that GW isn’t a good topic. But when you see the same stuff copied and pasted 100 times, it gets a little old.
There’s probably a few other “hot” topics like GW that could have separate links as well.
Anybody hear the Hannity Hate Line? Hannity has a 800# for those who hate him to call and leave a message. Then he plays a few of them every week.
Maybe we could have a “Hate and Name Calling” link to where we could go whenever we want to just trash the bejeebers out of someone!
Eagle, please give us a permanent sidebar link for Global Warming.
Max, let’s not get carried away.
Add me to the list.
While you are at it, permanently bar anyone that brings up Global Warming outside of that sidebar, or least autodelete said posts.
Max, let’s not get carried away.
Eagle, please give us a permanent sidebar link for Global Warming.
Eagle, please give us a permanent sidebar link for Global Warming.
Wow! Some common ground is found!
Sorry for the multiple posts.
Note to self:Self, don’t hit “refresh” when posts don’t cooperate.
Ok, the “Hate and Name Calling” links is probably not PC, even on the Eagle.
;)
Works for me.
Sidebar, that is.
Interesting; charge employees with “bad habits” (smoking, obesity, e.g.) higher co-pays under the group medical insurance.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/smbusiness/cutting_copays.fsb/index.htm?section=money_latest
While we are asking, how about banning the trolls?
I doubt it will fly, but if the WE wants this blog to be taken seriously, then the trolls have to go.
Serious sites ban both liberal and conservative trolls, and even moderate trolls.
I know this would get rid of a lot of the DP’s, but it would be worth it to be able to debate intelligently without the stupid trolls.
VT, they should be. Their personal choices are why the costs are going up so much. If they want to ruin their health, that is their choice, but the rest of shouldn’t have to financially support their poor choices.
Larry Hagman drank like a fish, but got high priority on the donor list because he was a celeb.
I should have said liver transplant since the drinking killed the old one.
Tired, not to mention David Crosby.
I agree with you on “they should be”. The fact that this is now permissible caught my eye.
“It’s okay Max. cosmos is on permanent ignore, I won’t be responding to his Cult Religion of Global Warming Fanaticism.”
Posted by: the troll Kansas | September 04, 2007 at 11:29 AM
That’s because Kansas cannot defend his opinions.
Kansas defended Bob Carter here,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-92.html#comment-81445891
and here,”You know cosmos, you think Bob Carter is a fraud. However, if you compare the education of Bob Carter and Ben Huie, you will find that Carter has the advantage because he is a paleo-climatologist, a professor of geology and a 30 year research into the field of the history of climate change. (nothing personal Ben.)”Posted by: Kansas | September 03, 2007 at 01:22 AM
But Kansas cannot explain WHY Carter praised the obviously flawed “elementary science knowledge” of a 15 year-old high school student.
And Kansas cannot explain WHY Carter writes op-eds with the executive director of NSRP, instead of peer-reviewed, scientific climate papers.http://www.desmogblog.com/nrsp-controlled-by-energy-lobbyists
So the troll Kansas will “ignore” my valid points.
Not surprising, the Hurricane expert revised his hurricane prediction for the second time. No other predictors get this same leeway, it is no wonder that they claim such a high accuracy rate since they like to redo the numbers when the old ones dont pan out.
VT, they should be. Their personal choices are why the costs are going up so much. If they want to ruin their health, that is their choice, but the rest of shouldn’t have to financially support their poor choices.Posted by: Tired of Trolls | September 04, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Tired,would you like to discuss the pregnancy flier we ALL have to pay for on our company insurance? That’s also a personal choice that’s hard on your health and costs the rest of us a fortune.
Not to mention the cost of the paid disability time off these women get following a pregnancy.
Men don’t get a paid disability to stay home, except in CA they probably do!
That’s ok, as a guy, I wouldn’t want to go through delivery. Still, that’s a disability benefit that is not equally distributed.
The press is doing whatever it can to keep you from making any protest against the Mexican trucks allowed coming into the U.S. after this Labor Day without any border and travel restrictions.U.S. citizens need to organize a protest now, go to the Teamsters Union websitehttp://www.teamsterstakeaction.org/campaign/no_to_unsafe_trucks
Send a letter to your representatives by using the Teamsters Union; just fill out the column on the right.Let your voice be heard.
For everyone who doesn’t like guns, this is for you:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
Max, we’re finding too many things we agree on. This has GOT to stop! I can’t think of any reason why a left-leaning independent and a right-leaning independ should get along.Stop it right now!!!
Tired,There are way too many things about insurance we could complain about. Do you know what insurance is for? It’s to spread the risk. Hell, why not just charge sick people higher premiums and cut premiums for healthy people? Better yet, let’s just have genetic testing and charge more for people who MIGHT get sick.
Nathan,that was a scream! Thanks for the link.
LOL Nathan :)
I know XXX, I can’t stand it either. :o
Actually, I think grass roots America probably agrees on 70-80% of the issues IF the discussion is held at the rational level, with the necessary supporting facts to ensure a common understanding of the issue at hand.
It’s political rhetoric, hidden agendas, emotionally charged passionate appeals (!), that get everyone riled up. And once your back is to the wall, there’s no chance for a win-win scenario.
(Not all scenarios can be win-win though)
So, I’m throwing away the happy pills and look forward to some more mud-slinging in the near future!
Flipping Faux news and their Faux reports. The guy was reporting on why pharmacists were refusing to dispense morning after pills, and what did he do…called them ABORTION PILLS…said they cause abortion and that birth control pills don’t.
God you’ve gotta flipping hate that channel.
Not to pick on you specifically PMom, but XXX, you see what I mean?
I’m sorry Max, but you have to by pass PMom’s comments as you threw away your happy pills.
Nobody gets paid disability after giving birth Max. You get time off from FMLA…family medical leave act. It doesn’t mean you get paid- it just means you get to keep your job when you come back.
Point Max.
Do I not understand how the “morning after” pill works?
P_Mom, the last 3 companies I’ve worked for gave 6 weeks off with pay. It was called maternity leave.
Great, now we have the health nuts who want to overcharge people who might have a vice that they don’t have.
Here’s news…we all do something that isn’t good for us. What is the vice that you have that should be overcharged?
That’s a company benefit, not a disability. Lucky for the women who worked there.
Are you sure they got paid for it? Maternity leave isn’t the same as paid leave.
P_mom,One of the great joys of getting older is watching the “health nuts” move past their prime. Better yet, watching them fall apart.Story:I knew this guy from a place I worked. He was a low-life coke dealer. When he was 35, he found Jesus, quit the coke, quit smoking, started working out and running. He got into marathons. He was running in a marathon and keeled over dead as a mackerel; massive heart attack. 41 years old.
When your time is up, it’s just up.
Yes P_mom, I’m sure.
Here’s an idea that will piss everyone off. Let’s charge higher insurance premiums for people who drink. I don’t even have to go into what that habit costs society.
And since I don’t drink….
I don’t drink socially either. I agree lets get the boozers!
I know I should just ignore it but can’t stop wondering, PMom, if you don’t drink “socially,” does that mean you do all your drinking alone?
Link to an interview with one Jack L. Goldsmith, formerly head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the DOJ. He has written a book about his time there, and some of the legal issues confronted. The gist of his position is that the administration, by not cooperating with the other branches of government, has weakened, rather than strengthened, the office of the President.
The piece is seven pages. Worth the time to read.
Interesting that Mr. Goldsmith is described as a conservative member of the faculty at Harvard Law, and that he was once considered, while at U Chicago, a rising star in conservative legal circles.
http://tinyurl.com/2ys2a3
Why is there not any coverage in the news paper of the Santa Fe Trail Horse Race?I’d like to know how it is going—& coverage of when they reach Kansas!
Pmom, the companies I’ve worked for in the past do not have “maternity” leaves. They have paid “disability” leaves (Short-term, and Long-term).
Maternity leaves are covered just like any medical leave, thus fall under disability.
Of course maternity leave is protected under FMLA (if your company is covered by FMLA, and if YOU are covered by FMLA)though FMLA is not PAID leave unless you are in California.
BTW, there were good intentions behind FMLA, but in practice, this is the most abused Federal Law I’ve ever seen. It allows people to keep their jobs, missing work intermitently whenever they feel like it.
