in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| Fox NY | Oookay: ‘Hologram’ to greet and guide travelers at N.Y. airports |
0 |
| John Nolte | 0 | |
| The Hill | Propaganda: HHS signs $20M PR contract to promote healthcare law |
0 |
| CNN | 0 | |
| ABC News | Pushback: Swinging at Bain, Obama Ignores What Private Equity Is |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
What he said
(Bumping this post to the top – scroll down for updates and more thoughts)
Rick Moran blogs about the latest controversy involving comments Ann Coulter made in a recent interview with the Today Show’s Matt Lauer. First, the comments:
LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:
COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process.”
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
Of those comments, Moran writes:
This rhetoric is not designed to advance debate or even make any kind of a salient point about the political activism of grief stricken parents like Cindy Sheehan and the anti-Bush September 11 widows. The remarks were designed to hurt other people’s feelings in a deeply personal and entirely inappropriate way. Can you imagine some liberal commentator making similar remarks about Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame, III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon and who is fighting to keep the 9/11 Memorial from being hijacked by the anti-American left? We would be all over that worthy and deservedly so.
The anti-Bush 9/11 widows are not immune from criticism for their political positions nor even for the tactics they use to advance those positions. But to say that they are “enjoying” their status as widows is so far beyond the pale that anyone who makes such a statement deserves the most severe censure possible. And the networks who use Coulter as some kind of “Spokesman” for the right should be told in no uncertain terms by as many of us as possible that she doesn’t speak for any conservatives that we want to be associated with.
I couldn’t agree more.
Ann, of course, has the right to say whatever she wants – but was something like that right to say? I don’t think so. This isn’t about being uber-sensitive. It’s about there being a better way to get your point across without going overboard. No matter what the 9-11 widows have had to say about the President’s policies, Coulter saying they’ve been “enjoying” their husbands deaths is way beyond the pale.
This is yet another example of how sometimes conservative debate can turn from passion to poison.
James Joyner has a link roundup of blogger reax.
Read more via Captain Ed, AllahPundit
PM Update 11:47 ET: It’s ‘progressed’ (don’t know if that’s the best word for it) to a war of words been Coulter and Hillary.
Malkin makes a fair point here on what’s been lost in all this:
Unfortunately, lost in all the hype and hyperbole on both sides is the central point about the absolute moral authority the MSM confers on victims they agree with–while victims whose politics they do not share can’t get the time of day.
She’s absolutely right. Unfortunately, that central point won’t be the focus now. The focus is going to be on how hateful Ann is, and by association, conservatives, because she wrote about how the 9-11 widows were ‘enjoying’ their husbands’ deaths.
To add to my earlier points, on certain issues it helps to be tactful when attempting to get your point across. I have defended remarks made by other conservatives that I thought were taken out of context by the liberal mediots (Bill Bennett [scroll] and Rep. Jean Schmidt are two examples of that) because they deserved to be defended. The usual suspects took offense at Bennett’s and Schmidt’s remarks respectively – Bennett’s because he wasn’t being PC enough and Schmidt because she was supposedly ‘smearing’ Vietnam vet Rep. John Murtha after he urged the US to essentially cut and run in Iraq. I cannot, however, do the same for Ann here.
Conservatives, including myself, are strong proponents of saying what needs to be said without worrying about who is going to get offended. The bane of progress on conservative priorities has been political correctness: we’ve been told for decades by Democrats that our ideas are offensive, mean-spirited and wrong – and when we act on our core beliefs (smaller gov’t, fiscal responsibility, etc) well, I don’t even have to give a rundown of the type of venom that spews out of the mouths of demagoguing blowhards like Ted Kennedy in response. In spite of the Ted Kennedys of the world, we need to keep on saying what needs to be said. But on certain issues, tact is important and this is indeed one of those issues.
I know some of my readers disagree with me on this, which is fine because a world in which we always agreed with each other would be quite boring. But I want to reiterate that this is not about political correctness or being uber-sensitive, but instead knowing which issues to approach tactfully and which ones not to. Because of the way Ann chose to make her point on the “Jersey girls” – by saying they were “enjoying” their husbands’ deaths, the real point – as Malkin noted – the one that really should be the focal point, has been lost. It’s become a personality debate now rather than a substantive debate and that is the most regrettable thing out of all this.
