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
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
134 Comments
Dear Hank Price,
You should very carefully read the solar and cosmic ray posts at,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index#Solar
An interesting anniversary in the history of the Internet that will be conveniently ignored:
10 years ago today, KCTU-TV in Wichita became the first commercial television station in the world to broadcast a live video stream on the Internet.
An AP story on what was then AudioNet (today Real Networks) told of the feat…and I don’t recall seeing that part of the story in the Eagle.
Just thought I’d post that for the heck of it.
Congrads to KCTU-TV, I enjoy watching the evening talk programming.
School board gets facilities-upgrade plan
A committee charged with planning for future building needs for Wichita schools Monday recommended that the district pursue a bond issue of about $340 million to $380 million to address school population growth and improve athletics and fine-arts facilities, among other projects.
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/story/274941.html
Here we go again.
Dear cosmos,
Thank you! Here’s one you should read ‘very carefully’:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
Particle Physicist Jasper Kirkby, a research scientist at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, believes his research will reveal that the sun and cosmic rays are a “part of the climate-change cocktail.” Kirkby runs a CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) project that examines how the sun and cosmic rays impact clouds and subsequently the climate. In a February 23, 2007 Canadian National Post article, CERN asserted, “Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance, and changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate.” According to the National Post article, “Dr. Kirkby has assembled a dream team of atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists from 18 institutes around the world, including the California Institute of Technology and Germany’s Max-Planck Institutes, with preliminary data expected to arrive this coming summer. The world of particle physics is awaiting these results with much anticipation because they promise to unlock mysteries that can tell us much about climate change, as well as other phenomena.” Kirkby once said his research into the sun and cosmic rays “will probably account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
Hank, cosmos is cleaning your clock and you don’t even seem to know it.
Q: What is the difference between those who believe Christ will come back and those who believe global warming is coming?
A: Nothing. They are both faith based.
“Q: What is the difference between those who believe Christ will come back and those who believe global warming is coming?
“A: Nothing. They are both faith based.”
Empty, smart assed assertion. Global warming is already recognized as occurring. That’s why the denialists are moving from denying that it is happening (although there are a few holdouts) to claiming it’s not being caused by human activity, and/or that it is not a long term trend but is due to a flare up in solar activity, and/or it is due to a really long term global trend that started with the end of the last glacial period.
But then, fleetwood, that appears to be what you are best at in this blog, making snarky but completely unsupported statements.
Q: How about those of us who ‘believe’ in gravity?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
Ran across this on another site; thought it was fitting given Kansas just passed the one year anniversary too.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS06/801060602/1008
Oddly, Dr. Levin actually sounds disappointed that he was wrong.
Is anyone who has been paying attention surprised? Not at all.
Interesting GMC. I have been of mixed feelings about CC – nervous about proliferation on the one hand but liking the idea of a gun in the hands of a skilled citizen on the other. And, of course, we all know that NOT having CC has not stopped the gang-bangers from carrying.
Here’s another bit of interesting writing:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/01/putins-role-mod.html
A different picture of FDR, huh? And an accurate one; no president has flexed the reigns of presidential power with more authority than FDR – he’s perhaps the closest this nation has ever had to a dictator (the other close call is Lincoln, of course).
Hey ksagnostic,
It ain’t my clock.
I’m merely making the point that there is legitimate debate over global warming.
I’m doing it by bringing a new scientific expert to the BLOG each day. Easy.
The fact that cosmos is getting shrill and pathetic is just an added bonus!
I dont think any US President has had as many potentially “nation-breaking” crises as FDR had to deal with either.. He snatched back our democratic way of life from the real threats of an elected Communist takeover… He managed to find some relief from the fallout of the 1929 market Crash, with the WPA and CCC programs.. He rallied the entire nation after Pearl Harbor.. And he brokered one of the strangest Allied forces ever, in defeating Hitler and the Nazi’s…
Not bad for a guy who smoked far too much; drank way too much booze; and suffered the bad after effects of Polio… eh??
Depends on how you define “legitimate” Hank!! LOL
On Global Warming,
Regular
Posted January 7, 2008 at 11:21 pm | Permalink
Technology limitation, Science limitation, both or ?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn12833-climate-is-too-complex-for-accurate-predictions.html
Climate is too complex for accurate predictions
cosmos’s reply, which I find reasonable:
#
cosmos
Posted January 8, 2008 at 12:16 am | Permalink
Regular posted January 7, 2008 at 11:21 pm
“Climate is too complex for accurate predictions.”
Which is precisely WHY humans should NOT be altering Earth’s climate, by causing large increases in GHG’s.
If humans could accurately “predict” the climate damage our GHG’s will cause in the future, we could just plan for it, and adapt.
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen
*****
I think both sides get caught up in the fervor.
We all can plan and do better with pollutants and depending on fossil fuels.
At least an agreement from both sides, that the climate is too complex to predict with computer models.
However, as agreed, we all can do better with our environment.
Excellent post, Chas.
FDR has long been recognized as one of the greatest presidents in our history, but the CONs will forever fight a rear-guard action to discredit him.
To repeat a phrase that the CONs love to use: get over it already.
Chas –
True enough. What is interesting about FDR is that when he thought something should be done, he didn’t let the Congress – or the Constitution – get in the way. He simply did it.
His presidency certainly – for better or worse – transformed the role of government in the US, and the role of the US in the world.
Anyone who had any doubt that Max is bat$hit crazy, let his following words remove all doubt–
“TAKING ASSETS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED HARD TO EARN THOSE ASSETS, IS TAKING AWAY THEIR FREEDOM!
“And I will fight to the death to oppose those who would take my Freedom from me.
“I will also fight to the death to support those who are fighting for their FREEDOM too!
“You Socialists, cannot win your war against Freedom, unless you are able to disarm us!
“LONG LIVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT!
Let Freedom Ring! Let Freedom Ring! Thank God Almighty! Let Freedom Ring!”
