WE Blog

The R-evolution will be complete on 12-21-12. It only happens once every 26000 years.

It’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=677009&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

Chas was wrong? Oh my gosh!

” I have seen the future…..”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlqOvxS28Vg

Boeing KC-767 Tanker: Capability Where it Counts
Thursday May 22, 1:08 pm ET

ST. LOUIS, May 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — With advantages identified by the U.S. Air Force in the areas of mission capability, survivability, aerial refueling technology, operational utility and ability to respond to real-world mission scenarios, the Boeing (NYSE: BA – News) KC-767 is the best tanker for the future conflicts anticipated by the U.S. Defense Department.
ADVERTISEMENT

“U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently stated that the wars of the future will resemble the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs. “Therefore it follows that the KC-767 tanker is the ideal plane for future conflicts. It has the ability to operate out of smaller forward airfields to efficiently and effectively serve our warfighters, take advantage of existing infrastructure close to expected hot spots and do it all with a more capable, lower-cost, lower-risk, more survivable tanker.”

Secretary Gates said in a speech earlier this month that, “the kind of capabilities we will most likely need in the years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need today.” He added that, “any major weapons program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that … are most likely to engage America’s military in the coming decades.”

A costlier, riskier tanker put forth by the team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) was chosen by the Air Force Feb. 29 as the replacement for the aging fleet of medium-sized KC-135s that met U.S. military requirements through the Cold War, Vietnam and Desert Storm. The same aircraft are providing aerial refueling to American and allied forces today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Air Force Request for Proposals seemed to call for a medium-sized tanker designed to meet the unique needs of today’s expeditionary Air Force. During the evaluation of the two offerings, 98 positive discriminators, or strengths, were identified for the KC-767 compared to 30 for the Airbus A330-based plane.

“The Boeing KC-767 offered much more in terms of capability for bringing the right number of right-sized planes and the right amount of fuel to the fight,” McGraw said. “The top 10 strengths of the KC-767 drive home the superiority of the Boeing plane for this mission.”

According to the KC-X evaluation, top discriminators in the areas of capability, aerial refueling technology, real-world operations, survivability, operational utility and secondary mission capability include:

— The ability to refuel multiple types of aircraft, including the V-22
Osprey tiltrotor aircraft
— Ability to isolate, transport and off-load multiple fuel types
— Less fuel burned, less foreign bases required and less sensitive to
geo-political base denials in operational scenarios
— Fuel tank and ballistic threat protection
— Aerial refueling operator station
— Ability to carry higher weight cargo on the main deck
— Ability to carry hazardous material on the main deck
— Aeromedical crew displays and the ability to generate therapeutic
patient oxygen
— Advanced communication and navigation capabilities and future growth
potential

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world’s largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $32.1 billion business with 71,000 employees worldwide.

KansasNative has been watching the History Channel.

If Chas talks in the woods, and there is no one there to hear him, is he still wrong?

When you keep praying on the street corners, Pharisee, we will keep pointing out your cynical use of “religion.”

——————

Far from reality that post, Capn. In fact, exactly backwards. When religion is discussed, it is almost always instigated by an attack on from the likes of you. You are fooling no one.

Has anyone heard from KFG? There were tornados right over her area last night. If someone has, please post. Here’s hoping all is well.

outlander,

(I incorrectly asked Hank Price to answer this.)

Your 9:16 am link on yesterdays ‘Open’ says,

“Stephen [Wilde] has been a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968.”

Why isn’t Wilde listed as a “Fellow” at http://www.rmets.org/about/people/fellows.php

outlander’s expert(sic) claims: “… in fact, solar energy is and always has been the overwhelming primary driver for global temperature with CO2 such a minor component that it should be ignored.”

Nope.
Chapter 2 at http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

“The combined anthropogenic RF [Radiative Forcing] is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8]2 W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely3 that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.
This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes.

More re solar in section 2.7 of report.

Can there be any more doubt that our city is once again tightly in the grip of the GOBN?
The people be damned.

Outlander,

There was no provocation for your attack on Chas in this thread. You pulled that out of thin air and started in. You have nothing better to do? Pity you.

Hey, if you don’t like being attacked, then don’t start it.