(Original post time before the update and bump: 10:16 a.m.)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Man Bang ! Here’s a beer. I’ll stand there with you. *snort*
Excellent interview by hannity at her booksigning last night here. It’s interesting that she says it’s not possible to get the truth out sometimes being rude. “The truth cannot be delivered with novocaine.” Heh. Watch it if you get the chance, it’s really good towards the end (she’s pissed!).
Great White Rat, I read the first link. The second lead me to a blank page. The comment from the fist link was from 2004. Anything more recent? Bachbone says Air America makes a call for Bush’s assasinaton daily. Is it daily? when was the last time this kind of statement was made? I’m not trying to make you go nuts here, I’m trying to understand what the fuss over Air America is about.
>>>You say that a tossed pie is worse than telling people that these widows enjoyed having their husbands burned alive by fire? I think you have a strange sense of proportion.
>>Apples and oranges. Do you think that the neighbor who criticizes the color of your new car is worse than the thief who tries to steal it?
>>One is a physical assault by left-wing thugs with the sole purpose of suppressing someone from airing a viewpoint. The other is particularly biting criticism of someone who airs a viewpoint. You’ll have a point when, and only when, Ann starts recruiting a mob to attack Kristin Breitweiser
You know you misquote me right? the pie trhowing comment wasn’t mine. Bachbone made that comparison and even went so far as to call pie throwing worse! I wrote that he needs to come up with a better comparison. You cut out my last sentence.
Pie throwing is rude so I guess you can call them thugs but it’s hardly an attempt to supress an opion. It’s not a rock, no one is hurt, no one dies. Pie thowing has become a crazy fad, an idiotic kind of protest. Bill Gates had a pie thrown at him, was the thrower trying to supress Microsoft? Jeffrey Skilling also had a pie tossed at him, was the thrower trying to surpress Enron? People think Microsoft is a greedy uninnovative company. Splat. Enron had cost the loss of millions of dollars. Splat. I suspect the throwers would have liked to thrown something much harder but they didn’t. What could the police charge the throwers with, assult with a deadly pie?
Ann Coulter idea is that the 9/11 widows should not be immune from criticism when they dabble in the political arena. Ok I get that. It is like saying that you should listen to your father no matter what he says because he is your father. At some point, you need to question them because inspite of their great moral authority, in our society that authority isn’t enough. But she goes way beyond this basic nugget of truth. All this talk about how the truth hurts is just an excuse to be mean and nasty. Frankly, I think she is poison to any position you might hold and it surpises me that many of you don’t seem to realize that.
Blogagog; I also watched Ann Coulter being interviewed by Hannity at her book signing and it was excellent. I have read all of Ann’s books except one (How to Talk to a Liberal if you must) and now two and have enjoyed them from cover to cover. I just listened to Neal Boortz (High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth) interview Ann Coulter another great interview I will be buying her book and the left goes crazy every time Ann comes out with a new book. As has been said before “The Truth can be Insensitive” it (The Truth) doesn’t care who or what you are.
It’s not a rock, no one is hurt, no one dies.
It’s not a rock now, but that is what it leads to. Any, and I mean ANY, acceptance of and condoning of violence of any kind as a political tool undermines whatever tenuous civility we have left. It’s not a far step from pies, to rocks, to bullets, and the Left is notorious for stepping over this boundary far too easily. From union thugs, to attacking Republican campaign offices, to slashing tires on Republican vehicles, to attacking ROTC and military recruiting offices. A pie now, Krystalnacht tomorrow. It’s an all too easy transition, and we’ve seen it happen all too often in the past, to want to encourage it now.
Too often liberals will dismiss the most repugnent behavior by their own as “just hijinks” while screaming bloody murder at far less onerous or dangerous acts by Republicans.
How about the left’s darling Mary Mapes (The Documents are Real) and yes she is still in the news here’s a link to James Taranto’s column. Can anyone show where in any of Ann Coulter’s books she lie’s or has any untruths? And not just your word she has lied or told untruths back it up with facts.
>> A pie now, Krystalnacht tomorrow. It’s an all too easy transition, and we’ve seen it happen all too often in the past, to want to encourage it now.