*****
Max apparently missed the part in the Constitution that calls for “providing for the common good.”
We have a test of his theory and our theory. There are many countries in the world that have low or no income taxes. They would include the following: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and Vanuatu.
Couple low taxes with widespread availability of automatic weapons and you get SOMALIA.
Countries with high levels of taxation are by any standards the most law-abiding and pleasant places to live in the world: most European Countries such as Germany, Spain, Italy and France and other high standard of living countries like Japan.
Low income tax is associated with low standard of living–the Bahamas and Cayman Islands (it’s not tropical paradise when you LIVE there ekeing out a living selling crap made of shells to foreign tourists), and don’t forget Somalia.
Max is so worried about government taking away his freedoms, he completely ignores big multinational corporations that curtail his freedom much more directly.
Big oil slows down refining of gas, and Max has to decide whether to take that car trip to Florida to see his parents or make a car payment.
Big healthcare (heh, WEALTHcare) providers literally decide who lives and who dies based on what’s good for their profits.
Big auto companies won’t build an electric car even though the technology to do so preceeded the gas-powered car.
Etc. etc.
No . . . the power of corporations to run our lives is “natural and inevitable” to the useful idiots of capitalism like Max.
It is curious that those protesting the society we live in and those partaking and contributing to the very things they protest again.
This blog for example is here, because businesses large and small have provided the means and methods for us to partake in it.
Eliminate the phone/cable company, we could not access the Blog.
Eliminate the companies that make the computers and their parts, we could not access the Blog.
Eliminate the incentives to create a Blog where creative speech is granted, we could not access the Blog.
The power of corporations is granted by we, the consumers. If there are objections to corporate behavior, then we are equally culpable in the outcome because of our participation.
Put down your cellphones, stop blogging, stop driving your cars, never turn on a TV again and stop wearing the clothes on your back because they were all provided by corporations of varying sizes.
Or, we can try and improve our lives by helping others.
Understanding that complaining about the situation we are in is directly attributable to our participation is key to problem solving.
If one doesn’t acknowledge their own participation in contributing and continue to contribute, then they are actually describing their own faults.
As Pogo stated:
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
The formalized statement by the creator of Pogo, stated:
” “Specializations and markings of individuals everywhere abound in such profusion that major idiosyncrasies can be properly ascribed to the mass. Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.
“There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
“Forward!”
Hank Price posted January 8, 2008 at 6:56 am
“Kirkby runs a CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) project that examines how the sun and cosmic rays impact clouds and subsequently the climate.”
Dear Hank Price,
If you read my link at top, and/or my post yesterday, you’d know:
There has been NO trend in galactic cosmic rays (GCR) since 1951. No trend in GCR means they are not an explanation for the warming trend since the mid-1970’s.
Hank Price, please explain how no trend in GCR’s can cause a warming trend.
Maybe no trend in GCR’s can also cause a cooling trend?
Or maybe it does both, at the same time?
Can we Forrestall boat McCain? He lived and 130 sailors died putting out his plane!
My, my, my.
I won’ link it. You’ll see it eventually.
Video of Republican shill Sean Hannity being accosted in New Hampshire by Ron Paul supporters.
Mrs. Hannity does not appear to be along. That is unless she is that cute young blonde following Sean like a puppy dog and screaming the f bomb.
Family values party hah!
Good point. And just what REALLY happened when he was a POW? How do we know he didn’t arrange that for political advantage? Did he ‘rat out’ others so he could survive?
“Video of Republican shill Sean Hannity being accosted in New Hampshire by Ron Paul supporters.”
Turn about is fair play. Fair and balanced my a$$.
The actions of FAUX in keeping Ron Paul out of the debate will backfire on the “Fair and Balanced” (sic) station. Their true colors truly showed.
Now I would like to THINK that Ron Paul supporters would realize just how sick their party is and vote Democratic.
That is what I have been doing these last 20+ years.
But somehow, I don’t see the supporters of Ron Paul voting Dem. Even if it would be in their best interest.
99% sure that RP will not go third party. He will just bow out. I for one will most likely vote for the Libertarian candidate. A vote away from the GOP, but just not for the Dems. Should have about as much impact though.
RP is getting far more press because of the FoxNews gaffe than he ever would have had he been invited. Bully for RP and poop on Fox !!!
I wonder sol … after what the RNC/FAUX did snubbing him he just might decide to bolt.
Hank Price posted January 8, 2008 at 6:49 am
“Here’s one you should read ‘very carefully’:”
That’s a blog run by,
Dr. John Joseph RAY
B.A. in Psychology from the University of Queensland in Brisbane.
M.A. in psychology from the University of Sydney in 1969
Ph.D. in Behavioural Sciences from Macquarie University in 1974.
Thank you, Hank Price… but I believe that climate scientists are a much better source re climate, than psychology Drs.
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer
http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/oppenheimer.html
S.B. in chemistry from M.I.T.
Ph.D. in chemical physics from the University of Chicago
Pursued post-doctoral research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
BTW, psychology Drs know how to deceive people.
“If you don’t win, will you support the GOP nominee and promise not to run on the Libertarian or any other ticket?
I’m not promising any of those things. If we have a Republican nominee that has convinced me they have come around on foreign policy … I would consider it. As far as running on a third-party ticket, or [as an] independent, or Libertarian, I have no plans to do that.
Well, “no plans” doesn’t mean you won’t.
The best way I can state it is: I have no plans. I can’t conceive of it. But I guess in life there aren’t that many absolutes.”
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/a-ron-paul-thir.html
Hannity link re:above posts — 2 minutes of a bouncy camera and “Fox news sucks … ” very brief shot of hannity at the end.
http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/23866-mob-of-paulians-chase-sean-hannity-screaming-fox-news-sucks
“S.B. in chemistry from M.I.T.”
Gotta watch out for us Course V guys from the ‘Tute!
;)
“Hey ksagnostic,
“It ain’t my clock.
“I’m merely making the point that there is legitimate debate over global warming.”
