Another botched execution, another reason to use a painless, surefire method to execute those guilty of heinous crimes.
More gratuitous gov’t waste, an article from the website recommended by reader “John” some threads back.
Not to say it’s the only example.
An employee of Serco, a company with a $1.2 billion government contract to handle paper healthcare applications has some rather interesting, and believable claims.
“There are some weeks that a data entry person would not process an application. The main thing is the data entry side does not have hardly any work to do. They’re told to sit at their computers and hit the refresh button no more than every 10 minutes. They’re monitored, to hopefully look for an application. Their goals are to process 2 applications a month, and some people are not even able to do that. There are centers in Missouri, Kentucky, and Oklahoma. 1,800 people trying to get 1 of 30 application that pop up.
Jim, here is your link for the day:
A paper in Nature, 1978. Contrast the content of that paper with the two manuscripts out this week (Science and Geophysical Letters Research) which describe evidence that the West Antarctic ice shelf has begun to collapse.
In 1978 that paper was considered to be a little “out there”, and now it is looking a little prescient.
So are you the same person as “The Trolls” or a different person?
ursus maritimus, the trolls, IAM and many more
all the same, yet not one functioning neuron
That was my suspicion.
“which describe evidence that the West Antarctic ice shelf has begun to collapse”
AGW supporters had developed theories for the growth of ice in the Antarctica. Now it appears those theories were wrong. Another AGW theory goes into the trash bin to be replaced with the latest doomsday prediction.
Antarctica is melting! The oceans are rising 10 feet! We are all doomed! Repent! Repent! Mabel, bring in the sheep! etc., etc., etc…..
AGW supporters had developed theories for the growth of ice in the Antarctica.
Such as from Judith Curry (PNAS, 2010), who Jim has linked:
“The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall…[but]…The increased heating from below (ocean) and above(atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice.”
Now it appears those theories were wrong.
No, per Judith Curry and others, the theories were spot on.
We are all doomed!
You aren’t, Ken, the word “collapse” doesn’t necessarily have an “immediate” time connotation; however, our children’s children are thoroughly vexed by your behavior.
” our children’s children are thoroughly vexed by your behavior.”
It’s good to see you are concerned about our children’s children future. That’s enlightening. Does that concern extend to their economic future as well as their environmental future? If you were to hype trillions of dollars of debt being added on to the backs of our children’s children rather than a minor change in a trace element in air, I might have some empathy for your position. The truth is that you only want to address those calamities that are liberal talking points.
…I might have some empathy for your position…
I am not interested in your lack of empathy. I was commenting that the children of the future will not understand your lack of empathy.
Liberal talking points.
Hopefully that will be etched in stone, so that the children of the future will be able to read that it was argued that their climate is not fact but is merely a liberal talking point. History will look back critically.
Does that concern extend to their economic future as well as their environmental future?
Their economic future will be far better off if we take AGW seriously. See the post below regarding the military, they are taking AGW seriously.
“they are taking AGW seriously”
So are these LIARS
“Winds of Change: Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing”
“New Theory for Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing”
“Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?”
Pannetta (Dem and SecDef at the time) and Morell (Dpty CIA Director) endorse the idea of a special Benghazi committee.
Conclusion: Defense Dept and CIA have nothing to hide. White House and State Dept? Jury is still out.
“Conclusion: Defense Dept and CIA have nothing to hide.”
Why does the false “conclusion” look just like a straw man?
“White House and State Dept? Jury is still out.”
Oh, I see, the “jury” is conservatives, and your goal is to create an illusion of guilt, not an investigation into truth.
In that case, nice work.
So you would say the American people should not be allowed to know what happened?
Perhaps that it is a distraction and, after all, what does it matter any more?
Quotes an NY Times article approvingly.
The New York Times writes, More Insured, but the Choices Are Narrowing:
In the midst of all the turmoil in health care these days, one thing is becoming clear: No matter what kind of health plan consumers choose, they will find fewer doctors and hospitals in their network — or pay much more for the privilege of going to any provider they want. … “We have to break people away from the choice habit that everyone has,” said Marcus Merz, the chief executive of PreferredOne, an insurer in Golden Valley, Minn., that is owned by two health systems and a physician group. “We’re all trying to break away from this fixation on open access and broad networks.”