If I wrote something like this, you would go ballistic. I think it’s so crazy I don’t even know where to begin writing. You think there is a direct link between pie throwing and Krystalnacht, where one leads naturally to the other? As far as I know there aren’t any liberal leaders calling for attacks on Republicans with pies. No one has organized a “Hit a Republican with a Pie day”. In fact, I don’t see any attempt by anyone to legitimize, glamorize or otherwise honor pie throwers.
Your clarion call that violence should not be tolerated sounds right to the ear but is so overstated it’s nonsensical. Pie throwing is not endemic to the left. It isn’t as if only the left throws pies at the right. I have no idea what party the person who threw the pie at Jeffery Skilling might be. I suspect it is the party of former-pissed-off-employees. I also have no idea what party the person who threw the pie at Ann Coulter might be, maybe he’s an independent or maybe he never voted at all. This pie thrower doesn’t speak for me, anyone I know, the democratic party or democratic party ideals. Does the Grand Vizer of the KKK speak for you?
I checked out your end-of-the-world site Andrew. Here’s the first post:
Yeah, they might be right. As they might have been right with the global cooling scare of the ’70s. They might have been right when they said that nuclear energy was going to kill millions.
The fact that your favorite global warming site needs to couch its views in maybe’s should give you a hint that they are spinning data. Science tells us that the sun is most likely the cause of increased temperatures, and that we are in or entering a general cooling period for the next 30-40 years, if historical data is extrapolatable. If, in 2015 or so, the data shows that the avg. world temperature is still increasing, there may be cause for alarm. Until it escapes normal trending however, worrying about it is just alarmist, filled with possibly’s, maybe’s, what if’s, and is it worth the risk’s.
I know I won’t convert you from your global warming faith, but maybe you’ll look into the data, and think about it a bit? Here’s hoping!
“Yeah, they might be right. ”
Welcome to science.
Its not an end of the world site though. If thats what you think about it, you’re not paying attention to what they write. Like I said. Its a lot of info, and tough to follow. Subscribe to their RSS feed, and take the time to start familiarizing yourself with the scientific consensus.
andrew, they are a BS site. Maybes and Mibhts are not facts. You fight facts with your wishful thinking that is anti-capitalist, if not anti-american.
“Maybes and Mibhts are not facts. ”
Sure they are. Thats how we know. Thats how science works, with probabilities and likelihoods. Not certainties. Some things we know more than others. Somethings are maybes, some things are withing 2 standard deviations, etc… Effects on el nino? Maybe.
andrew, you are mentally defective. You take pipe dreams as fact. You know nothing of science, just practice propaganda.
“You take pipe dreams as fact.”
I take as fact that maybe el nino is being affected by anthropogenic gases. Have I ever said otherwise?
Yawn…
Andrew, it’s not tough to follow. It’s just not science, or more accurately, it’s a hypothesis that science has yet to fully disprove, but does not come near supporting.
And sadly, it’s going to be hard to disprove. There is ALOT of grant money available to researchers, as long as their analysis reports doom and gloom. There is no scientific consensus and there never will be. The only supporters there will ever be are scientists who make money off of the scam, and the blame america first crowd (or its offshoot, the blame mankind first crowd, aka environmentalists), most of which have no scientific background whatsoever. I, however, do.
I understand the theory. Do you? The theory is that carbon dioxide is more of a blackbody than the rest of the atmosphere, therefore it, and other greenhouse gasses catch a little more of the sun’s energy. This is true. Where it breaks down is when they say raising the ambient CO2 concentration from .035% to .07% (doubling!) will have a dramatic effect on our climate. They fail to take into account the massively larger causes of temperature fluctuation, the sun and the earth’s core itself. They fail to read historical data logically, and always attach a strange upward sloping (supposedly interpolated) line at the end of their charts pointing towards magma flowing through all of our homes. They fail to consider hundreds of extraneous variables like plantlife, earth’s self-correcting buffer, wind-change patterns, planet tilt. The list goes on and on.
That anyone can say that man has such raw power over the earth exudes a little too much grandiosity for my tastes. Anyone who thinks the earth is so fragile that it can’t regulate itself certainly can’t believe the scientific view of the history of the earth. She takes a licking and keeps on ticking. Always will. Have some faith in her.