Hank, you appeared to have missed my point about your “list”, or maybe you’ve forgotten it. The Senate Minority report’s “list”, as compiled and represented by the Senate’s biggest idiot, Inhofe (with the possible exception of Ted Stevens), clearly had no selection criteria other than finding scientists who oppose the IPCC consensus on global warming. As a result, and if you’ve missed it you are not paying attention, your “experts” are all over the board. Yes there is global warming but humans are not causing it, it’s solar activity (or cosmic rays!), or there is no global warming and the measurements are all off. As cosmos has pointed out, some of these people have no published, peer reviewed research relating to climate change at all, they are just spouting off to popular news sources. It is very clear that Inhofe’s group did not seriously evaluate the global warming situation. Their conclusion (and given Inhofe’s earlier idiotic pronouncements on this subject and others) was clearly dictated by the shallow thinking of “global warming concerns come from liberals and one worlders who want to regulate bidness, therefore we’re agin’ it”. Start with the conclusion, or in this case and even more pathetically, no conclusion other than the global warming advocates are “wrong”, THEN look for people with Ph.D.’s after their name that state the desired conclusion. It’s pathetic.
“I’m doing it by bringing a new scientific expert to the BLOG each day. Easy.”
You’re cutting and pasting from a list with obviously no more thought than those who originally compiled it. Cosmos knows the list and is anticipating what the argument is from the next guy you paste.
“The fact that cosmos is getting shrill and pathetic is just an added bonus!”
Utter delusion, remarkable. Cosmos tends to be quite specific in replying to what you and others post. He demonstrates an understanding of the subject and the reasoning behind both what the people you are copying and pasting are saying and what the basis of the the mainstream climatological community’s objections are. He also, when applicable, demonstrates what the political, financial, and think tank affiliations of the people on your list are. He does it in detail, and in spite of his occasional intemperate remark, he is consistent and patient in doing so. And in response, because he is specific and he does bother to respond to your list (and in fact accurately anticipates it), you call him shrill. This isn’t a game of “I made you react so I win!”, despite any delusion you might have to the contrary.
If you have an old fashioned computer screen, observe it closely, because on this particular issue, shrill and pathetic is a projection from the reflection.
My Capn, I’m so glad you read all my words.
Take them to heart, they ring true.
Now that Kansas is gone, you are truly lost. You still have not found your own voice.
Good luck in finding it, but I’d say those are pretty long odds.
More news that Huckabee is a theocratic nutter. Giving a speech/sermon in a church he said, “When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ.”
All the infidels line up against the wall in a Huckabee administration.
Hank Price posted January 8, 2008 at 9:32 am
“I’m merely making the point that there is legitimate debate over global warming.
I’m doing it by bringing a new scientific expert to the BLOG each day. Easy”
Dear Hank Price,
I’ll “help” you, with Prof. Christopher L. Castro, on Inhofe’s(R-Exxon) “400″(sic) list.
‘The ‘Inhofe 400′ Skeptic of the Day
Today: Christopher Castro’
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/1/182558/9615
Four others are at links there.
Another day, and some more global warming links.
Yeeeeeeee Haaaaawwwwwwww! (Using the voice of Howard Dean!)
Dear cosmos,
I really don’t feel compelled to explain anything to you. The little posts that I bring to the BLOG each day are fairly self explanatory. Many of the links provide email addys of the actuall scientist that is responsible for the opinion/studies. If you have any questions, ask them.
I am merely proving that there are people, qualified people, men distinguished and respected in their fields that are qualified and willing to debate the various facets of the global warming question.
You can go to your little left wing websites and find ways to defame and belittle them but it doesn’t change the facts.
I read a little about both sides of the global warming question. Both sides of the scientific and both sides of the political aspects of the GW question. People that refuse to consider the fact that the politicians are using GW to restrict and harm our economy are the real ‘deniers’.
Once again, I will point out that having any discussion with Cosmos is pointless.
He already said that he doesn’t think any scientist can be credible if they don’t support the Global Warming consensus.
All Cosmos does is try to defame and attack anyone who doesn’t agree with the consensus. That is not science. That is not a reasonable debate or discussion. It is simply a smear tactic used by cosmos because he can’t actually discuss the issue.
“People that refuse to consider the fact that the politicians are using GW to restrict and harm our economy are the real ‘deniers’.”
I think that this statement gets to the heart of things right there.
Hank, WHY do you think that there are “politicians” out there who USE “GW to restrict and harm our economy”? What is their motivation for doing so, and what on earth would be the motivation of climatologists doing research around the world and those conducting a meta-analysis for concluding that human agencies contribute significantly to global warming, especially when their own governments try to water down their report? The idea, sometimes advanced here, that this research and conclusion is where the money is is just completely silly. The money is where “the economy” is. No NGO has anywhere near the money of companies like Exxon.
Your implication is that there are politicians who are so intentionally hostile to “the economy” that they will cynically use global warming, not because they don’t believe it’s a problem, but because it is an in to get at our economy.
Like I said, knee jerk thinking from some conservative elements. Global warming comes from liberals (who to some conservative obsessive compulsives must be anti-economy by strawman definition), therefore it must be wrong.
It is sad, but almost certainly true, that much of the “conservative” hostility to the idea of anthropogenic global warming comes from the fact that Al Gore, the opponent to their candidate in a bitter 2000 election, is so vocal on this issue. That is why we see things like “the Goracle” or “algore” invoked so frequently on global warming comments from the kneejerk right bloggers here (or willful trolls, which are something else altogether). It’s like Al Gore and the Commodores or something.
It’s also unthinking and reflexive and wrong.
Hank Price posted January 8, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“You can go to your little left wing websites and find ways to defame and belittle them but it doesn’t change the facts.”
Dear Hank,
Sorry, I gave the wrong link at 12:31 pm
I suggest that everyone (except Hank and Nathan) click this link, and read the “facts” — what Professor Christopher Castro says in his lecture notes.