(One employee I had would frequently go trout fishing on his FMLA time)
CIA, Democrats caught fiddling WikipediaMalicious wiki-editing rife among corporationsJames Rivington16 Aug 2007 10:45 GMT
“A piece of software which monitors who is editing pages on Wikipedia has revealed that many big organisations have been maliciously editing pages in the wiki encyclopaedia. The tool monitors the IP addresses of Wiki page-editors. It has shown that organisations such as the CIA, the US Democrat party and games publisher EA have been changing pages.”
Rep. Mel Reynolds, D-Ill., was sentenced in 1995 to five years in prison for having sex with an underage campaign worker. He resigned from Congress, then was sentenced in 1997 to 6 1/2 years for bank fraud and other violations. The second sentence, which was to run at the same time as the first, was commuted in 2001 by President Clinton.
“I knew this guy from a place I worked. He was a low-life coke dealer. When he was 35, he found Jesus, quit the coke, quit smoking, started working out and running. He got into marathons. He was running in a marathon and keeled over dead as a mackerel; massive heart attack. 41 years old.
When your time is up, it’s just up.”XXX, Did it ever occur to you that the reason he feel dead was due to his past cocaine use? It’s one of the main reasons why young people have heart attacks and strokes. Once the damage is done, it’s irreversible.
* Office Arrests: The Shame of John ConyersBy Dave LindorffThe Smirking Chimp, July 23, 2007Straight to the Source
If Rosa Parks had lived two years longer, what happened today in the halls of Congress might have killed her. It certainly would have broken her heart.
Rep. John Conyers, venerable member of Congress, finally chair of the House Judiciary Committee, a man who worked with Parks in Alabama and then hired her on his staff after he won election to Congress in Detroit, today had 48 impeachment activists, including Gold Star Families for Peace founder Cindy Sheehan, Iraq Veteran Against the War activist Lennox Yearwood and Intelligence Veterans for Sanity founder Ray McGovern, arrested for conducting a sit-in in his office in the Rayburn House Office Building.
The three, together with several hundred other impeachment activists who packed the fourth floor hallway outside Rep. Conyers’ office, had come to press Conyers to take action on impeachment, and specifically to start action on H.Res. 333, the bill submitted nearly three months ago by Rep. Dennis Kucinich calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.
After nearly an hour of talking with Conyers, a clearly angry Sheehan emerged together with Yearwood and McGovern, and announced to the waiting throng in the hall that Conyers had told them “impeachment isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the votes.” Sheehan said Conyers had insisted that the best thing was for Democrats to focus on “winning big in 2008.”
To a loud and angry chorus of boos and hisses, the three went back inside Conyers’ office suite, where they were joined by some 30 other supporters, and all were subsequently arrested, at Conyers’ request, by Capitol police, who cuffed them and walked them off for booking. Several of those who sat in refused to walk and were carried or dragged out of the Rayburn Office Building, as the activists in the hall chanted “Shame on Conyers! Shame on Conyers!” and “Arrest Bush, Not the People!”
It was a thoroughly disgraceful scene wholly unworthy of a dean of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Before returning to sit in the Judiciary Chairman’s office and await arrest, Sheehan publicly announced her intention to run in 2008 as an independent candidate for Congress against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and she called on Americans everywhere to run not just against Republicans in 2008, but against Democrats too.
Yearwood, who is a chaplain in the Air Force, said that Conyers had been a mentor to him, but he declared that he now felt betrayed and that Americans needed to take back their government. As he was led down the hall to his arraignment, the handcuffed Yearwood pointedly sang “We Shall Overcome!”
Don’t you know, it works both ways!? Haven’t we all always said wiki isn’t the most reliable but often the place to start?
WikiScanner, the most spectacular new invention on the Internet, allows you to see who has made changes to Wikipedia, the popular Web encyclopedia that anyone can edit — and that includes White House staffers.
Wired News has been keeping a running tally on some of the more amusing and outrageous discoveries. (Someone at Exxon cleaning up the entry on the Valdez oil spill; someone at Halliburton editing the entry on war crimes, etc.) There have been so many edits by congressional staffers that the topic gets its own page on Wikipedia.
http://tinyurl.com/2qpsp4
Those animals down in Jena should be locked up and the key thrown away, period.
It is guilty liberals like brian who enable such cowardly minority on White criminality. There will never be a “level playing field” no matter how much evil legislation is passed and no matter how much wishing and hoping you engage in. Our society is a powder keg and libs/minorities are determined to light a match.
180*
Billionaire and Democrat Supporter Arrested for Solicitation of Underaged Girls
By: Jim Kouri, CPP
Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein was arrested by police on charges of solicitation after detectives from the Palm Beach, Florida Police Department conducted what they termed “an in-depth investigation.”
Epstein is pals with former President Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and is known to contribute tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrat Party.
Jeffrey Epstein was called an international mystery money man who appeared on the news media’s radar when he jetted to African on his private Boeing with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey and Chris Rock. New York Magazine in 2003 stated that he was a man known to love the ladies and was very secretive about his financial endeavors. The article claims no one really knows how he makes his billions of dollars.
“You do realize that Carter is not the only person who disagree with the IPCC, don’t you?”
Posted by: Nathan
Yes. You do realize that Kansas insists that Carter is better educated re climate than Ben, don’t you?
Kansas: “However, if you compare the education of Bob Carter and Ben Huie, you will find that Carter has the advantage because he is a paleo-climatologist, a professor of geology and a 30 year research into the field of the history of climate change.”
But it’s so EASY to prove that Carter is a liar.
Al Gore’s documentary spent considerable time discussing Earths past NATURAL climate changes — ice core research, temperatures the past 650,000 years, and a “mile of ice” covering Chicago.
‘Bob Carter: It’s good sense to avoid consensus on global warming’http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22044046-7583,00.html“From his film, Gore seemed to have lived his life on an imaginary planet where natural change didn’t exist,……Made by Martin Durkin, and called The Great Global Warming Swindle, this documentary explores the science of climate-change alarmism carefully and ACCURATELY.”
‘Bob Carter is a geologist who researches ancient climate change.’
Carter needs to research recent and current climate change.
“Martin Durkin dissected, demolished and debunked by ace Australian journalist Tony Jones. Durkin revealed as a dangerous lying knave.”
Global Warming Swindle Interview Pt1 8:43http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE
Global Warming Swindle Interview Pt2 9:57http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8
Leave it to Congress to come up with a plan to penalize investment activity with tax hikes at a time when a majority of Americans own stocks, including millions who hold investments indirectly through their retirement plans. The U.S. House is poised to take the first step in a strategy to undo not just the 2003 capital gains cut, but perhaps raise that capital gains tax rate to much higher levels, removing this important incentive for investment and entrepreneurship
Global Warming Hoax
*Since we are posting youtube videos now*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
XXX, Did it ever occur to you that the reason he feel dead was due to his past cocaine use?Posted by: Mary Caruso | September 04, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Well noshit, Mary.
You kind of missed the point of the post, huh? Talk down your nose to someone else.
Nathan,
Watched just a little of your Glenn Beck youtube.
Do you not understand that ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ was a sci-fi movie, NOT a documentary??
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
‘THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW – some comments on the movie’http://www.ozean-klima.de/
When they claim that there was a scientific consensus re global cooling in the 1970’s, that’s a ‘red flag’ they’re LYING to you.
Climate MYTHS: They predicted global cooling in the 1970shttp://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643
Do you enjoy being deceived??
Beck had the usual lying deniers…’Beck’s global warming special dominated by industry-funded “experts,” serial misinformers’http://mediamatters.org/items/200705040001
Well lookit that: the Boy King is being “advised” to keep the Surge surging, regardless of what GAO, Petraeus, Crocker, or anyone else says.
“WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush’s senior advisers on Iraq have recommended he stand by his current war strategy, and he is unlikely to order more than a symbolic cut in troops before the end of the year, administration officials told The Associated Press Tuesday.”
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20070904/D8REUV381.html
Bet that’s going to play well among Republicans who have to run for their seats next year.
This is getting a bit ridiculous. Impeachment, anyone?
cosmos
I was alive in the 70s and global cooling was a big issue. I dont care what your links says, I was there and the debate was global cooling vs global warning. There may or may not have been consensus either way, but there was healthy debate between the two groups, unlike today where you are a pariah and will be prosecuted if you dare to challenge GW
Cosmos,
The piece was directly debunking Al Gores claim about sea levels rising some 20 plus feet.
You are the only one being decieved.