The aging hippies and sell-out grant recipients can waste their time and resources worrying about a non-problem if they want, but when they try to make laws that will waste my time and resources, it becomes personal.
“Yawn…”
Its incredibly boring stuff. Thats why I said it was tough to follow. “standard deviation what?”
“There is ALOT of grant money available to researchers, as long as their analysis reports doom and gloom.”
From whom? NOAA? I’d say corporate money is quite plentiful. But i think they want a different result
“That anyone can say that man has such raw power over the earth exudes a little too much grandiosity for my tastes.”
Its not really just our power. Its also the power of the milliniea (you do believe that the earth is more than 6000 years old, right?) worth of biomass that we’re burning.
No. It isn’t tough to follow Andrew. I’ve read this environment stuff for years.
Read teh 102 page report found here to actually be educated Andrew. Or be negligent as you usually are. Pop quiz tomorrow!
I was yawning due to the high predictability of your negligence and uninformed opinion. That is what bores me.
hehe, Andrew, you learn standard deviation in the 10th grade! I can see how you are having trouble with following it if sigmas are tough for you to comprehend. When you go to college I’d advise against a degree in engineering
Another thing I forgot to add. When you run a simulation, there is an all important law to keep in mind: Garbage in, garbage out. Since we don’t understand the effects of all of the variables that create our climate, any simulation necessarily has a large amount of assumptions (aka guesses). By tweaking those variables in a system with so many degrees of freedom, you can literally produce whatever result you are so inclined to get. And we all know what results the paid scientists are inclined to get. The scientists with nothing to gain monetarily are generally ambivalent or in disagreement with the global warming mantra. I expect that trend to continue.
On page 3 – According to Gallup’s annual environmental poll, conducted in March 2005, 63 percent of Americans
think environmental quality is getting worse in the U.S – Does that match up with the truth? No.
On Page 47 – At the end of
August, readers of the Washington Post awoke to yet another front-page story about. . . New Source
Review! “NEW RULES COULD ALLOW POWER PLANTS TO POLLUTE MORE” was Juliet
Eilprin’s breathless story that “[t]he Bush Administration has drafted regulations that would ease
pollution controls on older, dirtier power plants and could allow those that modernize to emit more
pollution, rather than less.”1
This story refers to the Bush Administration’s changes to the Clean Air Act’s “New Source
Review” (NSR) rules that have been in the offing since Bush arrived in Washington in 2001.
Stories like Eilprin’s, virtual reprints of press releases from disgruntled environmental activist
groups, were a staple of media coverage for the last several years, even as air-pollution
levels throughout the U.S. continued to decline. Can there be anything more tiresome
than the endless argument over this arcane and contentious feature of the Clean Air Act,
especially since two federal courts in 2005 rejected the EPA’s aggressive Clinton-era reinterpretation
of NSR?
Later is – Last year’s edition of the Index reported that 2004 came in
with the lowest level of ozone smog since monitoring began back in the early 1970s. When all
of the data are in, it is likely that 2005 will come in as the second- or third-lowest ozone year,
just above or below 2003. In other words, the last three years have seen the nation’s lowest ozone
levels in history.
Page 48 for those who are reading impaired has very nice graphs that contradict LA Times headlines.
On page 49 – The public not
only misperceives whether air pollution is falling in general, but is also misinformed about trends
with respect to automobiles and power plants. Typical in this regard was a 2003 USA Today story,
“Smoggy Skies Persist Despite Decade of Work” which proclaimed “One likely reason why the
smog isn’t lifting: Americans are driving more miles than they did in the 1980s. And they’re driving
vehicles that give off more pollution than the cars they drove in the ’80s.”4 (Emphasis added.)
It is rare for a news story to get both the large and small details wholly wrong, but that is entirely typical
of news stories about smog. Figure 2 below shows that volatile organic compound (VOC ) emissions
from cars and trucks have declined by 73.8 percent since 1970, while Figure 3 shows a 64-percent
decline in carbon monoxide emissions from cars.