Ken’s article on the death threats to Speaker Boehner have echoes here.
The level of left hatred is growing.
Remember when Michigan union members collapsed a tent on attendees at an Americans for Prosperity event supporting changes to Michigan union rules? (link to video)
As the union members attacked the Americans For Prosperity tent, a woman cried out “there are people under there, oh my God” (at 1:20). At 1:40, as union members start walking on top of the collapsed tent, a man shouted “hey, there are people in there” but again the crowd didn’t stop, and the union members continued walking on the collapsed tent defiantly as the crowd shouted obscenities and cheered. … At 3:30 someone asks, “does someone want to help me lift this? I wonder if there are any people in there.” Then another person said, “there was, there was a bunch of women and older people.” Then another person yelled, “fuck these people.”
The point of the article, though, is given below.
“The bottom has since fallen out of SEIU Healthcare’s membership. According to reports filed with the Department of Labor, in 2012 SEIU Healthcare Michigan reported 55,265 members. In 2013 the number fell to 10,918, a loss of 44,347 union members, or about 80%.”
The coming Dem Gestapo exemplified in Wisconsin.
“U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa, revolted by the police-state arrogance of some elected prosecutors, has stopped a partisan abuse of law enforcement”
commenter: There is literally no reason to treat conservative groups who engage in “issue advocacy”– i.e., talking about issues they believe are important–as common criminals, busting down their doors in the middle of the night with battering rams and scaring their families. There was no reason any searches of computers or papers could not have been conducted in daylight, when the kids were at school. The only reason to use these tactics was to intimidate. This fact alone reveals the true purpose of this investigation: to use a special Wisconsin law, allowing secretive and broad investigatory power to intimidate vocal conservative groups in the state and chill/stop them from exercising their First Amendment rights. This is a disgusting abuse of power and I hope, once this civil rights action is adjudicated on the merits, that the prosecutors are forced to pay for their abuse of power, not only financially, but with a loss of their licenses to practice law.
Many reports over the past few years of gov’t agencies buying ammo and having departments of armed officers. Interesting stuff.
Here’s a recent one.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture … has a requirement for the commerical acquisition of submachine guns, .40 Cal
A view of this trend.
While the Obama administration ceased to use its predecessor’s term “war on terror” to describe its actions abroad, it redoubled commitment to “homeland security,” reorienting it to home-grown “extremism” defined ad hoc.
Climate science renegade forced to recant.
Par for the course. The AGW lynch squad is not interested in debate ever since their predictions have failed.
I gather Professor Lennart Bengtsson was not convinced on AGW after being advised that Antarctica is actually melting rather than expanding. Wait! Perhaps it’s expanding and then melting. No! It’s icing over and then melting. Quick! Call Chris Turney and see what he thinks.
The argument for being skeptical of climate scientists is laid out.
A snip from the article.
Of all the silly things written on the subject of global warming, Marcus’s and Lapidos’s offerings are surely among the most recent. Apart from that they’re entirely typical of the genre of global-warmist opinion journalism, in which ignorant journalists taunt politicians for their ignorance but have no argument beyond an appeal to authority.
Now there are 7 VA offices with secret wait lists.
Gov’t healthcare in action.
More evidence liberal AWG extremists are lying
Correct climategate, the left has been caught again and again being dishonest frauds about the global warming hoax. You’d think even hardcore progressives would wise up to the obviously overblown hoax, which is nothing more than the left’s corrupt attempt for more political power and less freedom for Americans. But the lefty sheep don’t wise up, they remain stuck on stupid like your village idiot here.
“AGW doesn’t care if I know the first, or the second thing about physics.”
True. You play the fool willingly.
If you think that by the repeating a false refrain that will make it true, by all means, continue. Teach us again Physics 101, oh self appointed research scientist. Amaze us with your intellectual prowess.
“A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere absorbs radiation from the sun. It can be determined the likelihood that the CO2 molecule will release that energy as heat to surrounding molecules. If the atmospheric CO2 level increases, then so will the equilibrium heat retention, after plus and minus feedbacks.”