‘The Day After Tomorrow’ was a sci-fi movie. It was NOT a documentary?? It was based somewhat on a book written by Whitley Strieber and Art Bell, titled, “The Coming Global Superstorm” It is not intended to portray factual data… More can be found about the book at http://www.unknowncountry.com
Yet more poisonous toys from China for the American children to play with… what else is new? And, as always, Bush and his sheep Republicans will defend China to the death- even the deaths of their dogs and children.
“”"Mary,20% of Americans can’t find the U.S. on a world map.
How do you explain raging stupidity?”"”
The same way I would explain the 30% of them that would still vote for Bush. You put together the trailer parks and ghettos and there are quite a few idiots around.
The trailer parks and ghettos tend to vote Dem, not Rep. The true idiots are the ones that keep voting for Dem and Rep since those voters are drinking from red and blue coolaid.
“”"I agree. When 6 people (regardless of race) attack 1 person and administer a beating that requires a trip to the hospital, they should be charged with attempted murder.6 against 1 is not a simple schoolyard fight, it’s an attack. And he was attacked for being white.”"”
When whites attack blacks, they almost always escape any serious punishment for their crimes. Rarely do they spend even a day in jail. And if you are a DA, you should know this better than most people. That is why the whites felt free to hang a noose in “the white tree” in the school yard. So if the black kid is going to jail, then the white kids should go to jail for a hate crime and violation of civil rights.
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Why So Gloomy?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth’s climate history, it’s apparent that there’s no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.
Kev
White people are regularly busted for attacking black people. Most crime against blacks is committed by other blacks, but the black leadership ignores that issue. Cops get away with beating and killing people of all colors, even white people. Look at how many white people killed by WPD and Nola’s office finding all the cases (white and nonwhite) justifiable. That happens a lot. In south MS recently, several white jailers either confessed or were convicted of beating a black inmate to death. That probably would not have been the case in the 60s. The family will receive several million in compensation from both the county and the city.
“”"Rep. Mel Reynolds, D-Ill., was sentenced in 1995 to five years in prison for having sex with an underage campaign worker. He resigned from Congress, then was sentenced in 1997 to 6 1/2 years for bank fraud and other violations. The second sentence, which was to run at the same time as the first, was commuted in 2001 by President Clinton.”"”
As a former constituent of this dirt bag, I can make 2 points- 1 is that Mel was the “establishment” candidate when he ran. He came across as educated, intelligent and a good family man. And the guy he was running against in the primary (which is tantamont to winning the election in Democratic Chicago) had been a clown and embarassed the district for too long with his antics such as yelling “motherfu**er” at reporters on live TV. So Mel was the perfect candidate to finally rid us of Gus Savage and many of us- including me- gave time and money to get him elected. But when it was discovered that he was a child molester and a criminal, we did NOT put him back in office (the district is now represented by Jesse Jackson Jr). Unlike the Republicans, we did not on Sunday morning TV and defend Reynolds like the GOP does for its sinners after claiming to be the “party of family values”. So point number 1 is you can make a mistake and elect a dirtbag. Number 2 is that you can make a seocnd mistake and defend a dirtbag.
Kev,
Two wrongs dont make one right. To justify black on white violence as okay because some whites get away with it is as wrong as white violence against black people. That mentality only assures that the violence will continue.
One of my favorite videos Nathan, is where they caught Al Gore “The GORACLE” in a lie.
This video shows that the photograph of polar bears used by Gore was actually taken by another photographer in the summertime when ice melts. The polar bears were not in danger.
A Canadian Environmental Group got it from a Canadian Government “Ice” agency and they sent it out to the AP.
Gore picked up on and used it in his film and briefings as evidence the Arctic was melting and polar bears were dieing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ
“The piece was directly debunking Al Gores claim about sea levels rising some 20 plus feet.
You are the only one being decieved.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 04, 2007 at 07:21 PM
Really??? Then TRY to PROVE it! Gore clearly said “IF” Greenland melted, etc, with NO time frame given.
What Al Gore said was ACCURATE.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlSPM,”If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.
The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise. {6.4, 10.7}”
Cosmos,
Why would Al Gore spend so much time showing what would happen if Greenland ice melted when no thinks that is going to happen?
Keep pusing the hype.
All you can do is scare people and call anyone who doesn’t agree a liar or hack.
‘Polar Bears Face Serious ThreatBut scientists say there is time to save them, and the polar ice caps’http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=January&x=20070104134253mlenuhret0.3304254
‘Arctic sea ice on the wane: Now what?”http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2006/2006_seaice.html
“NSIDC scientist Mark Serreze said, “The reduction in summer sea ice is a bad omen for animals like the polar bear, which need sea ice for their survival.” ”
‘Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts’http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece
‘Drowning polar bears worry researchers’http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2246
‘Scientists Sound Warning on Global Warming’http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1407585“A survey by the U.S. Mineral Management Service has recorded elevated numbers of polar bears drowning. Some have been found swimming far out in the warming Arctic sea as the sea ice pulls back farther from land and the bears try to swim to shore.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070904/ap_on_re_us/governor_ray_nagin
Seems Nagin is going to announce his bid for La governor. Why NOLA reelected him is beyond me. He gambled with his citizens lives and lost 1000+ because he thought Katrina was going to miss.
His disapproval rating is 65%, but the article does not say what approval rating is.
He refuses to meet the new height requirements for rebuilding and does not understand why the La and federal govts wont give him more money.
“All you can do is scare people and call anyone who doesn’t agree a liar or hack.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 04, 2007 at 08:01 PM
Post your credible scientific proof that humans are not causing global warming.
Post your proof that sea levels will not rise in the future.
You can’t, because there isn’t any.
All that you seem able to do is post LIES about what Al Gore, and others say. And make false personal attacks on me.
“There may or may not have been consensus [in the 1970's] either way, but there was healthy debate between the two groups, unlike today where you are a pariah and will be prosecuted if you dare to challenge GW”
Posted by: Global Cooling | September 04, 2007 at 07:14 PM
Nathan’s Glenn Beck video FALSELY claimed that there was “scientific consensus” on global cooling in the 1970’s.
People who make that LIE deserve the label “pariah”.
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 of worldwide climate research later, and the debate is over — our GHG emissions ARE causing global warming, and climate change.
Max, you DO realize we’re talking about Kansas? Dude, we’re not IN California.
If you had someone abusing FMLA, you had every right to file a grievance. Of course, if he just went fishing to get away and take a break from caregiving, well hell, that is just abuse isn’t it?You’ve obviously never been a caregiver.
I’m sorry that you don’t think women should be able to give birth and keep their jobs. Darn women just get all the breaks- having to birth the ‘man’s children’. I guess she should just suck it up and head back to work if she doesn’t want to lose her job. She’s SOL if she gets bedrest or complications (that’s oh so joyful too).
We’ve filed for FMLA twice…once when my son was ill in the hospital with the flu and required 24 hour care (no the nurses couldn’t sit with him all the time, so my husband and I took 12 hour shifts). And when my mom had cancer and was in Houston by herself. We never used that FMLA, my husband filed it in case I needed to leave on a moment’s notice. He was going to come home to care for our son, while I flew out to Houston to help her if she got really bad.
“Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 ”
Posted by: Nathan | September 04, 2007 at 07:45 PM
Lindzen’s claims REFUTED,
‘Lindzen: point by point’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lindzen-point-by-point/
“Daniel Kirk-Davidoff (U. Maryland and one-time Lindzen co-author) provided a more detailed rebuttal of Lindzen’s argument in the comments to our previous post. It deserves to be more widely seen, so here it is again.”
There will be a Press Conference in front of the Sedgwick County Court House at 525 N. Main at 10:00am tomorrow, Wednesday, September 5th, to turn in over 7000 petition signatures to the District Court, asking them to impanel a Grand Jury to investigate possible illegal post-viable abortions in Wichita .The noose of justice tightens.- – -
In case there was any doubt about the extreme pro-abortion views and actions of Hillary “Hog Futures” Clinton, she voted 4 times in favor of partial birth abortion, supports taxpayer-funded abortion without restriction, and voted twice against criminalizing adults transporting minors across statelines for abortion without parental knowledge. Mrs. Clinton also promises to funnel taxpayer money into Planned Parenthood for contraceptives, under the pretense of limiting abortions.And her actions are slightly less extreme than Obama’s, who voted against the born-alive infantsprotection act in the Illinois Senate, because he favors live birth abortions.- – -
“Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to go on all fours, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to spill blood, that is the law.Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men? “. . . H. G. Wells, “The Island of Dr. Moreau”. . .