On page 52 – To date, reductions in VOC emissions from mobile sources account for two-thirds of the total
reduction in VOC emissions achieved so far. Hence it is not surprising that attention is now turning
to other sources of VOC emissions. In fact, automobile emissions have fallen so far that it
was announced in 2005 that in California’s Central Valley, which has the second-highest ozone
levels in the nation, cattle are now a larger source of VOCs than cars. The average dairy cow, the
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District estimates, emits 19.3 pounds of VOCs a year.5
(This is double previous estimates of bovine flatulence.) California’s San Joaquin Valley has about
2.5 million dairy cows, which implies a staggering amount of VOCs not previously accounted for
in the EPA’s emissions inventory. These estimates are disputed, and in any event it is not clear
exactly what emissions-control technology could be applied to cows.
You get the hint or maybe not.
That is why I eat beef! I’m trying to save the world, one cow at a time. No no, don’t thank me. I’m doing it for me too.
Stay away from the happy cows. They’re mine!
“#hehe, Andrew, you learn standard deviation in the 10th grade! ”
Please don’t do this sort of stuff. Its like arguing from authority, only in reverse. I’d hate to have to describe my math experience for you. I’ll let you know if you want, but frankly I think we can discuss without that.
“Another thing I forgot to add. When you run a simulation, there is an all important law to keep in mind: Garbage in, garbage out. ”
Which simulations do you have in mind?
“Or be negligent as you usually are. ”
Well at least we’ve changed from recklessness. But I don’t htink that reasonable people have to read 102 pages in a day, so I’m not sure we’re going to qualify as negligent either.
“cattle are now a larger source of VOCs than cars.”
This is an interesting point, because I’d say that the size of our cattle herds is certainly due to anthropogenic factors: our demand for beef. Just like cars are due to our demand for transport.
So I’d say blogagg has it backwards: if you eat beef, they’ll produce more. So if you want to save the world on the corporate funded AEI plan, dont eat beef.
- Bak, stop tipping all the cows….its curdling their milk….
- Jumping into the Global “we still can’t predict the weather” discussion , I see that “warming” has replaced the Global “cooling” of the 70 and 80′s.
- Apparently the big money in research grants has shifted again. Looks like “Heat” is the in thing right now….. I’ll have to get in on it when “Global grasshoppers”, or “Global Oxygen” becomes fashionable….
- Bang
Instead of saying, “corporate funded AEI plan” why don’t you dispute the FACTS Andrew? You CAN’T. You can only continue on with negligence. You’ll be on this blog and others talking about the environment or air quality being poor as opposed to getting MUCH better. You will then not only be negligent but LYING.
“Instead of saying, “corporate funded AEI plan” why don’t you dispute the FACTS Andrew?”
If they’re facts they’re beyond dispute. Like theres no disputing where AEI gets its money. Just like there’s no disputing where NOAA gets its money, or who funds climate science.
What stuff do you have in mind?
Not sure how we switched from talking about science to talking about math (a tool in science), but if you have a strong handle on the subject, why do you keep saying it’s tough to follow?
All simulations with degrees of freedom (ie all simulations)
I am glad you understood why my statement was humorous. I didn’t mean it to be cryptic. A secondary part of the humor is that it’s kind of sarcastic. See, I can make the joke because I’m no more worried about a cow’s production of methane than I am about humans making methane or CO2. I know explaining a joke removes the humor, but I have to go out now and didn’t want to leave any misunderstandings.
Also, I like beef. Have a good night everyone!
It’s not too tough to follow. Leftists and their lapdog jornalists in the drive by media print incorrect unfactual crisis mongering headlines and stories and the data points out their stories are untrue. All Andrew can say is the study I sited is corporate funded. All I can say to that is Andrew will continue on with negligence with no conscience.
BTW, I like beef too. And I want the happier cows. Leave them to me.
“What stuff do you have in mind?”
What I described, arguing from authority.
“Not sure how we switched from talking about science to talking about math (a tool in science), but if you have a strong handle on the subject, why do you keep saying it’s tough to follow?”
Because climate modelling is difficult and complex and there are a lot of issues besides the math.
“Because climate modelling is difficult and complex and there are a lot of issues besides the math.”
- Thats correct andrew. In fact its so tough that as of now we can do pretty good out too maybe three days, with a reasonable percentage of error, five days gets really poor, and after that forget it.
Projecting 100 years right now, is the stuff of science-fiction rather than science. (be careful of getting too adventuresome – this is my area of discipline).