Thanks, Predestined, for informing of your thoughts about “personal attacks”. Of course, my post wasn’t an “attack”. I was picking on Chas a bit, but he richly deserves it. It was humor based on fact. Funny, huh? I’m betting you don’t get it.

But since it is your standard, do you have any excuses that you would like to try to make to explain your apparently hypocritical attack on Boxlock?

Re: Outlander >>>>

S.O. material

D
N
F
T
T

outlander,

Do you consider it acceptable for someone to falsely claim that they are a member of a professional group?

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/open-thread-523/#comment-355285

Democrats (liberals mostly)
Never
Formulate
The
Truth

John Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. From August 2005 to December 2006, he served as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and for four years prior to that he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Ambassador Bolton has a B.A. from Yale College and a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal. He has written for several publications, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Weekly Standard, and is the author of the recent book, Surrender is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona, on February 11, 2008.

——————————————————————————–

America’s Interests and the U.N.

Jeane Kirkpatrick was frequently asked why the U.S. didn’t simply withdraw from the U.N., and her answer was, “Because it’s more trouble than it’s worth.” The fact is that the U.N., at times, can be an effective instrument of American foreign policy. Of course, to say this is heretical to the real devotees of the U.N., for whom the U.N. shouldn’t be an instrument of anyone’s foreign policy. But the fact is that everybody who participates in the U.N.—all of the 192 member governments, all of the non-governmental organizations, and all of the civil servants in the U.N. secretariats—try to advance their own interests. The only entity that gets criticized for that, needless to say, is the U.S. government.

Although I want to talk about some of the U.N.’s failings in the international security area, I first want to mention an issue that doesn’t get as much attention, but which in many respects is more troubling and affects American interests in ways that could have a profound impact well into the future. This is what our friends in Europe call “norming.”

“Norming” is the idea that the U.S. should base its decisions on some kind of international consensus, rather than making its decisions as a constitutional democracy. It is a way in which the Europeans and their left-wing friends here and elsewhere try and constrain U.S. sovereignty. You can see how disastrous this would be just by looking at the geography of the floor of the U.N. General Assembly. Look out at the representatives of the 192 governments spread out over the floor and you wonder where the U.S. even is. Well, we’re there somewhere. But the fact is that we’re sitting with a majority of countries that have no traditions or understanding of liberty. The argument of the advocates of “norming” is “one nation, one vote.” That sounds very democratic: Who could object to that? But its result would be very anti-democratic. As an illustration of this, a friend of mine once went to a conference on international law and heard a professor from a major European university say, “The problem with the United States is its devotion to its Constitution over international norms.”

We have controversial issues within the United States—issues that we debate, and over which reasonable people can disagree. But these controversies should be resolved through our political process, according to our Constitution, just as other countries can resolve their controversies as they see fit. Take, for example, the question of the death penalty. This is a matter about which many people feel very strongly, both for and against. We’ve just seen New Jersey repeal the death penalty. At the federal level, procedures have been reformed to meet objections from the Supreme Court, so that the death penalty can be handed out in appropriate cases. Opinions on the subject change constantly as we debate in the U.S. whether we should have a death penalty and, if so, under what circumstances. But at the U.N. this debate is closed; the death penalty has been ruled out. The new Secretary-General of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, comes from South Korea—where they still have the death penalty—and last year, during his first few months in office, he remarked that this question is for each government to decide for itself. Upon saying this, he was all but subjected to articles of impeachment for failing to realize that the U.N. had already decided that question for all countries.

As I say, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to debate the death penalty from either side. But it is inconceivable to me that anyone can seriously argue—as advocates of “norming” do—that the death penalty violates international standards of human rights, when in a democratic society like ours we are debating it.

Another issue on which “norming” is brought to bear is gun control. In 2001, the U.N. had a conference about international trafficking in small arms and light weapons—weapons that flow into conflict zones and pose a risk to U.N. peacekeepers. The idea was to discuss methods to deal with this threat. But the discussion turned out to have nothing to do with small arms and light weapons in African or Asian civil wars. Instead it was about gun control in the U.S., with advocates of “international norms” pressing for the prohibition of private ownership of firearms of any sort. The U.S. delegation made it clear that while we were concerned about the illicit flow of weapons into conflict areas, we were not going to sign on to any international agreement that prohibited private ownership of guns. I explained that we had a Constitution that precluded any such restrictions. This was treated as an entirely specious notion.