‘The ‘Inhofe 400′ Skeptic of the Day
Today: Christopher Castro’
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/6/224510/7920
And if you believe that the “little left wing website” has “defame[d] and belittle[d]” Dr. Castro, then get his PowerPoint slides from the “.edu” link.
You can’t talk to Nathan, cosmos, because you won’t deal with what he says. You simply dismiss everything he has to say about the subject as “attacking”, even though he is specific in what he says about them (there is a difference, Nathan, between simply attacking a guy and providing specific information, by link or otherwise, why he/she is wrong).
Nathan, your dismissing cosmos as unable to have a rational discussion in a post that is nothing but one long ad hominem is a joke. It’s also a nice way to actually avoid responding to someone’s arguments.
ksagnostic,
What arguments?
Everytime I have even tried to talk to cosmos the converstaion has been reduced to his saying that no scientist can be credible who doesn’t agree with the consensus.
That is not reasonable.
It appears you have reduced yourself to his little lap dog now. Go fetch little doggie. You don’t have a bone in this discussion.
“People that refuse to consider the fact that the politicians are using GW to restrict and harm our economy are the real ‘deniers’.”
I think that this statement gets to the heart of things right there.ksagnostic
Posted January 8, 2008 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
********
Nathan does have a point ksagnostic.
This was exactly the reason that President Clinton and the Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty.
“On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[65][66] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States”. On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[67] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.” Wikipedia
So ksagnostic, if Nathan, President Clinton, Vice President Gore and 95 members of the U.S. Senate states that it would harm our economy, what proof can you offer that it wouldn’t?
For Nathan, who wants to have a rational discussion about the “science”.
The ‘Inhofe 400′ Skeptic of the Day
Today: Chris Allen [weather director at WBKO]
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/29/125741/46
From Chris Allen’s blog,
“My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people’s minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what’s going on. …”
More at Gristmill, and much more at the weather director’s blog.
On top of all that, if you actually look at all the countries who did Ratify the Kyoto treaty nearly none of them have actually followed it.
Most have simply dismissed it outright, and the rest have not met any of the treaties requirments at all.
It was a joke. Then we have to listen to the liberals cry about how America wouldn’t ratify it.
People like Cosmos can believe in Global Warming all they want to.
When you start looking at the measures the politicians want to enact to “fight” it, you will start to see what a joke it really is.
Cosmos,
I see all that you can do is try to attack the person instead of what they say.
That is all you ever do, attack the person instead of the argument.
“So ksagnostic, if Nathan, President Clinton, Vice President Gore and 95 members of the U.S. Senate states that it would harm our economy, what proof can you offer that it wouldn’t?”
Why would you confuse my comments as being specifically a statement about the effect of the Kyoto treaty on our economy? One does not have to simultaneously accept the idea that global warming needs to be addressed and the Kyoto Treaty (btw, your quotation about the protocol is misleading in light of what happened afterwards, but that is a seperate issue).
Nathan posted January 8, 2008 at 1:05 pm
“Everytime I have even tried to talk to cosmos the converstaion has been reduced to his saying that no scientist can be credible who doesn’t agree with the consensus.”
False! I’ve said that no one has presented credible science refuting the consensus re the AGW theory.
It’s about the science, NOT the scientist.
Cosmos,
“It’s about the science, NOT the scientist.”
Then why is 90% of what you post an attack on the scientist instead of what he says?
#
ksagnostic
Posted January 8, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
“Why would you confuse my comments as being specifically a statement about the effect of the Kyoto treaty on our economy? One does not have to simultaneously accept the idea that global warming needs to be addressed and the Kyoto Treaty (btw, your quotation about the protocol is misleading in light of what happened afterwards, but that is a seperate issue).”
What makes you think that Global Warming is not being addressed?
All one has to do is visit the dozens various Government Websites that have intensive and ground breaking research into Climate Change. There are hundreds of research projects at Universities and private companies looking into Climate Change.
I can provide links if necessary, but I believe you know this to be true.
“My way or the highway” approach simply does not work in the real world ksagnostic.
There is plenty being done about climate change. Open up your eyes and ears.
If you need to be educated on the matter, just visit any of the Government Websites like NASA, NOA or any of the others.
Cosmos,
Of course you have said that no one has presented credible evidence.
That is because you don’t believe that anyone can present credible evidence against the consensus and dismiss any of it outright.
Nathan posted January 8, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“That is because YOU don’t believe that anyone can present credible evidence against the consensus and dismiss any of it outright.”
Sorry Nathan, but * I * personally do not represent the scientific methodology of all climate science done on Earth.
Instead of attacking me, you should more carefully compare the claims made by both sides.
Here is an interesting question for you cosmos:
If the best the scientific community can offer is a consensus on Global Warming, wouldn’t that suggest that there are scientists who don’t agree and are not part of the consensus who are credible?
Cosmos,
I am not attacking you.
I am pointing out the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that anyone can be credible and not believe in the consensus on Global Warming.
You are the one who refuses to look at the claims made by both sides and summarily dismiss anything anyone says against the consensus.
Nathan, simply because someone is a scientist doesn’t make their opinion right. That’s using the logical fallacy of ‘argument from authority’. What matters is the peer reviewed scientific studies all of which point to global warming. I know you can’t grasp the concept of science that’s why you should leave the thinking to those who have properly developed minds. We’ll give you a sandbox to play in with some legos.
Doug,
I grasp the concept of science just fine.
I am not saying someones opinion is right simply because they are a scientist either.
I am pointing out that there are two sides to the debate on Global Warming and that is why the best the scientific community could come up with is the consensus.
I am also pointing out that Cosmos refuses to look at anything or anyone who disagrees with the consensus and attacks them.
That would be called the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad hominem.
And I suggest trying to understand that climate science is a completely separate issue from policies, like Kyoto.
If humans fail to reduce GHG’s, it’ll only prove that we’re stupid, and that the climate science is/was correct.