- Bang
“In fact its so tough that as of now we can do pretty good out too maybe three days, with a reasonable percentage of error, five days gets really poor, and after that forget it”
Well there’s a difference between predicting local weather and global aggregates. Can you see why?
You didn’t describe it. You just said ‘arguing from authority’. Arguing from authority, in the faulty logical argument sense of the phrase requires that I believe something is true, therefore it is true. Only you are claiming that global warming is true, therefore it is true, and offering no substantive proof. I’m saying it is untrue, and giving telling you why it is untrue.
Is that what you meant by ‘arguing from authority’? Or did you mean it in the classical sense, as in ‘arguing from a base of knowledge’. To argue science, you need only understand the scientific method, and have the analytical ability to determine if the method is being followed (and it hasn’t progressed beyond the hypothesis stage in the global warming debate). Is that ‘arguing from authority’? If it is, then no, I won’t stop arguing in this method. I know of no other way to come to a logical conclusion.
Yes, so I repeat: Why did you switch the issue to math?
Based on the vacuum of information you’ve supplied on this subject other than a link to a dubious website, my hypothesis is that you are a blind follower of the global warming faith, needing no real scientific evidence, as is poigniantly described in Ann’s new book. Since you offer no logical reasoning, it’s fast becoming proven theory. That’s the scientific method in action. I hope you are still a fan of scientific theory.
I apologize for the flippancy, but it’s necessary because we’re discussing an issue that could waste a lot of the world’s resources that would be better spent fixing real problems that we have today. The absurd idea that we should try to affect the global climate needs to be derided until people come to their senses. Every dollar wasted on it is a dollar not spent on food for the poor, research on anything, vaccinations for diseases we can cure, or any number of beneficial endeavors.
So I’ll say it again. Spend all the time worrying that you need to worrying about global warming, but don’t waste anyone else’s money and time that could and should be better spent.
That you think the root source of the science is different speaks to your basic lack of education andrew, and I’m going to take the high road here and refrain from embarrassing you. Of course if you knew that core principle, and the mechanics in the first place, you wouldn’t be wasting your time with junk science. Good luck. Hope you find a worthwhile hobby.
- Bang
“You didn’t describe it. You just said ‘arguing from authority’. Arguing from authority, in the faulty logical argument sense of the phrase requires that I believe something is true, therefore it is true.”
I mean in the sense that someone would say “well I have a Phd in math so what I say is correct.”
“Yes, so I repeat: Why did you switch the issue to math?”
I was asked me when I learned about standard deviation. Math. So I talked about that.
“Based on the vacuum of information you’ve supplied on this subject other than a link to a dubious website, my hypothesis is that you are a blind follower of the global warming faith, needing no real scientific evidence, as is poigniantly described in Ann’s new book.”
All I think is that we should leave it up to the climate scientists, and sent you to a good website on them. I have said nothing on whether global warming exists, besides that it is not about faith. Perhaps it is you that has a faith. One that has categorized me.
“refrain from embarrassing you. ”
Was that you quoting copyright law at me on the thread about michael moore’s suit?
Ah. My mistake. I assumed that since you sent me to a site that preached the global warming doctrine, you thought that global warming was for real. Please accept my apologies. And I guess you could say that I have “faith” in the power of reason, and it leads me to question the faith others have in global warming. Fair enough.
I openly admit to not having a real handle on the issue of Climate Science (For kicks though, I am reading State of Fear by Michea Criton) but it seems to me that many of you are all too willing to accept the works of a Republican think tank over the work of actual climate scientists. I know people similar to you on the left who will believe anything on NPR but nothing from the NY Times. (They think the NY Times is too central and co-opted by the right.) http://www.realclimate.com is a serious website run by those actaully working on the issue.
I don’t have the time to read the 102 page document linked by Baklava at the drop of a hat but here are two quick observations. First, the author of the paper is not a climate scientist. Although he is a senior fellow of a research group, his advanced degrees are in Americean studies and government. This doesn’t mean his conculsions will necessarily be wrong but he is not a climate scientist. He is an analyst. Second, there seems to be a scope shift that occurs in the passage cited by Baklava. The paper first talks about California’s Central Valley and then switchs to the San Joaquin Valley. We mentally link the two together but this is our assumption. The 2.5 million cows are not in the Central Valley. So, how many cows are in the central valley? Also, how much VOC emmissions are actually emited by cows in the Central Valley especially realtive to cars? Do individual cows emit more VOC than indiviual cars or only in the aggregate?