Approval is expected Wednesday from the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for clone-and-kill lab goons to mix human cells withanimal embryos in order to create hybrid chimera creatures from which to harvest stem cells.Well, if they have never produced anything useful in all the years of taxpayer-funded research usingfertilized human embryos and human clones, what kind of use will come of chimeras, other than more horrorstories?
Troy, yet another good reason to vote for Hillary. She doesn’t buy into your bull.
“All you can do is … call anyone who doesn’t agree a liar or hack.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 04, 2007 at 08:01 PM
Try to PROVE that Bob Carter was NOT a “liar” and/or “hack” when he wrote this.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22044046-7583,00.html“From his film, Gore seemed to have lived his life on an imaginary planet where natural change didn’t exist,…”
Your proof is not convincing, and neither are your sources. Any dissenting scientists are ignored or threatened.
Three decades of limited research is not compelling, especially when the scientists in question are pro-manmade GHG. They peer review each other and pat each on the back.
They compare a small part of time and make sweeping statements.
I know you wont be convinced since you are so rabid in defense of GHG and GW.
What are you going to do when scientists figure out they were wrong?
It is sad that scientists quell dissent on any issue, whether it is GHG/GW, evolution, or any other scientific issue. Scientists when I was young debated issues without resorting to threats of non-employment and other ostracizations if you did not follow the religion of science like a mindless zombie.
Anytime scientists refuse to debate openly and honestly, they are not practicing science. People like you are so caught up in the issue that you will not hear any other side. You do call people liars and hacks. Some of your own posts and links show contradictions that you refuse to accept or even acknowledge. You make vast generalizations as if they were fact, when they are not.
I have no problem with the fact that the planet may be experiencing GW since it has had both GW and Global Cooling periods in the past. However, that does not mean that man is making the problem worse, maybe we are and maybe we arent. The scientists are using extremely limited data to make the claim.
Mars is suffering GW last I heard, and we havent found Martians creating it yet.
Too many of the pro-GW crowd are selling products or services to offset GW. Carbon credits are laughable. If you think GW is manmade, then reduce your contribution to it. A recent presenter drove to a conference and when asked if he was causing GW said something to the effect that he had to get there somehow.
China, Brazil, Mexico, and India among other industrial countries are fast outpacing the US in potential GHG emissions, but there is little mention of having them reduce their emissions. Like I saw, most of the EU had not met Kyoto imposed reductions, and many had actually increased their emissions.
Why you refuse to consider that you may be wrong is why most people ignore your posts. You are worse than the worst Religious Righter in your beliefs. I have a better chance of converting a vehement Religious Righter to Satanism than I do of getting you to consider that GHG and GW may not be accurate.
Pmom there are plenty of Kansans that abuse FMLA, and it is mainly because HR depts do not follow the guidelines. Following the guidelines would limit the abusers while safeguarding those who truly need to use it.
And I am not talking about someone taking a day off for caregiver relief. I am talking about people that want a day, but either dont want to use other leave or have run out of leave.
All this is going to do is make it harder for other employees down the road.
Royal Caribbean tightened its policies on FMLA because too many employees were abusing it, so now all employees have to jump through the hoops. Had their HR read the FMLA rules, this issue could have been avoided from the get go.
“I have no problem with the fact that the planet may be experiencing GW since it has had both GW and Global Cooling periods in the past.
Posted by: “Global Cooling”
So… since Earth has had natural “GW and Global Cooling periods in the past”, NOTHING would happen to our climate if humans had a large-scale nuclear war?
Increasing Earths GHG’s causes warming.
“Global Cooling”: Mars is suffering GW last I heard, and we havent found Martians creating it yet.”
Yawn… Mars has a different orbit, and different climate system than Earth.’Climate MYTHS: Mars and Pluto are warming too’http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642 “But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.”
“I have no problem with the fact that the planet may be experiencing GW since it has had both GW and Global Cooling periods in the past. However, that does not mean that man is making the problem worse, maybe we are and maybe we arent. The scientists are using extremely limited data to make the claim.”
Always enjoyable when obvious non-scientists like this particular sock puppet version of Kansas make posts claiming that they know more about science than scientists. Good for some laughs, please keep it up.
It’s official: Repubs are after the gay vote. It is now OK to have gay sex in the airport while waiting on your plane.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20593999/
The evidence is flimsy at best. The cop should have asked the guy some specific questions so there would be no doubt that he was asking for sex. A bad lawyer could get him off, and a good lawyer could get him a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
I dont know if he was asking for sex, nor do I care.
I tap my foot when I having a major BM, but that doesnt mean I want sex, it means I am in pain because I am constipated severely due to medicine issues. Guess I should avoid that airport.
He was dumb for going to court without a lawyer in the first place. It’s not like he couldnt afford one with his salary.
Steven Davis.
You have no problem with nonscientists like cosmos make absurd claims that rely on insufficient data.
cosmos, a nuclear war would probably cause a nuclear winter so that would solve the GHG/GW issue nicely. Granted most people would probably die from the radiation or fallout issues. However, we were not discussing nuclear holocaust.
Once scientists due sufficient research that proves or disproves the issue then I will trust them. However, as long as they pull the us/them card, I dont trust them.
What are you doing to reduce your GHG emissions? According to some scientists we are probably too late to stop the GW issue, even with massive emission reductions.
Steven Davis. I am no sock pocket of Kansas. I have never met him/her, and I agree with some of his stuff and disagree with some of stuff. Likewise, I agree with some of your positions and disagree with some of them.
It seems that people like to assume it is Kansas way too often.
I guess the rest of Wichita or the world cant disagree with someone without it being Kansas or one of the other conservatives on the board.
I am a moderate, liberal on some issues and conservative on others.
I do believe that not allowing people to challenge theories only proves that person is more closed minded than the challenger.
I never claimed to know more than scientists. I only pointed out that scientists are not willing to allow challenges to their theories. This is more in line with what happened in the old times when someone challenged the Sun revolves around the earth, except you dont get killed for making the challenge today.
If scientists were so sure that manmade GW was real, they should welcome challenges instead of stifling them. Only through intelligent debate and testing will science prove anything.
Well, then put the blame where it belongs…on the ones doing the abusing, and the ones allowing it.
Dont call the whole thing flawed simply because of a few bad examples.
This must be that oft repeated 70’s Global Cooling.Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s17:00 16 May 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Michael Le Page
PrintSendFeedsToolsAdvertisementSee all 26 climate myths in our special feature.
Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage (see Histories: The ice age that never was).
One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider’s paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.
This scenario was seen as plausible by many other scientists, as at the time the planet had been cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980). Furthermore, it had also become clear that the interglacial period we are in was lasting an unusually long time (see Record ice core gives fair forecast).
However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, Schneider stated: “We just don’t know…at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling – or when.” A 1975 report (pdf format) by the US National Academy of Sciences merely called for more research.
The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny. According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity (see Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind).
cosmos is the worst Global Cooling, have fun arguing with him, he doesn’t listen. He’ll just call you a liar, a denier and post a few dozen hyperlinks without standing on his own hind legs and debating it like an adult.
Kansas I know he wont change, and I dont plan on arguing with him. He is worse than a religious Righter.
political mom unfortunately legally your company can get sued for alleged discrimination if you only target the offenders. It is not just FMLA this applies to. To CYA, the company applies it to everyone that way the abusers cannot claim discrimination. I do not appreciate having to suffer because some moron abusing whatever, but I understand the reason behind it.
In the better days, you could just fire the bozos and not punish everyone.
Steven Davis,
The funniest part of “Global Cooling’s” post is the claim that humans are not causing GW, because humans are not quickly reducing GHG emissions.
The slow reduction of GHG’s is partly caused by people like him falsely claiming that humans are not causing GW.
Cosmos,
You never did say why Al Gore would be making a movie about sea levels rising 20 plus feet which no one says is going to happen… any time soon that is.
Doom and Gloom is all you got.
If you can’t convince people through logic and reason, I guess scare tactics are the way to go?
Richard Lindzen:
One can go on at length over the hilarious excesses of the climate issue, but it is particularly important to realize that over twenty years, this issue has evolved into a major industry.
Consider, for example, the consequences of a sudden discovery that global warming is a negligible problem.
1. Science – especially in its official representation – would be disgraced.
2. Climate science would be treated with suspicion for years to come.
3. The artificial field of climate impacts (which constitutes the bulk of what are called climate scientists) would largely disappear.