There aren’t two sides to the debate. The consensus and the overwhelming about of evidence point to global warming. That’s like claiming there are two sides of the debate on evolution. You are a young earth creationist which in itself proves you have no grasp on scientific issues. Go play in your sandbox while the grownups deal with the real issues.
Q: What do Christians and Global Warmers have in common?
A: They both believe with all their heart that something will happen. In the future. You just have to have faith it will happen. Nobody can prove you wrong. It’s perfect!
Doug,
For someone trying to point out logical fallacies you sure do love to use them.
Instead of trying to have a discussion on the issue you introduce something not related to the discussion in an attempt to attack me.
That is called Argumentum ad hominem.
Do you deny that there are credible scientists who disagree with the consensus?
Clueless as usual Nathan. Look it up. Don’t pretend you can outsmart your betters.
Doug,
I am seeing a trend in your refusing to explain your comments or defend what you say.
Why are you so scared to engage in an reasonble discussion?
Are you only capable of calling people names and mocking them?
There is no point discussing anything with you Nathan. You’ve been proven wrong on this issue and many others many times and I have better things to do that waste my time with knuckle dragging, scientifically illiterate morons.
Doug,
If you have better things to do, then why do you waste so much time not answering my questions and calling me names?
Just don’t post anything at all. It won’t hurt my feelings. It would clean up the blog some as well not having so many posts by you calling people names.
You are one of the biggest problem makers here.
Just leave.
Nathan posted January 8, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“Do you deny that there are credible scientists who disagree with the consensus?”
If their science is credible, then they can change the consensus.
That’s how science works… it’s about the science, not the person(s).
OK guys… Nathan and ir”Regular” are tying to bait and switch on you… They are attempting to diffuse the argument away from the Science, to the Scientist, cause then they ccan whine how you talk against their “scientists” (so called)..
Chas,
There is no bait and switch. Point out what I have written that is not accurate.
Chas,
Cosmos is the one attacking the scientist, I am merely pointing it out.
Weird having January twisters in Arkansas and Mi.
Woops, Mo.
Not wierd at all Phantom.
Regular?? EVERYTHING!! LOL
I don’t comment on the global warming thing very much, but here goes. Some poster here, some time ago, pointed out that the business of science is not necessarily concerned with reaching consensus on subjects. That would be true in my opinion. The business of science is to investigate the narrowness or breath of a theory’s applicability. Such investigations involve predictions and hypothesis testing – the primary business of science.
The global warming consensus was obtained by asking scientists to compromise their disagreements on small pieces of the puzzle. As I understand the positions of people whom I respect (Ben, being one), the overall agreement is that there are man-made contributions to Greenhouse gases which in turn is causing global warming. There are still disagreements on the details thatare pertinent to that conclusion.
Fairly close Steven. I think there is now overwhelming agreement that we are experiencing anthropogenic climate change. There is some degree of disagreement over just how MUCH warming etc will occur in coming years and decades.
My own reading is that the projections published are too CONSERVATIVE. I think the positive feedback loops (ice/albedo, climate/carbon, permafrost/methane etc) will be much worse than the IPCC has published.
Chas,
Everything doesn’t really narrow it down for me does it?
Since you can’t point out what I have written is fault, I will consider it a failure on your part to provide a counter argument.
Nathan posted January 8, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“Cosmos is the one attacking the scientist, I am merely pointing it out.”
On Sen. Inhofe’s “400(sic) prominent(sic) scientists(sic) list,
“Meteorologist Chris Allen of Kentucky Fox affiliate WBKO dismissed what he termed “consensus nonsense” on global warming.”
Chris Allen wrote on his blog,
http://www.wbko.com/unclassified/1270907.html
“Okay, I am not a scientist – and I don’t have a college degree…”
Ummm — “Everything” is fairly all inclusive, when you think about it… And you can do with it whatever you wish… I said “Everything” because thats MY call on it… You have said nothing that refutes Cosmos… You have said much that calls Cosmos “the poster” into question, while totally ignoring the content of his/her posts!! Thus, EVERYTHING you have said about it is wrong!!
I thought I would share this, since no matter what side of the fence you are on, you can appreciate irony.
“…Exeter, a onetime GOP stronghold and a birthplace of the Republican Party. (The brick building that hosted the fateful meeting 155 years ago still bears a plaque declaring it the site at which “The Republican Party was first so named,” but the lower floor is now home to an organic tea shop and yoga studio.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080108/ts_csm/abluehampshire
And, furthermore, I am not going to play your little “flame game” either… Just yesterday, you typed in here you were off on a trip to Chicago… and you told somebody if you didnt see their response, they would have to wait till the end of the week… Looks like you didnt leave!! LOL
Chas,
For not wanting to play a “flame game” what on earth are you doing here when all you are doing is flaming Regular?
Just leave.
Ben,
I agree that the IPCC is too conservative.
They’re also a few years out-of-date. With changes happening so quickly, they should release updates, between the main reports.
Read a few days ago that part of the Arctic region recently had some above freezing temperatures for a short time — and some of the new (very thin) sea ice had melted.
Something interesting I noticed last summer/fall. Several tropical storms maintained tropical characteristics almost to Greenland as they swept northward. I am wondering what will happen if they get warm rain (which is what you get in a TS) up there.
The US has been spared any hits as the biggest storms have been kept south by the High over the southeast and others have curved ‘early’ into the Atlantic. Central America, however, has been hammered.
Likewise, across the globe, the west Pacific was quite active.
#
Chas.
Posted January 8, 2008 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
Ummm — “Everything” is fairly all inclusive, when you think about it… And you can do with it whatever you wish… I said “Everything” because thats MY call on it… You have said nothing that refutes Cosmos… You have said much that calls Cosmos “the poster” into question, while totally ignoring the content of his/her posts!! Thus, EVERYTHING you have said about it is wrong!!
I haven’t tried to refute what Mr. cosmos has addressed. I did make a comment on a temperature chart he linked to. I recall that I stated that I wasn’t particularly found of charts that use graphics when data points in a line type of chart are more accurate. Using ranged data in a color bar is not very accurate.