These are the kind of “norming” exercises by which foreign governments hope, over time, to build up a coral reef of U.N. resolutions and pronouncements that can be used to manipulate U.S. policy.

Although the U.N. is perfectly capable of passing resolutions about the death penalty and gun control—not to mention smoking—it has proved utterly incapable, even after 9/11, of agreeing to a definition of terrorism that would enable it to denounce terrorism. The U.N. is incapable of doing this, even to this day, because several member governments think there is good terrorism and bad terrorism. It is inconceivable, in my judgment, that the U.N. will ever be able to agree upon a definition of terrorism that’s not complete pablum—and therefore utterly useless.

So in all the areas where the U.N. shouldn’t be involved—issues best left to sovereign countries—it is very successful in passing judgment, especially when it can spit in the eye of the U.S. But in the one area where the U.N. could be of most use in promoting international peace, it has failed completely. So much for “norming.”

Attempts at Reform
We, as Americans, are pretty practical people. We like to solve problems. I think that’s the way most Americans approach the United Nations. So we have looked for ways to make the U.N. work better. But virtually every serious effort to reform it over the years has failed.

Let me give you a couple of examples. Most of us are familiar with the oil-for-food scandal—the mismanagement and corruption that accompanied the efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people after the first Iraq War. Even Kofi Annan, the previous Secretary-General, recognized that this scandal caused grave damage to the U.N.’s reputation. Thus he brought in Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, to investigate and propose reforms. One of Volcker’s most important findings was that the oil-for-food scandal was not a unique incident—that it represented flaws endemic to the entire U.N. system. So Volcker proposed a whole series of reforms, chief among them being effective outside auditing of U.N. programs. We worked hard with other governments to get these reforms adopted by the General Assembly. Months and months of negotiation led to a vote by the U.N. Budget Committee, and the reforms were rejected by a margin of about two to one.

Let me repeat this for emphasis: The U.N. Budget Committee voted two to one against effective outside auditing of U.N. programs. This tells you pretty much everything you need to know about how the U.N. operates. And I should add that the countries voting in favor of these reforms contribute over 90 percent of the U.N.’s budget, whereas the countries voting against them contribute under ten percent.

We engaged in another reform effort to fix the U.N. Human Rights Commission—a body that everybody in Europe, and even Secretary-General Annan, admitted was a stain on the U.N.’s reputation. It spends most of its time defending human rights abusers and passing resolutions critical of the U.S. and Israel. We proposed a series of procedural reforms that would have changed the membership of the Human Rights Commission in a way to rid it of the worst human rights offenders. But the third world countries, led by Russia and China, adamantly refused to consider these reforms. One by one, our European friends allowed them to be dropped, so that the reform package got smaller and smaller. I knew that the effort was completely lost when it couldn’t even be agreed that governments under sanctions by the Security Council for gross abuses of human rights or support for terrorism would be prohibited membership on the new Human Rights Council. At that point I recommended to the Secretary of State that we vote against the resolution. But ultimately the new Council was created with only four countries voting against it—the U.S., Israel, and our other two close allies, Palau and the Marshall Islands.

The Europeans criticized us at the time for giving up on reform, and my response was that it is foolish to put lipstick on a caterpillar and call it a butterfly. But in the end the Europeans cared less about reforming the Human Rights Commission than bludgeoning the U.S. into being more submissive to the U.N. So they expressed outrage at us, rather than at the countries that had rejected real reform. Subsequently, even the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post—neither of them conservative supporters of the Bush administration—called the new Human Rights Council even worse than its predecessor.

What I concluded following my 16 months as ambassador—and based on my work in the U.N. system dating back to my earliest service in the Reagan administration—was that efforts at marginal or incremental reform of the U.N. are doomed to failure. Instead, I believe that we should focus on one issue: changing the arrangement by which financing of the U.N. is mandatory.