So that’s your idea of simple physics? Thermodynamics, perhaps, even with a bit of electromagnetic theory thrown in, but simple physics….not even close.
You don’t have a clue about what you are talking about.
Thermodynamics, perhaps, even with a bit of electromagnetic theory thrown in…
Which are…branches of physics.
It is more compelling that you don’t have a clue how to refute what I am talking about. Rather than refute you dance around the use of the word “simple”.
AGW is simple physics.
“Which are…branches of physics.”
In your mind, that’s probably true. Not, however, in the real world.
“Ken addresses both Ursus and Jake as “Pluto”, and ranted above about Pluto. But then, Ken claimed that thermodynamics and electromagnetism are not branches of physics. Now, that’s odd.”
If Harvard said advanced thermodynamics and advanced electromagnetism are simple physics, then it must be true.
“And, two, re-read the thread, I wasn’t arguing that thermodynamics and electromagnetism were “simple” physics”
Your post deserves a civil response.
This whole discussion was initiated because you made the statement that “AGW was simple physics”. You made it multiple times so I suspect you believe it. When you presented your explanation of how the earth was warming you presented an elementary and over simplified version of radiation theory and its observed heating effects. I gather you spent some time developing that dissertation hoping that it would dissuade me further from questioning your statement. Instead it caused me to question whether you knew anything at all about physics and its various fields of study.
As I have been taught, physics is the study of physical matter, movement, forces, energy and time and (most importantly) development of the laws that they follow. The laws are well recorded, observable and repeatable with similar instrumentation. (e.g. Newton’s Laws of Motion which are incorporated in every beginning physics course, even at Harvard.) “Simple” physics concerns itself with teaching these basic laws and principles. Advanced Electromagnetism and Statistical Thermodynamics both require a basic understanding of physics, then integrates and builds upon the mathematical models used to describe and define those fields of study. That’s why any good engineering school requires first year engineering students to take basics physics no matter what their major might be.
Now, let’s go to the link you provided. I gather you believe that paper supports your statement “AGW is simple physics”. Unfortunately, the paper is anything but simple. AGW is not mentioned. Rather the disclaimer reads: “The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”
Wow! Now that’s a statement that even I can live with. With such a strong AGW supporting paper why would the APS Council take that position? If AGW is such “simple physics” why would the council not wholeheartedly endorse its (the paper’s) conclusion?
In fact, the models used to develop predictions of temperature rise are developed from historical data. That data has been challenged both from its completeness and also its authenticity and accuracy. The models are constantly modified as the global temperature stabilizes (or not).
In order for AGW to be as simple physics, there must be certain basic laws that that are observable and repeatable for scientists to agree on. The only (now discredited) Law of AGW that I am aware of is “temperature must increase with an increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere.” Unfortunately this law is coming under attack as more data becomes available. If you have other laws which have been developed, please advise. Predictions from the IPCC are constantly modified or eliminated. The Kyoto meetings have been non productive and the subject of humor. Even the simplest AGW CO2 experiments are not reproducible.
“AGW is simple physics” should be eligible for the Dan Rather award. Fake but accurate.
As I have been taught, physics is the study of physical matter, movement, forces, energy and time and (most importantly) development of the laws that they follow.
Really, to follow your argument, there is no such thing as “simple” physics. You are basically arguing that it is all highly complex. You are making a huge deal about my use of the word, “simple”.
An apple falls from a tree and hits the ground due to the gravitational attraction of the apple and the earth. That is “simple” physics. But, to fully understand the gravitational force? We still don’t know. That is “highly advanced” physics.
A CO2 molecule in the earth’s atmosphere absorbs infrared radiation at a known wavelength, and can give that energy off as heat to surrounding molecules. Increase the CO2 ppm, increase the heat content. That can be expressed as Watts, or even “Hiroshima bombs per second”. That is “simple” physics. But, to fully understand the interactions? Advanced whatever you wish to call it, Ken.
And so, my statement, “AGW is simple physics” is akin to, “An apple falls from a tree.” You can go wherever you wish, but the statement stands.