Where Mr. Cosmos and I disagree is the method of applying the science he studies to policies of a particular country.
Forcing methodology on a country, especially one that is Democratically elected and governed is not going to run its policy according to an outside organization or group. That is just reality.
My analysis of the Climate Change situation is confirmed by the actions of President Clinton, Vice President Gore and the United States Senate, when in the late 1990s they did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty because of the economic problems it would cause to the U.S. economy.
I see nothing wrong with the climate science being conducted. I do see a lot wrong on “my way or the highway” political movement trying to force the hands of sovereign countries.
Calling people deniers is also unhelpful. Both sides of the Climate argument have frustrations.
Unfortunately or fortunately we live in a society that requires a sufficient amount of corpses (human, political and sociological) before immediate action is taken.
Neither side can come up with a body count that can show the need to ratify a treaty that is speculative about the economic survivability of a sovereign country.
I can point out to anyone how to live to a ripe old age, be healthy and be in superb physical shape with acute mental acuity. However, it’s going to cost you dearly in monetary terms and the results might be you will be a healthy pauper.
ouch dow 12598
Steven and Ben,
Here are my thoughts on this in a nutshell.
The consensus is really more of a conglomeration of scientists who all contributed in many different areas, but do not all agree on the final determination or neccessarily with every aspect of each others findings either.
The IPCC is headed by many political oriented people and not only scientists.
So we have a “consensus” distributed by the IPCC which is based on many computer models and projections which are based on alot of assumptions.
Yes, it is very easy to argue that man is producing gases which could effect the environment.
The problem is that there are still many aspects of what degree of effect those gases really have and I don’t really think we take into account the ways that Nature balances out those gases either.
When you do start looking at the “solutions” to the “problem” of Global Warming you can’t say that it is not political either.
Much of the proposed “solutions” such as the Kyoto treaty and the proposed replacement do not address the “problem” of Global warming like it is as serious as the science claims it to be.
These solutions to the problem turn out to be huge economical power plays.
Either way, myself and many others have a huge problem with simply accepting that the Earth is headed towards doom if we don’t act now based on computer models and projections which do not address all the factors especially when we can’t predict the weather with certain accuracy next month let alone the Earth’s climate 50 years from now.
Nathan – you are correct that non-scientist political types have too much say – that is why I think the report is too conservative.
Uh-oh.
It looks like the resident kook this year, Ron Paul, may have hit his wall. Check this out; yes, it’s the New Republic, but the story is well written and comprehensive. And it’s ugly.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Whether Paul wrote all this crap, or whether it’s just under his name, should mean the end to his presidential aspirations, and rightfully so. And it explains some his positions; the rabid isolationism, the fascination with the Confederacy and his insistence that the Civil War was an unnecessary war, among others.
Goodby, RP. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
GMC – interesting. I wonder if they are really his – I’m sure others will follow up on this.
Just based on common sense here now Ben,
How much of a percentage of the gases which are causing Climate change are produced by humans?
Now how much would we have to reduce those gases, in your opinion, to fight this problem which you think is even worse than the consensus says?
Ben
Posted January 8, 2008 at 9:00 am | Permalink
Q: How about those of us who ‘believe’ in gravity?
You know Ben, I saw an episode of “Friends” where Phoebe mentioned that she didn’t believe in gravity because she felt like she was being pushed, not pulled. Of course I laughed because you expect that from the Phoebe character, but I didn’t know there were actual people that believe it as well. Goes to show there’s all kinds.
Interesting read GMC70,
It appears that the past sins of Ron Paul have been spoken before God and men.
It will be interesting to read counter argument disputing the charges. That is, if there is any dispute to be had.
The imbalance in CO2 is entirely due to the combination of direct anthropogenic causes and feedbacks. It will take a number of steps to adress that imbalance – both in reducing CO2 output and increasing CO2 sequestration. I have gone through a number of things repeatedly in the past as you know.
Regular – the one thing I would ‘caution’ about is ‘did he actually write it?’ or did someone plant it? (like I just did with your name)
GMC70
Posted January 8, 2008 at 9:00 am | Permalink
Looking at CC logically, I could never see how people would think crime would rise. CC isn’t going to put guns in the hands of criminals, it’s only going to put guns in the hands of upstanding citizens that know how to use them.
#
Regular
Posted January 8, 2008 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
Regular – the one thing I would ‘caution’ about is ‘did he actually write it?’ or did someone plant it? (like I just did with your name)
Good point. I am somewhat confused on what “it” means as it is ambiguously referenced.
The Ron Paul story you mean or ?
The Ron Paul story (it was me). Did Ron Paul write that stuff?
Ben –
If I understand the story, it appears Paul either wrote it, or it went out under his name. Frankly, either way, he’s responsible for it. If this was just one article or two, and the writer was fired, I’d understand, but it appears to be a consistent theme dating back to the late 70’s when he was first elected to Congress.
Bu-Buy.
#
Ben
Posted January 8, 2008 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
The Ron Paul story (it was me). Did Ron Paul write that stuff?
**********
That we can’t be sure of as you adeptly pointed out using the example you posted 3:55. 8)
Maverick candidate John McCain is under fire from the Republican National Coalition for Life, for supporting exceptions [=huge loopholes] being added to the party platform’s human life amendment to abolish abortion, and for supporting useless, unethical embryonic stem cells. Supposition is that McCain will only go so far as to support limited restrictions on abortion, not abolition.
Meanwhile, NARAL is attacking candidate Mike Huckabee for supporting the human life amendment, essentially labeling him abortion’s worst enemy.
- – -
Mitt Romney’s 2006 taxpayer-funded Commonwealth Care health insurance for Massachusetts included a $50 co-pay for elective abortions – that is, taxpayer-funded abortions on demand – and a Planned Parenthood abortion mill representative sitting on the governing board of the health care plan. No pro-lifers were designated to sit on the governing board.