Under the current system, the U.S. pays 22 percent of the cost of most U.N. agencies, and 27 percent of peacekeeping costs. We are far and away the largest contributor, and every year Congress pays the bill as apportioned by the General Assembly. My revolutionary reform principle would be this: The United States should pay for what it wants and insist that it get what it pays for. This would break up the entitlement mentality at the U.N. and foster an organization that is both more transparent and more effective.

Unfulfilled Promise
International peace and security was the objective that motivated the founders of the U.N. after World War Two. And it is precisely here that the U.N.’s promise has been least fulfilled during its 60-plus years of existence. During the half-century of the Cold War, the U.N. was fundamentally irrelevant to the great struggle between liberty and tyranny due to the make-up of the Security Council and the veto power held by the Soviet Union and, later, by the People’s Republic of China. Since the end of the Cold War, many people have thought it possible that the U.N. could play a more important role in world affairs. These hopes have been completely dashed.

Take the present case of Darfur. Acts of genocide have been committed by the government of Sudan against the people of the region, and unspeakable brutality has gone on for over three years. Yet the Security Council has been incapable of inserting a U.N. peacekeeping force. Why is that? In part, it is because China has given protective cover to the Sudanese government. And why does China do this? Because it has a large and growing demand for energy and wants oil and natural gas leases in Sudan. Thus the genocidal government of Sudan has stood down the entire U.N. Security Council for years.

Or consider the case of Iraq. In the aftermath of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the subsequent expulsion of Iraqi forces by the U.S.-led coalition, we and Saddam Hussein agreed to a cease-fire based on a number of conditions expressed in various Security Council resolutions. Saddam Hussein ignored those resolutions. Leaving aside the issue of weapons of mass destruction, there’s no doubt that he failed to comply with the cease-fire resolution and other key resolutions of the Security Council. Yet when President Bush suggested that the Security Council take its own resolutions seriously, he was rebuffed. This is a perfect example of the U.N. being willing to talk but not act.

What is the lesson learned when unlawful governments are the subject of repeated resolutions by the Security Council and yet suffer no consequences for ignoring them? We find the consequences played out now in two direct threats to the U.S. and to international order: the nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and Iran. And, as in the days of the Cold War, the U.N. is fundamentally irrelevant in the face of these grave threats to world peace.

I’m sure all of you recall the Israeli Air Force raid last September that destroyed a major facility in Syria. It turned out to be a nuclear facility that was being constructed with the assistance of North Korea, quite possibly financed by Iran. This reminds us of the real threats we face, of the ineffectiveness of the U.N., and of the importance of U.S. military power and foreign policy.

There is one point of view here in America—a view given expression during the 2004 presidential campaign by Senator Kerry—holding that American foreign policy should meet some kind of “global test.” By this way of thinking, America needs, in effect, to demonstrate the legitimacy of its foreign policy decisions by getting the approval of the U.N. Security Council or some other international body. The same suggestion will no doubt surface again this year, in the run-up to the November election. In the 21st century, then—just as in the 20th—the political decisions we make here in the U.S. will be much more significant than those made at the U.N.

Check these links — Look like anything we see here on the Blog almost daily?? Scary stuff!!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html

Please check these out!! You will find that the ANTI Gay Marriage folks have a much biger agenda….

Cosmos, you know he will only keep writing effective articles about global cooling. Did you see his dare at the end of his article? “If they already have evidence to disprove everything in this article and make me a laughing stock then let them produce it.”

You can be the one who takes him up on it. But not the way he thought. No sir. I’m sure that he never thought anyone would questions his credentials. Guys like him never do. Won’t he be surprised?

Hero time Cosmos.

I think cosmos should expose Mr. Wilde on the International level is he is a fraud. Post on realclimate.org cosmos. Perhaps the scientists there can help you out in identifying who Mr. Wilde is.

As outlander states, be a hero, expose the fraud.

Better yet, James, why dont you and Cosmos both submit your credentials to the Blog Editors, and they can verify which of you, or both of you, hold such credentials?? That way Nobody else has to see the information??

Chas, how about shutting your ministerial pie-hole when I’m addressing cosmos?

The Wichita Eagle has already seen my credentials when I applied there for a job many years ago.

Predestined,

Where were you yesterday when CapnAmerica attacked my faith when it was not even part of the topic?