4. The environmental movement would be discredited and its fund raising ability would collapse.
5. Tens of thousands of bureaucrats and media drum-beaters would be without function.
6. Clever industrial plans to game the proposed systems would come to naught.
7. The UN would be without what it now claims to be its major cause (“The danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming” – Ban Ki-moon .)
8. Many alternate energy startups would fail.
9. Numerous speculators would be ruined.
10. Trial lawyers working to make carbon the next tobacco would have to look elsewhere.
11. Even more numerous individuals who have adopted this issue as a matter of personal faith and vindication of their virtue and intelligence would be disillusioned and depressed.
12. There would also be little interest in a presentation like this.
Is there any chance that most of the potential victims of the above would not fight back?
In point of fact, there is ample and relatively clear evidence that the issue is severely exaggerated, but don’t expect that this information will be widely publicized.
Most publicity focuses on the putative catastrophic impacts of global warming. Even warming, itself, depends on a chain of inference, but impacts depend on far longer chains of inference than does warming itself, and any given prediction has almost no chance of being correct. All the catastrophic projections made by the IPCC Impacts Report depend on warming being large, but they depend on much more as well.
cosmos had you read my post you would realize that I said we dont know, and for that matter neither do your experts. They have a theory based on limited data, and nothing more. If they were to do more detailed studies and research then I would be willing to agree that manmade GW is manmade. GW has occurred probably many times in our planet’s life, and it was not manmade.
Exactly how I am supposedly creating more GHG. My car gets 30+ mpg in the city and I use public transportation when possible. I combine driving errands to reduce my vehicle usage. I also walk to places within walking distance in good weather instead of using my car. I do not use air conditioning while driving. I rarely use air conditioning at home unless it hits 100 or more. I buy recycled products when possible even though they usually cost a fair amount more than the nonrecycled items.
I do not recall saying humans were not causing GW because “humans are not quickly reducing GHG emissions.” If GW is manmade then logically not reducing GHG would lead to more GW. I try to go green as much as possible to live the world a better place.
If you can’t convince people through logic and reason, I guess scare tactics are the way to go?
Posted by: Nathan | September 04, 2007 at 10:39 PM
========================
You should know that quite well, Nathan… That is the same feeble argument Bush and company are using for staying “the course” in Iraq.
I still think we should carpet bomb, or napalm all of those thick, luscious, poppy fields in Afghanistan, and cut off the primary funding source, and perhaps we might have some very strong talking points with the Taliban, and the insurgents….
And then, maybe we should start arresting every dope dealer in the States, as an enemy combatant, and supporter of Al Quaeda… That might even have some bearing on the “war on drugs” ….
Well, Good night; Good luck, and God bless….whatever you conceive of God to be!!
Troll Kansas,
Try to “stand on your own hind legs”, and PROVE some simple points.
Prove that Bob Carter, and “Ms. Byrnes”, provide accurate, credible scientific information about climate change.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-94.html#comment-81538787
Prove that Bob Carter did not LIE about Gore’s documentary — and that his claim that Martin Durkin’s film “explores the science of climate-change alarmism carefully and ACCURATELY” is not FALSE.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-94.html#comment-81622505
You cannot do the above, so you will post more false personal attacks at me, and/or slink away.
Chas,
I am still curious about something.
You always say:
“Well, Good night; Good luck, and God bless….whatever you conceive of God to be!!”
The other night you said this too:
“In Essentials Unity; In Non-essentials Liberty; In all things, Love.”
What are the essentials?
“You never did say why Al Gore would be making a movie about sea levels rising 20 plus feet which no one says is going to happen… any time soon that is.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 04, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Duuh… because it IS possible, in the future, if humans do not reduce GHG emissions.
And you have NOT answered my questions upthread,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-94.html#comment-81637127
Chas. I do not know if you are serious about the carpet bombing/napalming and other comments. I think it would solve some major problems, but the political fallout from the rest of the world and many of our own citizens would be tremendous.
Cosmos,
According to your consensus, how possible is it for the sea levels to rise 20 feet?
How much time?
How PROBABLE is it?
It is obvious that Al Gore was using it as nothing more than a scare tactic that not even your consensus says will happen.
Nathan, why dont you look up the quotation about “essentials” That way, you wont be able to argue the point with me, if you look it up yourself. Night!!
Maybe carpet bombing the poppy fields would cause a stir… But should it cause any more of a stir, than when we go out, chop down a field of perfectly good marijuana, and burn it???
I really do think if we stopped the poppy production, we could make a major dent in the funding for Al Qaeda world wide… Poppys are the biggest export of Afghanistan…
Chas,
I would like to know what you think the essentials are?
The quote means different things to different people.
I don’t remember…
Do you call yourself a Christian?
“I do believe that not allowing people to challenge theories only proves that person is more closed minded than the challenger.
“Posted by: Global Cooling”
So encouraged by these so-called “open-minded” posters. Sad. Really sad.
I agree it would probably cause a lot more than a stir and it would solve a funding source for AQ. I saw where it was a freaking huge amount of money they get from it, and most of their supply winds up here.
Nathan, try running a “search” at http://www.iona.org.uk Also, you might google Barton Stone, and Alexander Campbell.
Nathan, when you ask such a stupid question like that, you then know why I am not going to discuss it with you. But, just know that if you want to argue the “essentials” statement, you are arguing with several centuries of Christian Church History.
“It is obvious that Al Gore was using it as nothing more than a scare tactic that not even your consensus says will happen.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 04, 2007 at 11:07 PM
What is obvious is that Nathan has a reading comprehension problem.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-94.html#comment-81635365
Also,’Ice Sheets and Sea Level Rise: Model Failure is the Key Issue’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise-model-failure-is-the-key-issue/
‘How much future sea level rise? More evidence from models and ice sheet observations.’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/catastrophic-sea-level-rise-more-evidence-from-the-ice-sheets/
And it is obvious that Nathan is unable to engage in a honest debate.
A Personal Call For Modesty, Integrity, and Balance by Hendrik Tennekes
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/01/31/a-personal-call-for-modesty-integrity-and-balance-by-henkrik-tennekes/
“I want to lobby for decency, modesty, honesty, integrity and balance in climate research. I hope and pray we lose our obsession with climate forecasting. Climate simulations are best seen as sensitivity experiments, not as tools for policy makers. I said it in 1990 and I am saying it now: the constraints imposed by the planetary ecosystem require continuous adjustment and permanent adaptation. Predictive skills are of secondary importance. We should stop our support for the preoccupation with greenhouse gases our politicians indulge in. Global energy policy is their business, not ours. We should not allow politicians to use fake doomsday projections as a cover-up for their real intentions. If IPCC does not come to its senses, I’ll be happy to let it stew in its own juices. There is plenty of other work to do.”
^5 Cosmos!!
Chas,
I am not arguing the essentials statement.
It was a simple question.
Why are you so afraid of answering any questions about your faith?
Do you have something to hide?
Gotta go now… so one more time:
Good night; Good luck, and God bless….whatever you conceive of God to be!!
Chas,
Isn’t ecumenism about the focus on Christ?
If so then why do you always end your evening with:
“Good night; Good luck, and God bless….whatever you conceive of God to be!!”
Cosmos,
Once again is saying I can’t engage in an honest debate the only thing you can do?
It is sad that you absolutely refuse to do anything but call those you disagree with a liar or hack.
Cosmos, you are a tool.
METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATE:PROBLEMS AND EXPECTATIONS
Antonino Zichichi
World Federation of Scientists, Beijing, Geneva, Moscow, New York
ABSTRACT
The predictive power of differential non linear equations weaklycoupled, in the description of elementary processes by far morerigorously known than those existing in Meteorology andClimatology where the differential equations are strongly coupled, isdiscussed in order to call attention on the claimed predictive powerin the field of Meteorology and Climate change where problemsmust necessarily be by far more complex. Years of work and strongfinancial support are needed in order to improve the theoreticalformulation of these problems and the corresponding experimentalworldwide observations. This is necessary before anyone can claimthat a scientific rigorous understanding has been achieved inmastering all Meteorology and Climate change problems of the past,present and future.
http://www.justpax.it/pcgp/dati/2007-05/18-999999/ZICHICHI_METEOROLOGY%20AND%20CLIMATE.pdf
Anyone interested in seeing the other side of the story on Global Warming
This is a good place to read up on some of the scientists who disagree with the concensus:
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Are they all liars and hacks Cosmos?