Now, let’s go to the link you provided. I gather you believe that paper supports your statement “AGW is simple physics”.
Naw, I just ran across that link while looking at something else, and tossed it your way. If I was going to argue that it supported my statement then I would have elaborated.
If AGW is such “simple physics” why would the council not wholeheartedly endorse its (the paper’s) conclusion?
It’s from a newsletter, Ken, the “paper” was not peer-reviewed.
That data has been challenged both from its completeness and also its authenticity and accuracy.
Challenged, but never successfully. In fact, the data is becoming more and more robust.
The models are constantly modified as the global temperature stabilizes (or not).
The models are constantly refined. And, there have been links on this thread to the effect that the global temperature has not stabilized.
Even the simplest AGW CO2 experiments are not reproducible.
I hope that you aren’t referring to Anthony Watt’s thermometer in a bottle disgrace.
Predictions from the IPCC are constantly modified or eliminated.
Well, of course they are going to be modified as new data and studies become available. Predictions eliminated? Bear in mind that the IPCC assessment reports are the work of hundreds of authors, integrating tens of thousands of studies, resulting in a document a couple thousand pages long. There will be errors, which are discussed, addressed, and either modified or eliminated. To shine a spotlight on them is necessary, but the intent will be recognized if it is disingenuous.
“Really, to follow your argument, there is no such thing as “simple” physics. ”
Sure there is.
I treat simple physics as basic physics. It’s what you are taught in Physics 101. It is a basic understanding of matter, forces, time and energy and how they relate to one another….the catch-all equation of F=MA and how it applies to various objects. You are quite right to say that we don’t understand the cause of gravitational forces, but we know it exists, can quantify it and it can set up innumerable experiments to prove that it obeys a known algorithm (The Law of Gravity). That’s part of physics.
I didn’t mean to make fun of your explanation of heat transfer but a more accurate description of heat transfer is necessary. I was taught heat is transferred in one of three ways 1. radiation, 2. convection and 3.and conduction. You are on semi solid ground when you say that the molecules of CO2 heat up when exposed to the to the infrared spectrum of radiation from the sun. What about other wavelengths? Surely other forms of electromagnetic radiation have an impact? Then things get a little more complex. Cloud cover prevents radiated heat from escaping out into space. Should we start looking at how to form or dissipate clouds? How is that accounted for in climate models? Convection (winds) carry heat to indeterminate locations around the globe. There have been theories advanced that heat is being absorbed in the oceans. Should we begin the analysis on whether this is accurate and its cause (convection?) And then we have the earth itself which is still very hot and capable of climate change all by itself (conduction). I could go on but the climatologists have documented hundreds of direct and second order heat transfer variables as well as new sources of CO2, including the latest cause du jour, bovine flatulence. But I digress.
“Simple physics”? Hardly. Climate analysis is a very complex subject area that encompasses a number of advanced academic disciplines.
When you over simplified the mechanism of heat transfer, used that as a basis for debate on your understanding for AGW and then called it simple physics, you can begin to see why I was concerned. It’s as if you never read or understood the papers that you link to. You started to sound like Al Gore who, to my knowledge, has never taken a physics 101 course. (I may be wrong on that point but I can’t find it in his records.)
As to the origination of a Law of AGW or the publication of an repeatable experiment that confirms the Law, I haven’t seen one to date. Perhaps you can supply a link.
Correction, over 35 billion tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels.
On good correction deserves another. Bovine flatulence is responsible for the GHG methane, not CO2. Sorry.
BTW, 35 billion tons is quite a lot of CO2. What happens to it once it is released?
“you look for reasons to ridicule. It is in your nature.”
Just curious, how do your credentials stack up against the guy that Ken mentioned?
“Roy Spencer, who was a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA for many years, author of The Great Global Warming Blunder, and one of the inventors of the satellites that now track global temperature data”
” if I said that I have published in the journal, Science, similar to Roy Spencer, and am presenting preparing a publication for the journal, Nature, would it be accepted at face value, or be ridiculed?”
Based on your bizarre explanation of Physics 101, I would say that, if indeed you had been published in Science, the magazine has been the victim of a hoax.