Where are you now to condemn CapnAmerica for attacking me when I have not even posted her until now?

I can see that the liberals like CapnAmerica have no interest in civility here.

I made an agreement with CapnAmerica and I have held up my end of the deal while he has not.

I dunno Chas, could it be that cosmos has no credentials to offer that would measure up to any scientific standard?

All cosmos admits to is having ’some’ science classes. He doesn’t say what, where or how he did in them.

Why doesn’t cosmos go on realclimate.org, his scientific idols and ask? He could ask Dr. Gavin Schmidt about Mr. Wilde.

Look, James — I simply offered you guys a possibly solution to stop the constant bickering over credentials… Either go for it, or not, but dont attack ME… it isnt my fight!! Geez!!

Nathan, I havent seen any attacks on your faith or beliefs here today… Where did I miss that??

Kansas (aka Regular) posted August 25, 2007 at 9:54 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/why-do-people-s/#comment-197994

“Then Gavin Schmidt is a fraudulent scientist, because he only picked on portion of the paper to try and discredit.”
——-

‘Gavin A. Schmidt’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=46
“Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He also works on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, such as solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.

He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications.”

‘Dr. Gavin A. Schmidt: Research’
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin/

Cosmos,

Are your attacks on those who oppose AGW any different?

Please tell us how much you respect Richard Lindzens credentials.

Nathaniel posted May 23, 2008 at 2:30 pm

“Please tell us how much you respect Richard Lindzens credentials.”

Wrong question. Nathan should ask if Dr. Lindzen’s “Iris Theory” withstood scientific scrutiny by his peers.

It did not. And Lindzen has withdrawn that theory, multiple times.

So cosmos refuses to release his scientific credentials, yet condemns others for theirs? Can we now state in absolute confidence that cosmos is a hypocrite of the worst kind.

Hiding behind a computer screen, cosmos attacks the credibility and reputations of others without giving on clue on his own qualification.

We now know by his repeated refusal to give qualifying scientific credentials, that cosmos is a hack of the GORACLE attack squad. Most likely unpaid and thusly a ‘blind’ but loyal follower not unlike the Waffen SchutzStaffel of the ideological Nazi party who without question followed the bizarre rantings of Adolph Hitler.

Policy

Although The Wichita Eagle is not responsible for the content of the comments on this blog and has no obligation to monitor them, it reserves the right to remove any comments that are threatening, libelous, obscene or otherwise objectionable. Please refrain from personal attacks and using other posters’ nicknames. Report possible comment violations to weblog@wichitaeagle.com.

You mean like the time you bolded “James McClure” in that obituary Chas?

Chas,

Capnamerica did attack me today as well, just not on my faith:

“CapnAmerica
Posted May 23, 2008 at 12:38 pm | Permalink
Let’s see a show of hands of who thinks that outlander, Nathan, and Regular aren’t getting laid?

And that may be at the root of their smug self-righteousness?

Yup . . . me too . . .”

Look out! It’a an all out war about AGW. The proAGW radicals are pretty impressive today.

But don’t forget about the AntiAGWists who are the best of the best of the national weather reservists.

Let her go…………………………….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man, the Gore comparison was a hard blow to take! Smack, pow , bam!

Maybe Cosmos should help him have a real green house!

Notice how cosmos never answers the question about his credentials.

He just posts some hyperlinks and proclaims himself to be an expert.

Then, without knowing how to scientifically interpret the work of others, because cosmos is not a scientist (by his own admission), he attacks the scientific credentials and works of real scientists or those with many decades of experience.

cosmos is a partisan hack of the GORACLE and cannot be believed.

OOOOOOOOO Weeeeeeeeeeee! Cosmos made contact with an uppercut to the chin, but Nat and Reg are not to be outdone and they parry for……………

A Gorish punch to the midsection that sends Cosmos reeling to the ropes…………..

RE: American

D
N
F
T
T

BTW: Lindzen agrees that humans are causing warming, he just disagrees how much.

So cosmos admits that if a scientist is not 100 percent on board with cosmos intepretation of what Global Warming is, then that scientist must be some sort of hack.