What the U.N. Won’t Tell You
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/
“The IPCC Web site claims an impressive number of participants: 450 lead authors, 800 contributors and 2,500 expert reviewers (of which I was one). But it would be a mistake to assume all these experts endorse everything in summary, including its bottom-line assessment: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Many disagree with the conclusion itself or the claimed level of certainty, but the fact is, we were never asked. Most participants worked only on small portions of the report, handed in final materials last summer and never ventured an opinion on claims made in the summary.”
Nathan,
Thank you for proving my point.
‘Hendrik TennekesNo new research in 15 years’http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1278
“No published research in last 15 yearsTennekes is a retired researcher from the Netherlands that, according to a search of 22,000 academic journals, has not published any original research in a peer-reviewed journal since 1990. Prior to 1990, Tennekes has published research mainly in the area of meteorology.
Tenekes and Dr. S. Fred SingerTennekes has written numerous articles for Dr. S Fred Singer’s organization called the “Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). The SEPP and Fred Singer have a long history of attacking the science of global warming. Fred Singer has been connected to organizations that were involved in denying the link between second-hand tobacco smoke and he has also received funding from oil companies.”
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar1
Conclusions
The writers identified and described the global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: solar irradiation as a dominant energy supplier to the atmosphere (and hydrosphere); outgassing as a dominant gaseous matter supplier to the atmosphere (and hydrosphere); and microbial activities at the interface of the lithosphere and atmosphere. The scope and extent of these processes are 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding anthropogenic impacts on the Earth’s climate (such as heating and emission of the greenhouse gases).
Inspection of the global atmospheric temperature changes during the last 1,000 years (Fig. 11) shows that the global average temperature dropped about 2°C over the last millennium. This means that we live in the cooling geologic epoch (which comprises most of the Holocene), and the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century) (Khilyuk and Chilingar 2003, 2004).
The global natural processes drive the Earth’s climate: “Climate will change, either warmer or colder, over many scales of time, with or without human interference” (Gerhard 2004). Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls. In addition, application of these controls will lead to catastrophic economic consequences. Estimates show (http://www.JunkScience.com) that since its inception in February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost about $50 billion (about $10 billion a month) supposedly averting about 0.0005°C of warming by the year 2050. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices). Impact of available human controls will be negligible in comparison with the global forces of nature. Thus, the attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes (and drastic measures prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol) have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful. Instead, moral and professional obligation of all responsible scientists and politicians is to minimize potential human misery resulting from oncoming global climatic changes.
Cosmos,
The only point I am proving is that you are a Global warming Chicken little tool.
Statement of Dr. David DemingUniversity of OklahomaCollege of Earth and EnergyClimate Change and the Media
There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.
Earth’s climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.
The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
Nathan,
LOOK at the many hundreds of scientists worldwide listed in the annex at,http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Are they all liars and hacks Nathan? NO!
Nathan cannot prove that, so he instead posts garbage.
Cosmos,
Sorry I don’t play your lazy argument game of simply calling everyone a liar or hack.
I’ll leave that stupidity to you.
“Consensus”?What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, the Debate Is Not Over
byThe Viscount Monckton of BrenchleyJuly 2007Conclusion
ne has only to cut away the alarmist rhetoric and the media distractions, one hasonly to focus on the central question in the climate-change debate, and at once thefact that there is no scientific consensus about climate change is laid bare. The centralquestion is this: By how much will global temperature increase in response to anyforeseeable increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide? On thatquestion, which the bureaucrats call the “climate sensitivity question”, there is noO20consensus whatsoever among the scientific community. We have seen how Hansen’sinitial attempt at prediction, albeit using one of the largest computer models of theclimate on the planet, turned out to contain an unfortunate element of exaggeration. It isinevitably the extreme scenarios that attract the attention of politicians and the media.The UN’s own attempts to reach “consensus” on the climate sensitivity questiondemonstrate all too clearly not only that it cannot perform simple additions credibly butalso that it does not even agree with itself. The internal inconsistencies in the UN’sdocuments are numerous and growing. We have already seen how it has changed its mindon sea level, as well as performing incorrect addition sums for what appears to have beena political purpose. On the climate sensitivity question, too, the IPCC does not agree withitself. In 2001, it said that the sum of the major climate “forcings” that contribute totemperature change was approximately 2.4 watts per square meter. Now it has decidedthat the “forcing” from carbon dioxide is largely canceled out by the negative “forcing”from the pollution that accompanies fossil-fuel burning, particularly in China and India,preventing sunlight from reaching the Earth.Likewise, if one aggrgates up the UN’s central estimates of the contributions of allclimate “forcings” and temperature “feedbacks” to the projected warming from increasedgreenhouse gases, the total comes to just half the UN’s published central estimate of a3.2C temperature increase in response to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2concentration. Once again, a large exaggeration is evident, right at the heart of thealarmist case. If the UN’s documents do not even agree with themselves, how can anykind of “consensus” be claimed?The Russian Academy of Sciences and the US Association of State Climatologists arejust two of the scientific organizations that have trenchantly expressed serious doubtsabout the imagined “consensus” on climate change. They have recently been joined bythe Administrator of NASA, who has said that it is arrogant to make the Panglossianassumption that today’s climate is the best of all possible climates, and still more arrogantto assume that any of the more or less futile remedial measures which have beenadvocated will make any significant climatic difference. The Administrator ought toknow: for it is his organization that gathers much of the weather data via satellite uponwhich the rickety edifice of the climate-change “consensus” is constructed.A growing number of scientists who had previously subscribed to the alarmistpresentation of the “consensus” are no longer sure. They are joining the numerousclimatologists – many of them with outstanding credentials – who have never believed inthe more extreme versions of the alarmist case. Indeed, many scientists now say that therehas been no discernible human effect on temperature at all. For instance, Buentgen et al.(2006) say: “The 20th-century contribution of anthropogenic greenhouse gases andaerosol remains insecure.”Let the last word go to Mike Hulme, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch in the UK, who has himself undergone something of a conversio morum onclimate change, and has written:21“The IPCC is not going to talk about tipping points; it’s not going to talkabout five-meter rises in sea level; it’s not going to talk about the next iceage because the Gulf Stream collapses; and it’s going to have none of theeconomics of the Stern Review. It’s almost as if a credibility gap hasemerged between what the British public thinks and what the internationalscience community think. …“Over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has beenconstructed … – the phenomenon of ‘catastrophic’ climate change. Itseems that mere ‘climate change’ was not going to be bad enough, and sonow it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. The increasing useof this pejorative term – and its bedfellow qualifiers ‘chaotic’,'irreversible’, ‘rapid’ – has altered the public discourse around climatechange.“This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change isworse than we thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping inthe Earth’s climate’, and that we are ‘at the point of no return’. I havefound myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners whenmy public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfiedtheir thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seemsthat it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the(catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel turns!”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf
Member of the U.N. Climate Team Says You Can’t Accurately Predict Climate ChangeFriday, June 29, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287437,00.html
A noted climate scientist who is part of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, now says computer models cannot predict future climate — and he says the IPCC is not in the climate prediction business.
Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote on a nature magazine blog that the U.N.’s dire forecasts about the dangers of global warming are not climate predictions.
He says they are “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. And he admits the computer models don’t even consider things such as the recovery of the ozone layer.
He writes — “The current projection method…can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle…The science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.”
“Statement of Dr. David Deming”
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Thank you once AGAIN Nathan, for PROVING my points.
‘Bye, bye Inhofe’http://www.desmogblog.com/bye-bye-inhofe
” In response, David Deming, an “adjunct scholar” for the ExxonMobil sweetheart, the National Centre for Policy Analysis, offered his psychological opinion on the subject,: “We are dealing with a psychological phenonmenon which is a mass delusion.”
It should be noted that Deming has no actual background in the area of psychology that DeSmog can find
Keeping the cirucs act alive, Deming and Bob Carter, another “expert” witness, made the outrageous claim that people should be emitting as much greenhouse gas as possible to avoid another ice age.
But the last word goes to Harvard Geophysicist Daniel Schrag who is very happy to see Inhofe finally giving up his gavel: “He [Inhofe] dredges up people that have no real standing in the scientific community and they spout off on their views. I think it’s good for climate policy around the world that this was Senator Inhofe’s last hearing.”
Bye, bye Inhofe.”