- – -
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to uphold a Michigan ban on partial birth abortion, defining the obscene act as infanticide.
The 6th U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati had previously struck down the law, enacted by ELECTED legislators, because it MIGHT restrict other types of legalized infanticide. Hundreds of thousands of voters signed petitions that allowed the bill to become law with only the approval of the House and Senate, overriding baby-hating Gov. Granholm’s veto.
Question to all:
Have you had instances when you previous posts were posted, then gone, then back, then gone again?
I have – just wondering what kinda glitch there is . . .
On occassion yes. It seemed to happen a lot in the first day of the new format.
“The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to uphold a Michigan ban on partial birth abortion, defining the obscene act as infanticide.”
Isn’t that the Court that has been pretty much packed by the Bushes?
DDT asks, “CC isn’t going to put guns in the hands of criminals.”
It’s possible however that criminals will arm themselves more often since they don’t know if their mark will have a gun.
Nathan posted January 8, 2008 at 3:31 pm
“So we have a “consensus” distributed by the IPCC which is based on many computer models and projections which are based on alot of assumptions.”
You need to read the IPCC reports…
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
“The problem is that there are still many aspects of what degree of effect those gases really have…”
Radiative forcing from the GHG’s has a high level of scientific understanding.
“… and I don’t really think we take into account the ways that Nature balances out those gases either.”
Uhhh… that’s the big problem! They’re positive feedbacks, which will increase the warming humans caused.
Melting Arctic sea ice reflects less heat, thawing permafrost releases more GHG’s, warmer air holds more water vapor, warmer oceans and soil “sink” less CO2, etc…
GMC,
Your article about Ron Paul sounds like swiftboating.Why are you establishment boys so scared of Ron Paul?
Regular, it is apparent that you read too much into posts, at least my post.
“What makes you think that Global Warming is not being addressed?”
Nothing I posted indicated that I thought that global warming was “not being addressed”. I was speaking about one positional statement (the idea that global warming needs to be addressed) verses another (that the Kyoto Protocol should be supported/opposed). The position on one of those issues is not dictated by another. You brought up the Kyoto protocol, which itself was a red herring with regards to my earlier post that you were responding to.
The rest of your post was therefore irrelevant.
Regular, it looks like you want to have an actual discussion, but with all due respect, I strongly suggest you actually start to respond to what I actually wrote, not a straw man version of your interpretation of what I wrote.
Hmm, looks like the Open Thread on the New Hampshire Primary has mysteriously disappeared. Probably due to its being premature, and since I posted to it (and was trying to read Ben’s post thereto) “early”, someone figured out it should not yet be up. Such is life.
VT – all I addede was ‘gonna be interesting’
Maybe that is like when they posted last Sunday’s open thread on last Friday night?
Or…
In the past, they have given us a thread just before like the “State of the Union” speech. Maybe the New Hampshire thread will be back in a few hours.
Hey Eddditorrrsss?
I have an idea.
How about we have our own WEblog prmary? Before more of the candidates drop out? Of course some people will cheat and use multiple nics but that is pretty easy to spot.
Behind on my reading and you all probably discussed this yesterday – If not take the quiz in yesterdays Eagle to see how green you really are.
I took it and acutally thought that I did well until I was told that I would need eight and a half earths to support me. I figured out that the 2400 sq ft house I live in would have to be sold and I will have to move into a 700 sq ft one. I will have to use more public transportation even though the closest bus stop is seven miles from my house. Oh well if I am having a good day 15 mile walk a day couldn’t hurt. The twenty five or more hours I fly eventhough is is economy class on packed planes will have to stop. Staying home more will be OK but I will have to set around in the dark a lot so the utilities won’t go up. The final blow for me was that buying the Prius really did nothing for my carbon footprint because I am driving to many miles. I hope my husband understands that if we can’t walk to an event we can’t go. Supposed to drive to Iowa this weekend to watch NCAA National Wrestling Duals. If we start now we might be able to get there. We could hitchhike I guess.
I don’t want anyone to say I killed the globe for my grandchildren.
After Florida passed their CCP which was one of the first in the nation. A reporter was doing a piece on the increase of robberies and murders of tourist within the state. He was interviewing a thug who was in jail for being a member of a gang who targeted tourists at rest stops. The reporter asked why they target tourists and not residences? “Because there was a chance a resident might be carrying a gun. The tourist can not so they are safe to rob”. Florida later changed the law to allow out-of-state tourist to carry after a standard process.
“Can we Forrestall boat McCain? He lived and 130 sailors died putting out his plane!”
Yes it is amazing what you can learn by simply paying attention! I was not aware of the incident on the U.S.S. Forestall, it was a tragic and amazing tale: Mc Cain was in his aircraft, the deck was loaded with aircraft fueled and armed for a mission. When a missile on a plane on the other side of the deck misfired and flew across the deck. Striking
Mc Cain’s craft. He barely was able to get out in time as his plane burst into flames.
In the ensuing fire several aircraft and munitions exploded leaving a crater in the armor plated deck.
There is few examples of living hell, this has to be one of them! If you watch the History channel’s “Shockwave” they have the account of it now and again.
If we take the swiftboaters tact, we can challenge the Navy’s investigation, particularly since John is the son and grandson (different men!) of Admirals.
If the Swiftboaters taught us anything, it is that the military is incompetent to investigate its own!
ksagnostic,
You are right. You haven’t really addressed any issue on Global Warming but the arguments about arguments.
I was incorrect in determining you wanting to discuss the actual topic, not a discussion about what other people are discussing.
I stand corrected on your non-discussion of the Global Warming science and economic effects topic.
“You are right. You haven’t really addressed any issue on Global Warming but the arguments about arguments.”
Which are fair game on a discussion board. Your sarcasm notwithstanding, you are the person who tried to attribute arguments to me that I did not make. You are now trying to twist it to avoidance of a topic. Nonsense. My not taking the bait on your red herring straw man constructions of my posts is not the same as avoiding the topic. It’s resisting your attempts to change the topic. This started when you responded to me, not the other way around.
ksagnostic
Posted January 8, 2008 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
“This started when you responded to me, not the other way around.”