- On Moores delema, I posted that he’s in the soup. That there had been many adjudications in the 9th, (I believe also the 4th but I don’t know that for sure), too which you snarked “its a statute”. Yes, and the point of that was what? If thats your gottcha, its pointless. Nobody said a thing about “what it was”.
- On climatic change prediction, the sun has a greater effect on the earths climate in one day than all the cows and SV on earth have had in all the time they’ve existed.
- The so-called climatic scientists are trying to prop up 200 years of fair, poor, and totally altered bogus data, as their holy graile to describe millions of years of climate cycles. Its like trying to draw a detailed picture of an Elephant from a few strands of its DNA code. Not just rediculous, laughable.
- Thats what you expect people to take seriously, and it might even work, they might get away with it, if it weren’t for a much greater group of scientists that know what they’re up too. Grants. Its about grants andrew. Like I said. Find something better to do with your time.
- Bang
“I assumed that since you sent me to a site that preached the global warming doctrine, you thought that global warming was for real.”
I sent you to a site that discusses the science. Calling that preaching does a disservice to both church and science.
“On climatic change prediction, the sun has a greater effect on the earths climate in one day than all the cows and SV on earth have had in all the time they’ve existed.”
But isn’t it the same, or generally the same effect? Which means that change will happen based on what is added to that.
“On Moores delema, I posted that he’s in the soup. That there had been many adjudications in the 9th, (I believe also the 4th but I don’t know that for sure), too which you snarked “its a statute”. Yes, and the point of that was what? If thats your gottcha, its pointless. Nobody said a thing about “what it was
Its juts that you were lecturing me, but were wrong. You had the down-the-nose look of aloofness, but it didn’t work. I felt sad for you.
“But isn’t it the same, or generally the same effect? Which means that change will happen based on what is added to that.”
- Thats correct andrew. Everything adds, (or subtracts), from the overall climate effects. That’s not what is in dispute.
But having said tha,t you’ve still not said a substitive thing about what the “degree” of what the various endless parameters have on that result.
- What is in dispute is claims that we have anything like the sort of mile high pile of data we’d need to even start to form some sort of realistic “trends” studies. Thats the “junk science” part you see going on. It just isn’t there. Its bogus, and realistic scientists know that.
- Of the isolated sample points we can look too, deeply embeded antartic ice cores for an example, dating back millions of years, they yield very good, but limited data, in scope, so we just haven’t got the source data we need.
- In fact when sensible scientific researchers, those that aren’t out too “prove” a particular political viewpoint, look at the evidence they come to two distinct conclusions:
- The data, accurate data that is, is simply to spotty and sparse to draw conclusions.
- Even when you do try to go ahead and do some educated guessing, in fact the data shows in many cases, diametric results, with periods of unexplained cold, hot, and everything in between. Read the “little ice age” info for an idea of the problems involved. Then get a new hobby…. *snort*
- Bang
No, it preaches the doctrine of global warming. If it was a science site, it would not accept a hypothesis (global warming) as fact. That’s an act of faith. That you won’t learn the science itself to form your own opinions, or even read dissenting
Absolutely. Extra CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a negligible increase in the world’s temperature. Nothing to worry about since the effect is minor and dwarfed by the uncontrollable factors previously mentioned. Remove all CO2 from the air and you wouldn’t feel chilly.
I give up Andrew. Keep trusting in the global warming doctrine. A fanatic cannot be swayed by reason.
- One of the few “good things” too come out of the agenda driven, anti-industrial “glabal warming” scam, is that because of the intentionally generated attempts at hysteria, the larger group of sensible scientists, in many disciplines, have taken a serious look, and postulate a few interesting ideas as a result.
- Increased CO2, up to a point, is a good thing, since it promotes added “green growth”, natures natural oxygen generator, and cooling agent (air conditioner), at surface level. Not to mention the very important part green growth plays in the ecosystem.