Even thought that scientist, Dr. Lindzen, is a MIT professor with many years of study in the field and a PhD in studies specific to climatology on oceans.

cosmos must have some real stud credentials to put himself above Lindzen.

So cosmos, just what are your credentials?

Reinforcements arrive for Cosmo, the Goricist? Pr is that the Exorcist?

Whether or not weather is an issue in this match has yet to be completely determined, as of yet.

Maybe weather determines the whether of the whether of the weather.

Ask a weatherman. Surely he knows.

Hey Dave Freeman, where are you when we need you?

Repost,
Nathan should ask if Dr. Lindzen’s “Iris Theory” withstood scientific scrutiny by his peers.

It did not. And Lindzen has withdrawn that theory, multiple times.

Not at all cosmos. I have always contended that I discuss climate science here on the blog as a discussion with basic scientific facts.

However, cosmos way of discussing is attacking the credibility or credentials of AGW scientists or dismissing them entirely when they do not agree with his position.

cosmos does not have the intellectual capability to discuss science, because he has no scientific training past the undergraduate Liberal arts science courses of biology and perhaps elementary chemistry, if that much.

cosmos inability to discuss science in a rational manner is further worsened by his incessant linking to words that are not his own.

cosmos blindly follows people he has never met nor even seen.

But do be aware, Cosmos has a plan of action in work……………..

Can Freeman be any worse than Merl “I never interrupt a commercial” Teller?

“Here’s your chance to display your scientific credentials and settle it once and for all.”

We would ask for your credentials, McCluer, but we all know that you have zero credibility and would lie about them anyway.

No point in that.

So does this mean cosmos is going to run away once again?

Bush is a Globalist pres., the sooner he’s gone the better:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080523/pl_nm/trade_obama_southkorea_dc_2

has anybody heard from KsFarmgrrl?

Yes, American, you copy/pasted S. Fred Singer.

Does that mean that you do cannot understand that D-O events are not global warming?

‘Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/

‘Unstoppable Hot Air’
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unstoppable-hot-air/

Singer’s ex-wife even “assisted” him,

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478
Singer and the “Glacier Story”
In his May 10, 2005 Gaurdian column, George Monbiot uncovered a story implicating Fred Singer in the spread of misinformation on the state of the world’s glaciers. An expanded version of this story made it’s way into Monbiot’s best selling book, Heat.
…
Monbiot chased all over in search of a source for this information. The claim appeared dozens of times in many different locations – but all trails seemed to lead back to the website of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. That’s basically Dr. S. Fred Singer’s home page.
When people challenged Singer, he first lashed out, saying Monbiot “has been smoking something or other.” But Singer finally conceded, in March 2005, that the information had originated on his site – posted there by “former SEPP associate Candace Crandall.” Singer acknowledged that the information “appears to be incorrect and has been updated.” “Updated,” however, is different than “corrected.” You could still find the claim on his website 18 months later.

Singer also failed to mention that the bumbling former associate, Candace Crandall, is his wife.”

Hilary just keeps digging herself deeper and deeper….anyone with such a lack of common sense has no business being the leader of the free world… I have no idea why her supporters think she is so intelligent, she keeps saying and doing such stupid things.

“Responding to a question from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader editorial board about calls for her to drop out of the race, she said: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing the idea of abandoning the race.”

“Innocent comment”? What is YOUR interpetation of what she meant?
I think it must be wishful thinking on her part that just slipped out…obviously she’s thought about the possiblities if someone kills him.
She’s scary…that’s all I have to say.

““Innocent comment”? What is YOUR interpetation of what she meant?”

She ALSO mentioned her husbands drawn out primary process.

She was simply saying, as I have, that it is a GOOD thing to have more than one Democratic candidate for as long as possible.

The party rules and delegate allocation and super delegates ARE set up just for that purpose.

“I think it must be wishful thinking on her part that just slipped out…obviously she’s thought about the possiblities if someone kills him.
She’s scary…that’s all I have to say.”

Do you really believe that? Or are you just saying it because you are in love with Barack Obama?

Either way, you join, and have been joining a group of SOME Obama supporters that I no longer want anything to do with.

Let me be clear on that.