Which is fair game on a discussion board.
Still not sharing your regular nic there nic Regular?
This is going to be my last word on this. This is for anyone who has read the exchanges between cosmos and his critics, particularly recently the Price boys.
First of all, let’s understand what this blog is. It is a debate board. People post positions, others dispute those positions.
Cosmos has posted, for some time now, passionately on the topic of global warming and climate change.
He has posted links to the IPCC report and to other sites which summarize the consensus position among climatologists on global warming.
In response, and predictably, others have contested cosmos’ position and his links. One of the ways other posters have done this is to post their own links to “experts” who disagree with the consensus position that cosmos argues for. Well, that’s to be expected. And it’s a way to argue cosmos point. Indeed, both Hank and Nathan both point to the links about “scientists” who oppose the consensus position to question that there IS a consensus. Again, this is to be expected.
But folks, when one decides to post links about “experts” who support your position, or at least oppose your self deternmined opponent’s position, those “experts” BECOME YOUR ARGUMENT (sorry for the caps, if I could use italics, I would). What this means is, when your opponent starts to relay and link to criticisms of YOUR experts, he is in fact responding to YOUR argument. Drawing into question the validity of YOUR experts qualifications, motivations, or quality of argument is therefore RESPONDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT. By introducing your own experts to oppose your opponent’s own position, your experts become fair game.
Look at what cosmos does in response to the “experts” that Hank links to. He questions their qualifications, their motivations, and the quality or even relevance of the science that they are doing. He points out that having names with Ph.D.’s after their names is not the same thing as pointing out actual peer reviewed science. He even points out when “experts” do not have the right sorts of professional qualifications at all. He isn’t just saying, “well so and so is just stupid”, he is VERY specific in communicating just why he thinks the names and indeed the list are flawed. This is fair game and this is ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENT THAT HAS BEEN ADVANCED.
To dismiss cosmos’ responsive criticisms of Inhofe and company’s experts as argumentum ad hominem is, to put it kindly, disingenuous. More accurately, it is Orwellian in an argumentatively illiterate sort of way. I find it amusing that Nathan claims that it is impossible to have a discussion with cosmos, simply because cosmos is actually very much on topic and responding directly to the arguments that Hank introduces. Rather than discuss why the arguments of their “experts” should be seriously considered, they simply accuse cosmos of being(in Hank’s case) “shrill and pathetic” and (in Nathan’s case) engaging in “ad hominem”. These responses are in fact nothing more than avoidances of cosmos’ rejoinders to the arguments THEY introduced. Personally, I think they took KHAN’s/kansas’ strategy way to seriously (Kansas, I am convinced, uses hypocrisy as a weapon, he pushes buttons by accusing his opponent of engaging in ad hominem in a post full of ad hominems). I suspect, although I don’t know, that kansas/KHAN knows the real poverty of the “cosmos is engaging in ad hominem” argument, but enjoys the reaction it gets out of cosmos. On the other hand, I expect that Hank and Nathan are actually sincere, but they are very wrong. To post a list of “scientists” who don’t even support a coherent opposing position, but simply oppose a position based on a large set of individual reasons, and then cry foul when those “experts” are called into question, is just being silly.
And that is my final word on this topic tonight. My subsequent lack of response should not be taken as concession on any point that I have made.
“Which is fair game on a discussion board.”
Touche. Well, not really.
Now I am really done.
Hey writerdog,
Several times I had to travel to Florida after their CCW law was passed. The thugs would car jack tourists driving rental cars. I would scrape the rental car’s ID off the bumper before I left the lot.
ksagnostic,
That was a long post at 9:00pm.
As I observed before, you have more opinion about others and the characterizations of others than the topics being discussed.
Damn you write like I used to ksagnostic. Stellar!
Oh and I think we all pretty much know that “Regular” is just, yet another, incarnation of “kansasJM”
And cosmos? Well cosmos is no brawler. And that is fine as we have no short supply of that. Too it lends him credibility.
Wierd – my post was ‘waiting moderation’ and is now disappeared!
Anyway – good post ksagnostic. I had a bunch of links to technical information.
Looks like ksagnostic took some folks to the whippin’ shed!
ksagnostic,
Thank you for your 9:00 PM post, which accurately describes the tactics Hank and Nathan use.
Tune in tommorrow, and see if Hank Price copy/pastes the next one on Sen. Inhofe’s “400″(sic) list, solar physicists Mashnich and Bashkirtsev.
They don’t seem to understand that:
1) Cooling from human-added aerosols helped mask the warming from GHG’s, during the 1950 – 1970’s.
2) The correlation between solar activity and Earth’s temperatures ended in the mid 1970’s.
3) Earth’s climate IS influenced by BOTH natural and anthropogenic forcings. It’s not an “either-or” situation.
They “publish”(sic) at co2science.org, aka ‘The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change’
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
And instead of submitting a paper for peer-review, they make a $10,000 wager.
cosmos, ksagnostic – still frustrating that the Eagle saw fit to censor my post from last night in which I addressed Inhofe and other matters relating to this topic. Apparently their version of ‘moderation’ was deletion.
Ben; if you included links in your post, it is probably “awaiting moderation” as is one I posted this morning. Which, of course, defeats the purpose of posting it in real time.
I don’t know what time the moderator gets up.
Posted about 12 hours ago …
Ben,
During my earlier posts, one link in a post was okay, but two (or more) links caused “awaiting moderation”.
annie moose
I thought ostridges put their heads in the sand.
In fact, a moose would have some difficulty burrying those antlers and all.
However, you seem intent on doing just that.
“Swift Boating” is entirely honest and acceptable, IF you tell the TRUTH, as the Swift Boat advertising DID, against John Kerry.
Furthermore, Ron Paul IS a kook. Quite possibly a racist kook. Absolutely a black-helicopter, John Birch, conspiracy kook.