^Jim, I rest my case.
I think it’s time I cleared the air with you and Pluto and any other posters that might be interested.
I address the board’s troll as Pluto because that one of the myriad names he used in the past. I find it more convenient to address one person with one name rather than keep up with the random name generator. I know Pluto doesn’t like the name or the dog references but when you constantly throw out insults, don’t expect to be treated gently in return.
I thought there may have been some reason for the troll to be here. 1. Either as a paid political operative charged with disrupting the web site or 2. as a far left educational elite with an axe to grind. At first, I leaned toward reason number 1. with the constant repetition of liberal talking points including the derogatory reference to any group on the right. (Why waste your time with reasoned discussion when you’re being paid to disrupt?)
Lately, I have changed my mind and suspect reason number 2. makes more sense. Obviously, Pluto has a fine liberal arts education. His vocabulary, his wide knowledge of literature and his writing skills all suggest an elite educator. I have no doubt he is published somewhere whether it be Science, Nature, or another magazine or journal. But in his attempt to portray himself with technical academic credentials he has “jumped the shark” (or at a minimum performed a brain transplant with Al Gore.) I believe the evidence suggests we have an embittered left wing academic with a narcissistic strain. He fancies himself as a expert in all sciences pretending to be what is is not.
A second year engineering student would find him explanation of physics 101 to be laughable. So why do it? Is he really Michelangelo in disguise? I believe in his mind he thinks he is.
I have made fun of Pluto thinking he understood the the reason for the ridicule. Obviously he does not. I have now decided to limit my responses to Pluto since I view them as counterproductive. He feeds on attention. It think it’s time to allow him to thrash about in silence.
Yeah, to be candid I’m betting on mental problems.
At first I considered arrested development, and I suppose that could still be a possibility.
I would need more evidence before I could accept that.
Shorter Tool: I match tone for tone and I’ve been doing this for years.
Hmmm. This is not persuading me to turn away from the mental illness theory, by the way.
Jim’s bubble is impenetrable.
Three things guaranteed to survive a nuclear holocaust: cockroaches, Twinkies®, and Jim prattling away in his bubble.
Funny how noticing the Tool is … let’s say “edgy” … brings immediate charges of “bubble”.
You are of course welcome to disagree on politics but noticing that our Tool is “different” has nothing to do with bubble.
No one accuses Ursus of being odd.
No one accuses Jake of being odd.
Tool, though, is noticed by everyone, right away. An interesting data point and nothing to do with ideology.
If Harvard said advanced thermodynamics and advanced electromagnetism (or AGW) are simple physics, then it must be true.
” the class was “statistical thermodynamics”, not “advanced thermodynamics”.”
You are correct. My apologies.
Yes, ODS does have that effect.”
I think Ambassador Christopher Stevens had a bad case of ODS the night of 9/11/2014
Let’s consider just one data point. In your own personal life, what is the ratio you would assign regarding concern for victims and concern for inhumance treatment of convicts?
For example, when you leave your parents’ basement, are you headed to the local victims’ support organization to donate time? Alternately, when you logon to comment on the issues of the day, have you stood up to oppose inhumane treatment?
You go to a witch hunt with the phony scandal you have, not the phony scandal you might wish you had.
^ Nobody ever gives serious thought to mindless 0bamaBots
Ted’s right though. When have you ever given serious thought to anything?
It’s clear your politics/religion has ossified and no new thought ever arises.
For a lot of people who spend as much energy on blog comments as you, their politics is their religion.
But to sum up: no positive vision to provide, just negatives towards people you don’t like and don’t agree with.
I guess no wife, no kids.
You got a pet? A hobby?
It’s OK, no response is necessary. Just want to point out that many people notice you. This is intended to be well-meant–consider finding some way to get more positive into your life.
“their politics is their religion.”
Insightful comments from Jim and Ken. The brain-dead troll, however, couldn’t string together a single paragraph of common sense to save his miserable life. It’s quite clear the troll is just some failed youngster who lives his life, probably still with mooching from mommy and projecting his own self-loathing onto others. It might be comical if it weren’t so sad and pathetic. The cherry on top is that he embraces the most radically failed ideology on the planet – as if the poor shmuck needed more fuel for his self loathing problem. LOL!