There are SOME supporters of Obama who I think have crossed a line that separates me from them and their candidate, permanently.

I wonder if Senator Clinton knows that after Robert Kennedy was assassinated, the Secret Service was mandated to protect presidential candidates?

BlueJay is just one step from wearing a pillow case for a hat and burning down a fellow American’s home….because they are the “enemy”.

Check these links — Look like anything we see here on the Blog almost daily?? Scary stuff!!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

Please check these out!! You will find that the ANTI Gay Marriage folks have a much biger agenda….

Chas, I have warned you…..(CNN)…:)
ROTFL LOL!!

ANTI = Troll Freak!!

Chas, is :: out on business???

OK I am done, you bore me….enjoy the holiday!

BlueJay
Posted May 23, 2008 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
Chas don’t get sucked in.

“Anti” is just James again.
—————-
Shut your hole midget.

just to show his “respect” for this country

Assuming of course, that James is not using two separate computers logged in to the Blog…

:-|

Yeah Chas he is.

And I aim to prove it.

“Regular” was posting about his blog warfare power on another thread.

Well SUCH a powerful blog entity here should have some pull don’t you think?

I do.

In a way, I hate that this is what my role here has pretty much always been. Busting the mentally addled late at night.

I’ve done this before.

Ok here is the deal.

James? YOU are a powerful guy! You brag you are gonna tear this blog a new one.

I’ll make it easy for you. I’ll give you a chance to prove what no one else has been able to in almost three years now.

You get the chance to make me wrong or a liar.

I say that “Regular” is “Boxlock” is “Anti”.

And any other errant nics that want to invite themselves are welcome too. Let’s have an end to this.

Now powerful and influential poster you are here James “Regular”, you have to have some sway.

You get “Boxlock” and “Anti” and anyone else you can. And I will meet you and “them” anytime any place. Just little old Jay against all you can bring.

Junior, you’re just a low life moron. There is no other polite way to say it.

Frankly, I don’t care if Anti,Boxlock, Max or whoever you accuse me of being never show up at a meetup.

You had your chance and you chickened out.

I know you’re a runt and can’t back up your mouth, that’s why you didn’t want to meet.

Why don’t you buy some clown shoes and join a circus. You can be the midget clown that slides under the ponies. You don’t even have to talk, which would suit you.

Or I could just wait when Clinton gets booted out of the race and you alienate all the Libs and Dems on this blog, you won’t have anyone to turn to, but your little dwarf face staring back at you in the mirror.

Have a sad night Junior.

BlueJay, first and foremost you wouldn’t show up if you agreed. Second, I find you and your opinions as worthy as a warm bucket of piss. You are a kook who finds 50% of Americans as the “enemy”. A most unstable person in my mind.

What is it you say James? (Regular and ANTI)

Bawk

Bawk

Bawk

The thing is “BlueJay”, I disagree with many of the Lib posters (C3PO, CapnA, Chas, KFG, put your name here) but I do not in any way see them as the “Enemy”. I see them as fellow Americans, people I disagree with sure, but when the shit hits the fan I know that we are Americans and believe in the principles of this country. That is where we very in principle BlueJay….and that is extremely sad.

Isn’t that precious, Junior wants to hide behind his kid.

jimmymac,

So when are you going to post the science classes that you took (in the 1970’s?) while getting your Industrial Hygiene degree?

Isn’t that why you believe that you are more qualified than all of the peer-reviewed, published climate scientists worldwide?

Again, I was HONEST and told you up front I had no desire to meet your goofy ass. Said it from the beginning. Same holds true today. You instigated the whole deal and chastised myself and others to show and yet you did not show up yourself.
Get help J R, you need it bad.

jimmymac (aka ‘Regular‘),

We are all still waiting for you to explain what makes you more qualified than all of the peer-reviewed, published climate scientists worldwide.

It’s a very easy question. Why doesn’t jimmymac answer?

Aren`t You fed up with all those Forex E-books that promise heaven and deliver hell? The “Forex-Killer” is an automated Trading software that does it all! It analyzes the markets and gives you a clear buy or sell order. All you have to do is feed it with the necessary data. A simple 2 minute process !!!…Download The Amazing Software Now: http://www.urlpire.com/?MALFY