I hate it when I read a newspaper blurb on a new article published in Science magazine or Nature, and you go to their website, and you have to become a subscriber at really high expense, to read the article. I mean, if the article is submitted by a biotech company or researchers in Hungary, that’s one thing. But if it is submitted by American university faculty, the research being funded by National Science Foundation or National Institutes of Health–i.e. I paid for the research, along with my fellow American taxpayers–the research should be freely available to the people who paid for it.
Now, Wichita Central Library subscribes to Science, but not Nature. It doesn’t provide online access to citizens, you have to drive down to the library, and pay for parking to look at Science articles. For Nature articles you either have to drive to WSU and pay metered parking, or if you want to read Nature articles online, you have to be a WSU student or staff member. Umm, I’m paying for WSU’s operation, including its Nature online journal subscription.
PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) is available for reading, without subscription charge. As it should be, because the National Academy is a Congressionally-chartered taxpayer-funded organization.
Basically, we need a federal law that either A. requires federally-funded research to be published in free open-access journals, or B. requires privately owned journals to provide no-cost access to to all American taxpayers for American taxpayer-funded research articles. If they want to preclude American taxpayers from viewing articles representing research funded by the Serbian Academy of Sciences, without a paid subscription, I don’t have a problem with that.
Ahhh…
Poor little cosmos doesn’t know what to do when confronted with things which go against his chicken little global warming hype.
“Cosmos,
Sorry I don’t play your lazy argument game of simply calling everyone a liar or hack.
I’ll leave that stupidity to you.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Perhaps Nathan isn’t smart enough to realize it, but he is saying that the many hundreds of scientists who wrote,
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
are “liars and hacks”, with the posts he has made above.
Nathan is a “tool” of the AGW deniers, but he does not even realize it. He is very pathetic.
Cosmos,
A liar is someone who INTENTIONALLY decieves.
I don’t think most of those scientists had any intention of that. They do their research and make conclusions.
I disagree with those conclusions as do others.
You can disagree without having to call someone a liar or a hack.
I realize it is all you know how to do, but it is possible to disagree without someone being called a liar or hack.
“byThe Viscount Monckton of Brenchley”
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Thank you once AGAIN Nathan, for PROVING my points.
‘Cuckoo Science’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/“Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious ’science’ on the web and in the media. These pieces look scientific to the layperson (they have equations! references to 19th Century physicists!), but like cuckoo eggs in a nest, they are only designed to look real enough to fool onlookers and crowd out the real science. A cursory glance from anyone knowledgeable is usually enough to see that concepts are being mangled, logic is being thrown to the winds, and completetly unjustified conclusions are being drawn – but the tricks being used are sometimes a little subtle.
Two pieces that have recently drawn some attention fit this mould exactly. One by Christopher Monckton (a viscount, no less, with obviously too much time on his hands) which comes complete with supplematary ‘calculations’ using his own ‘M’ model of climate, and one on JunkScience.com (’What Watt is what’). Junk Science is a front end for Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist, and who has been a reliable source for these ‘cuckoo science’ pieces for years. Curiously enough, both pieces use some of the same sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary (coincidence?).”
(more at link)
Cosmos,
What point of yours am I proving?
That the only thing you can do is call people names?
Nothing in that post refuted what I posted.
Did you even read what I posted?
It was talking about the myth of the concensus…
Cosmos,
So what do you say?
Are you actually ready to have a real discussion on Global Warming or do you only wish to have a link posting contest?
Or is it STILL your assertion that anyone who disagrees with the “concensus” is a liar and hack?
“Cosmos,
A liar is someone who INTENTIONALLY decieves.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 12:48 AM
Okay, NATHAN… post your PROOF that Bob Carter did not “INTENTIONALLY decieve” when he (and Tom Harris) wrote:”Ms. Byrnes also demonstrates how simple it has become to effectively challenge today’s climate change hysteria. To do so you need merely some elementary science knowledge and a modicum of courage.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-94.html#comment-81538787
Post your PROOF that Bob Carter did not “INTENTIONALLY decieve” when he wrote: “From his film, Gore seemed to have lived his life on an imaginary planet where natural change didn’t exist,…”
Post your PROOF that Bob Carter did not “INTENTIONALLY decieve” when he said that Martin Durkin’s film “explores the science of climate-change alarmism carefully and ACCURATELY.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/09/open-thread-94.html#comment-81622505
Cosmos,
In an argument, it is your job to prove that Bob Carter intentionally decieved not mine to say he didn’t.
Either way, you are avoiding the point of my post, which had nothing to do with Carter.
It was in response to your false claim that I was calling everyone on that list of yours a liar and hack.
Do you have a response to that or another diversion?
Interesting…
It seems this guy has something about realclimate.org to say:
A contribution from John A. over at Climate Audit
The authors of realclimate.org do have something that’s robust: theirmoderation policy. They feel free to make the most ridiculous repliesto comments, in the sure and certain knowledge that if someone callsthem on it, they can just delete the reply rather than publish and bedamned.
http://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=73
Oh, what is this…
Something about hypocrisy at realclimate.org?
http://veritasnoctis.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-hypocrisy-realclimate-and-funding.html
“Let’s say I take him at his word that the contributors have not been paid for any reason and haven’t even had a lunch bought for them. Fenton Communications is a left-liberal public relations firm that has been orchestrating Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign (not that I’m pro-war, I’m just saying…). Environmental Media Services is a left-liberal environmental orgnanization. Did Fenton handle RealClimate’s press release free of charge or did the contributors of RealClimate pool their funds from their government paychecks to pay for the service? Does RealClimate pay EMS for hosting their blog? The author of the post doesn’t say, but I would be surprised if the contributors of RealClimate paid for any of these services. If they didn’t pay for these services out of their own pockets, then RealClimate has received and continues to receive the equivalent, in terms of subsidized services, of financial support from left-liberal and environmental organizations. And if they did pay for these services, why deal exclusively with left-liberal and environmental organizations?
Now, I of course would be the first to say that these connections with left-liberal and environmental organizations are not by themselves enough to refute their substantive claims on climate change. Ad hominems make for faulty arguments. However, the hypocrisy and half-truths I have highlighted here do speak to overall character and intellectual honesty in particular. They profess to be pure, objective scientists while accusing their critics of being, almost universally, ignorant laymen, partisan hacks or enemies of science; but their biases are quite plain. I am here merely pointing out the hypocrisy. Their substantive claims must still be dealt with elsewhere, albeit with blinders off.”
‘Cosmos,
In an argument, it is your job to prove that Bob Carter intentionally decieved not mine to say he didn’t.”
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 01:07 AM
If Nathan HAD ACTUALLY watched Al Gore’s documentary, he would KNOW that Bob Carter had “intentionally decieved”. Or, that Carter did not watch Gore’s documentary.
And I’m not making a “diversion”. Prove that Carter did not “intentionally decieve”, then do it with the others you posted.
And just because a few AGW deniers did not “intentionally decieve” does NOT prove that the many hundreds of climate scientists in the IPCC report, etc are wrong.
Cosmos,
You accused me of saying all those people on your list are liars and hacks.
Now you are changing the subject.
I don’t have to prove that anyone didn”t intentionally decieve.
Is this really all you are capable of cosmos?
Is everything about calling someone a liar or hack?
Seriously, do you want to have a real discussion or will you forever be rooted in this type of ad hominem ad nauseam?
“Is everything about calling someone a liar or hack?”
Posted by: Nathan
The large majority of credible, peer-reviewed, scientists worldwide say that humans ARE causing global warming and climate change.
YOUR posts, from a much smaller, and unqualified group, basically calls those scientists “liars and hacks”.
But THEY have NO credible scientific proof for their claims.
If YOU are unable to understand those very OBVIOUS facts, then whatever…
Cosmos,
“If YOU are unable to understand those very OBVIOUS facts, then whatever…”
Obvious facts?
Lets see…
“The large majority of credible, peer-reviewed, scientists worldwide say that humans ARE causing global warming and climate change.”
Fact.
“YOUR posts, from a much smaller, and unqualified group, basically calls those scientists “liars and hacks”.”
Your biased opinion with more of the ad hominem ad nauseam.
Yes, it is a much smaller group. Are they unqualified? No. Most of them all hold very promenent positions and are just as credible.
Are they basically calling people liars and hacks? Nope. The only people who are routinely calling others liars and hacks are you and political people like Al Gore.