LOL! You haven’t the slightest clue Ponyboy, but it’s still funny to see how easily you wet your panties when you’re called out. I must have struck a nerve – aww, you poor fragile little thing.
Ask your mommy to get you some adult diapers, Ponyboy.
You need to read up on the green-energy-jobs scams.
Who got the money. How many of them were big Dem donors. The special contracts that paid off the owners when the firms collapsed, before the taxpayers got anything back.
Another fertile area: State-run ObamaCare websites. Hundreds of millions spent by blue states like Oregon and Massachusetts.
And, do you include NASA in “failed” aerospace projects?
“Saturn rises just to the right of my street, over the mountain behind my house.”
Time to slip on TOCCC and get contemplative. Thanks for humanizing yourself a bit.
Glad you enjoyed the article.
Yeah, I enjoyed the comments in the Nye “response”.
As someone put it a while ago “Bill Nye’s descent into partisan talking-head hackery has been painful.”
Bill Nye, just cause he’s a partisan hack doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong. That’s correct, isn’t it?
Forest fires: caused by AGW. Kind of like how Sen Reid says the Koch Bros are the main cause of AGW. Really!
Fun movie…kinda old?
I like how you say that Bush took no heat for WMD in Iraq. More petulant negative waves from the Tool?
Awww, Tool has his panties in a twist for being called on negativity.
Relax, breathe deep. All the speculation about your empty private life, just keep it between yourselves. We can move on to other topics. To one extent or another, we all live in glass houses, eh?
“I am here to help you be more positive in your life.”
Now you’re making me blush! That’s wonderful. Real nice.
Obama and Hillary have been exposed for the cover up their failures which led to Americans being attacked and killed on 9/11. They foolishly created the single biggest scandal of the millennia and you want to brand it as “phony”??? LOL!!!!!! Good look with that you daft little troll.
This blog should put up a counter to log the number of times that brain-dead troll uses the term ‘ODS’ to prop up his delusional beliefs or to distract from all valid points that he knowingly cannot dispute. That fool/troll is what we Texans call “a one trick pony”.
Y’all should call him Ponyboy.
Aww, poor fragile Ponyboy got his delicate feelings hurt. It’s not my fault you’re a simple minded one-trick pony.
You’d better whip out the ‘ODS’ mantra, Ponyboy.
“Lame, and petty”
You would know, Ponyboy
“…time away from work”
Great! That’ll give your bruised little penis a well earned break while also giving your mom time to restock your Kleenex supply. Yeah, take a nice break from (ahem) “work” Ponyboy; maybe you could do something productive for the liberal cause like trading your food stamps for weed.
“…time away from work” indeed. You’re funny Ponyboy – a projecting fool and a liar, but still funny.
Ha, legal insurrection played fast and loose with the numbers. The numbers didn’t match their link.
For those who accept Punctuated Equilibrium, of course, evolution is a comparatively week reed. In the end, survivors are those who get lucky during mass extinction events.
Then evolution plies its slow influence only to be up-ended yet again.
LOL! You poor delicate flower.
But keep dancing, “Ted”.
Obama and Hillary have been exposed for the cover up…
Except that there was no coverup.
The GOP is just doing their Kenneth Starr routine again.
“Except that there was no cover up”
Clearly, that’s what you nervously mutter to yourself.
Again, ask your mommy to go buy you some adult diapers, Ponyboy.
I must have stuck a nerve.
Relax Ponyboy, your sad life is not a secret.
“Why is it that conservatives think that when Science finds something new, it undermines Science? In a word, disingenuous.”
I am sorry if you think a conservative, while being hit with two outcomes 180 degrees out of phase, is being disingenuous. The AGW supporters have been using Science for its predictive qualities. But the can’t figure out whether there’s more or less ice in Antarctica. Why is that?
Why would anyone believe them?
For the record, I am not arguing against Science. Science can be used to understand cause and effect. I am not convinced that historical changes in temperature are understood or accurately reflected by climatologists. The idea that winds and ocean currents cause ice formation or melting in the Antarctica appears realistic. We have supposedly instruments for measuring these variables. How did they get it wrong? Either the data was massaged or ignored.