- Using the so called “green house” effect, with Venus as an example is a misrepresentation of things. Venus is more like a “Furnace effect”, with surface temperatures hot enough to keep rock molten, hardly the milder “green house” effect often spoken of, in connection with possible long term effects here on Earth.
- Some 5 billion years from now, as the sun dies from consuming all of its hydrogen fuel, for a few million years Venus will become very habitable, something akin of Earth at the present time, while Earth will be a very cold ice covered world, but still inhabitable because of technology. Mars will have been terraformed in various ways, so the liklihood is we’ll being living on three of the planets, instead of just one. Mercury also will have places of mild temperature zones. It already does actually, deep in shadowed craters/ravines, but with no atmosphere. Theres even a possibility that Europa will prove inhabitable, and other Solar system bodies as well.
- Maybe sometime in the next 100,000 years, we’ll have devised the proper rossetta stone to be able to predict stochastic process’s such as long term climate prediction. Some scientists/mathematicians doubt it will ever be possible, due to the very definition of “random results”. But Chaos studies hint at several possible embedded repeatable “patterns” that may end up being the tools that allow a statistically significant success.
- Right now, today, no cigar.
- Bang
“If it was a science site, it would not accept a hypothesis (global warming) as fact.”
Where did they accept it as fact?
On the front page Andrew. Solving a problem requires you to first believe there is a problem. Good Lord. How can you not know this? You told me not to ask for your prerequisites in a previous post. I’m sorry to say that I’m going to have to ask for them now.
A Republican think tank has some data? I would be interested in reading it, jaxcschin. Can you put up a link? Hope they are realistic!
“On the front page Andrew. ”
There’s a link on there about two articles in Geophysical Research Letters talking about the estimated warming trend. Faith! Sounds just like my preacher man at church!
No doubt.
“For kicks though, I am reading State of Fear by Michea Criton”
Realclimate.org addresses that too.
>>A Republican think tank has some data? I would be interested in reading it, jaxcschin. Can you put up a link? Hope they are realistic!
I suppose you are being cheeky but other than that I have no idea what you are asking. Your comment went over my head.
I think you made up your mind a long time ago who to believe and who not to believe. Basicly, republican think tanks are in the yes column, everyone else is suspect.
jaxcschin – how hard is it to dis-believe crackpots with an political agenda, and very little else?
- Bang
No, jaxcschin, I was asking for a link. You mentioned that there was a Republican think tank that looked at global warming. I was just interested in reading their opinion, or anyone else’s for that matter. I read realclimate.org and found it lacking in science. I just thought you might have better info. I was particularly interested because you said it was a Republican think tank, and they usually rely on facts, as opposed to “what if’s” and “is it worth the risk’s”. I am fully capable of analyzing data and the conclusions I draw are rarely influenced by other’s opinions. If I don’t fully comprehend the study, then other’s opinions enter the mix. Otherwise, the data may be theirs, but the opinion is solely mine. Global warming is a scientific phenomenon, and science is a field I am very comfortable with. And I don’t buy it.
I cannot agree that Republican’s are in the ‘yes’ column (yes meaning ‘yes, global warming is a crock’, I assume), as McCain and The Terminator exlimpify. It seems that even Bush is buying into the hype. But that’s what it is… hype. Are you saying that because my analysis leads me to believe that the relationship between CO2 and global warming is not based upon science, that I must be getting this view from Republicans? Would you have had the same ‘we’re doomed’ belief in the 70′s when they thought we were going to freeze to death? Would you have worried that we are all going to die because whales are almost extinct, or that nuclear reactors were going to kill all life on the planet? I’ve never read a Republican viewpoint on the matter, which is why I was hopeful for your link. I understand that you are not going to provide it now
Oh well.
You are absolutely correct. When data is available, there is no need to believe anyone. I choose to believe the data. If no data is available,I certainly don’t side with the aging hippies (aka environmentalists). They are wrong more often than Kos.
Andy said:
Here’s some other sites that incorrectly blame humans or America for the world’s ills. If you feel guilty, click one!
peta.org
Amnesty International
CAIR
Greenpeace
“Here’s some other sites that incorrectly blame humans or America for the world’s ills.”
Thankfully, realclimate.org doesn’t do that. Which is why its such a useful site: just climate science.