“But THEY have NO credible scientific proof for their claims.”
Again, your opinion. Not a fact.
Any day Cosmos.
Any day.
Any day you are ready to have a real discussion about Global Warming I will be here.
Cosmos,
A couple of very simple questions:
Is it possible for two people to disagree with one another on a topic and one of them to not be a liar or hack?
Is it possible for two people to be credible, peer revied scientists and have differing opinions on something without one of them being a liar or hack?
Your answers to these questions will determine your being a person of reason or not.
I apologize, please amend both my questions to read:
without either of them being a liar or hack instead of one of them being a liar or hack.
So…
Is it possible for two people to disagree with one another on a topic without either of them being a liar or hack?
Is it possible for two people to be credible, peer revied scientists and have differing opinions on something without without either of them being a liar or hack?
I might as well let the cat out of the bag on my logical follow up question:
Is it possible for two people to be credible peer reviewed scientist and have differing opinions on Global Warming without either of them being a liar or hack?
Same old debate: politics vs. science (Nathan’s link, from a “doctoral candidate in political philosophy”, kinda confirms that).
Yawn. . .
Rage,
You must have missed the many other links I posted this evening.
Same old debate: The left ignores almost everything someone posts and then selectively takes one thing and draws a conclusion from only it…
“You must have missed the many other links I posted this evening.
Same old debate: The left ignores almost everything someone posts and then selectively takes one thing and draws a conclusion from only it…”
Posted by: Nathan | September 05, 2007 at 02:24 AM
Gee, Nathan, ya mean THESE links?:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543http://www.JunkScience.comhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdfhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287437,00.htmlhttp://debunkers.org/intro/index.php?p=73http://veritasnoctis.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-hypocrisy-realclimate-and-funding.html
I guess not: All 9 of those are either from media, policy, or other attacks by outsiders on the scientific community.
In contrast, only 3 of your links could be charitably described as “scientific”–and one of those was a Wikipedia page (I’m leaving finding them as an exercise to the reader).
As cosmos has been saying repeatedly, thanks for proving my point.
Yawwwn. . . .
Rage,
Outsiders?
If you even took half a second to go beyond your typical refusal to even think about being reasonable or actually trying to engage in a deiscussion you would see that most of those people are scientists.
I even posted the studies of a physicist who disagreed with the climate models.
Of course, you would rather do anything but actually have to discuss Global Warming.
Instead you just choose to completely ignore anything which was actually addressed in those links and simply dismiss them.
The only point which seems to be proven over and over again on the website is that cosmos and now you absolutely refuse to have a real discussion about Global warming beyond simply crying that the sky is falling and anyone who opposes is a liar and hack.
Nathan, just curious…
Have you ever considered what will happen to us if Global warming is real, and there is no God out there to save us from what we’re doing to the earth?
Max, you DO realize we’re talking about Kansas? Dude, we’re not IN California.
If you had someone abusing FMLA, you had every right to file a grievance. Of course, if he just went fishing to get away and take a break from caregiving, well hell, that is just abuse isn’t it?You’ve obviously never been a caregiver.
I’m sorry that you don’t think women should be able to give birth and keep their jobs. Darn women just get all the breaks- having to birth the ‘man’s children’. I guess she should just suck it up and head back to work if she doesn’t want to lose her job. She’s SOL if she gets bedrest or complications (that’s oh so joyful too).
Posted by: political_mom | September 04, 2007 at 09:05 PM
PMOM, YOU are attempting to put words in my mouth, a very primative attack I might add.
I never said women should lose their jobs when they get pregnant.
And the male employee I had who went fishing during his FMLA time was NOT a caregiver! He was on FMLA time for his own disability!
Where do you get off Pmom with your wild assumptions and sweeping generalizations!
Pmom, you’ve obviously never been in a management roll in dealing with the FMLA issue or you would know how it is abused.
FMLA should not be eliminated, but it is in urgent need of a rewrite.
Have a nice day Pmom, and I hope your bitterness and anger leaves you soon.
Political Mom,
Great question. It is something I have brought up several times in the past.
There are many things about Global Warming besides the doom and gloom which should be taken into account.
1. Is Global Warming real?
2. If Global Warming is real, is that bad?
3. If Global Warming is bad, how bad is it?
4. If Global Warming is real, what are the causes?
5. If man is part of the cause, how much of it do we cause?
6. What would man have to do to either help stop or reduce Global Warming?
7. Is what is required from us to help stop or reduce Global Warming significant enough to warrant the huge economic impact we would be imposing on ourselves?
That is only the most simple breakdown.
So lets look at this honestly:
Yes, Global Warming is real.
The Earth has been heating up and cooling down without interference from man.
Could are CO2 emmisions be contributing to Global Warming? Sure, but not significantly in my opinion.
Would the drastic measures the doom and gloom crowd call for stop this Global Warming? No.
They would most likely barely have an effect at all.
You see, the extent to how man is causing this is something I and many others disagree with.
The only thing we can all say with certainty is that the climate changes.
There are many who don’t think an increase in temperature is bad even if the earth is warming.
Warmer temperatures have traditionally equalled more prosperity for people.
So your question has the premise that we are destroying the earth and will need God to save us.
In all actuality, whether or not we are destroying the Earth we still need God to save us.
Have you ever thought about the possibility that God is real and that you should believe in him because your eternity after this life is on the line?
Nathan, I can accept the proposition thet religious faith is, well, faith, and I’m completely cool with that. But you suggest an interesting analogy.
If we set aside faith or phlosophical hypotheses, hard evidence for the existence any supreme being is basically zero.
My point? If you applied the same standard of proof to your religious faith that you applied to global warming, you would not only be an atheist, but a MILITANT atheist.
Rage,
Ultimately, the belief that there is a God is faith.
However, to say there is no evidence to support this would be false.
We have the history of the Bible and it’s teachings to support that God is indeed real.
My faith is not an absolute blind one like you would seem to imply here.
Rage,
Also, If your arguments premises were true, I woudln’t be an atheist, I would be an Agnostic.
Athesists deny the existence of God without proof.
So they are on the flip side of the coin, where a true person based on evidence alone would have to be an Agnostic because they could neither prove that God exists nor that he doesn’t.
“Also, If your arguments premises were true, I woudln’t be an atheist, I would be an Agnostic.”
Nope. *I* would be agnostic.
Or are you saying you’re agnostic about global warming??
“The Earth has been heating up and cooling down without interference from man.”
Posted by Nathan.
Past natural climate changes do NOT prevent anthropogenic caused climate changes.
“Could are CO2 emmisions be contributing to Global Warming? Sure, but not significantly in my opinion.”
On what “science” do you base your “opinion”?
All credible peer-reviewed science says that human-added GHG’s are causing the majority of the recent observed warming.
“Would the drastic measures the doom and gloom crowd call for stop this Global Warming? No.
They would most likely barely have an effect at all.”
Future warming (and climate change) will be more severe if we continue “business as usual” emissions.
“There are many who don’t think an increase in temperature is bad even if the earth is warming.
Warmer temperatures have traditionally equalled more prosperity for people.”
The optimal climate (and sea level) is the one humans have adapted to over the past centuries.
More severe heat waves, droughts, storms, floods, loss of drinking water, rising sea level, etc does not = “prosperity”.
“cosmos | September 05, 2007 at 03:40 PM”
fapfapfapfapfapfap
More dogs barking, cats yowling, squirrels jacking trees for their own use, mosquitoes a buzzing in the congo spreading malaria, cows a flatulating, grass a growin, trees a leavin…
Cosmos,
Would you please answer my questions. They will determine our ability to continue in any reasonable manner…
Is it possible for two people to disagree with one another on a topic without either of them being a liar or hack?
Is it possible for two people to be credible, peer revied scientists and have differing opinions on something without without either of them being a liar or hack?
Nathan,
It is possible for two people to disagree with one another on a topic without either of them being a liar or hack — for example if one (or both) stubbornly refuses to look at the facts.
It is possible for two people to be credible, peer reviewed scientists and have differing opinions on something without either of them being a liar or hack. Scientists are by nature, and profession skeptical. When there are disagreements, they do more research, etc to resolve the issue.
And after decades of research, etc, there is no credible, peer-reviewed science disagreeing with the consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Cosmos,
So…
Is that a yes or no to both of those questions?
Feel free to add all the qualifiers you would like to your yes or no answer if you must.
You think “It is possible…” = a “no” ???
Woops, my bad, missed that….