Until the AGW supporters can use their modeling to make a prediction with some degree of accuracy, its GIGO.
If you want to resort to insults again to win debates, you’ll have to go to time-out.
Just matching tone, Ken.
“Just matching tone, Ken.”
Hardly. You see a conservative boogieman hiding behind every rock. When presented with contemporary links to AGW statements that account for 1. New Formation of ice of Antarctica and 2. The New Melting of ice in Antarctica, you go bananas. Literally.
You act like someone has murdered your first born. Thinking about it, perhaps that’s really the problem.
“Well, over 100 years ago AGW was predicted, and now it is coming true.”
Wow! That was even before the “hockey stick” subterfuge. I’ll bet they even predicted the Antarctica ice formation er…melting (whichever it is) at the same time.
You need to watch The Poseidon Adventure movie a few more times.
Wow! That was even before the “hockey stick” subterfuge.
Yeah, about 100 years before that fluffy right wing propaganda about the hockey stick graph being “broken”.
I’ll bet they even predicted the Antarctica ice formation er…melting (whichever it is) at the same time.
Weak snark. Translation: Ken still pushing his lame Antarctic ice talking point. Always in the margins, that Ken.
I haven’t seen that since it first came out. Shelly Winters past her prime. I recall the Mad Magazine version. I would like to see that movie again, actually.
^ “Well, over 100 years ago AGW was predicted, and now it is coming true”
Then why does your ilk keeps falsifying data?
“minor change in a trace element in air
This is worth additional comment.”
Indeed it is. `While I am talking about CO2 concentrations and lack of consistency on Antarctica ice formation you decide to switch to cyanide comparisons. Hello? Anyone home?
The debate is over when you start your “Harry Reid” impersonation.
“Which exposes the GIGO: GOP talking points.”
So now we get to the truth. It’s the nasty GOP, right? Well, I’ll bet you can teach them a lesson or two. #$^%$#$%#@##
“Read, Ken, and stop being so fluffy with your conservative talking points”
Brrrrrrr…. It’s cold down in Antarctica. Just ask Chris Turney, about his unfortunate “stuck in the ice” trip to Antarctica. Maybe he came in from the wrong side?
Liberal rage = shaky fingers
Another comment lost in the ether…
My understanding is that the civilian leadership has refocused the military on other issues. Such as the dangers of Climate Change.
Comments being swallowed…maybe they will show up later.
Anyway, key issues like atheist chaplains are being addressed.
Also, support for Transgender military personnel.
Also, special treatment for some prisoners “Pentagon has decided to transfer convicted Army PVT Bradley Manning, who now refers to himself as Chelsea, to a civilian prison, so the American taxpayer will foot the bill for gender hormone treatments.”
But they aren’t paying so much attention to the VA hospitals. Are they? At a time when you would expect the gov’t to pull out the stops to show success stories in the area of gov’t health care.
That is as weak as your “trace element” argument.
It is easy to tell when Ken has lost an argument, he tries to make you chase him down the rabbit hole.
“It is easy to tell when Ken has lost an argument, he tries to make you chase him down the rabbit hole.”
A much better example of changing the subject is your response to an inevitable collapse of our monetary system with our unsustainable debt. I gather that’s not on your approved talking points list.
“We could do like Bush did regarding the Iraq war, and simply don’t include it in the budget”
That’s EXACTLY what your ilk does. They omit data that contradicts their religion of AGW
Busted again. Typica.
“Turns out that his paper was rejected for not being very good”
Translation: First we’ll hang the varmit, then we’ll give him a fair trial.
This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Global warming is a hoax that power hungry elites propogate and only gullible fools believe. Just one more fake scam in the progressive’s web of lies to gain control. Looks like at least one idiot here believes such obliviously overblown nonsense. Do you still believe in the Great Pumpkin too, Linus?
The lefty sheep are delusional.
over 35 billion tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere each year from the burning of fossil fuels
Yet only half as much as the amount released from your steaming piles of Bravo Sierra.
The loser IP727 is stealing names again.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *